"Well Regulated Militia"

[AmericanFirst]

So I guess the Fourth Amendment is not an individual right then either, according to your definition?

How about the Ninth Amendment?

The Fourth Amendment is an absolute right. Your property can be neither searched nor seized UNLESS a warrant is issued, with specifications of what is to be searched or sized. General Search Warrants are not allowed. Search and Seizure without a Warrant is not allowed either. That is absolute.

It is a shame that Americans have been sold on this idea of No-Knock Warrants and General Search Warrants (via surveillance drones). However, I bet you take delight in these assaults on our liberties.

"The power to tax is the power to destroy" - Malbury vs Madison

"The power to license is the power to deny."

The idea that people need "permits" for peaceful assembly is outrageous, have you ever considered that?

The enumeration of certain rights, in this Constitution, shall not be construed to deny others retained by the people.

What does the Ninth Amendment mean to you?

-----------------------------------

Our rights are absolute. They come from God, the Creator, not government.

The mere fact that your property can be searched proves the right is not absolute. If government has gone too far, that's a totally different argument.

As for where rights come from, without government they're meaningless. If I'm stronger than you, I can take what's yours with impunity, if there's no counter-balancing force to make me think twice.

Socialist puke.

 

[konradv]

The mere fact that your property can be searched proves the right is not absolute. If government has gone too far, that's a totally different argument.

As for where rights come from, without government they're meaningless. If I'm stronger than you, I can take what's yours with impunity, if there's no counter-balancing force to make me think twice.

No, the government needs to have the power to protect people from OTHERS who infringe upon their rights. Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence, or the opening chapter of Common sense?

When you violate the rights of others, the government has the right to deny you life, liberty or property (assuming due process).

Your rights are absolute, so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others.

When the government violates that above sentence, in other words the government becomes destructive of the very thing it is meant to protect, it is your right to alter or abolish it.

Where are your rights, if there's no government to deny me "life, liberty or property (assuming due process)"? Without it you're just spouting empty words.

 

[konradv]

The Fourth Amendment is an absolute right. Your property can be neither searched nor seized UNLESS a warrant is issued, with specifications of what is to be searched or sized. General Search Warrants are not allowed. Search and Seizure without a Warrant is not allowed either. That is absolute.

It is a shame that Americans have been sold on this idea of No-Knock Warrants and General Search Warrants (via surveillance drones). However, I bet you take delight in these assaults on our liberties.

"The power to tax is the power to destroy" - Malbury vs Madison

"The power to license is the power to deny."

The idea that people need "permits" for peaceful assembly is outrageous, have you ever considered that?



What does the Ninth Amendment mean to you?

-----------------------------------

Our rights are absolute. They come from God, the Creator, not government.

The mere fact that your property can be searched proves the right is not absolute. If government has gone too far, that's a totally different argument.

As for where rights come from, without government they're meaningless. If I'm stronger than you, I can take what's yours with impunity, if there's no counter-balancing force to make me think twice.

Socialist puke.

Ignorant troll.

 

[konradv]

I'm done with you. You have NO IDEA about the philosophies which founded our country.

Now you're just being a cowardly punk!

 

[Crackerjaxon]

As you know people's property CAN be searched and/or seized. It is, therefore, not an absolute right like you're claiming for the second. "People" is also used in the first which we know does not contain absolute rights, since speech may be limited by state or trade secrets, large assemblies require a permits and religion may be constrained as to practices, e.g. human sacrifice or the use of peyote in rituals.

As for the 9th and 10th, it should be self-evident that those aren't individual rights.

Damn, you really are obtuse. It says reasonable search and seizure.

Another member of the peanut gallery decides to speak!!! WHAT'S obtuse about it? I'm discussing individual vs. collective rights. Let's hear your reasoning. I'm not a mind reader.

Collective rights is an oxymoron. Collectives do not have rights.

How silly are you?

 

[AmericanFirst]

The mere fact that your property can be searched proves the right is not absolute. If government has gone too far, that's a totally different argument.

As for where rights come from, without government they're meaningless. If I'm stronger than you, I can take what's yours with impunity, if there's no counter-balancing force to make me think twice.

Socialist puke.

Ignorant troll.

I am neither a troll or ignorant, unlike you socialist pukes who hate America and the Constitution. YOU ARE WRONG IDIOT!!!!!

 

[AmericanFirst]

I'm done with you. You have NO IDEA about the philosophies which founded our country.

Now you're just being a cowardly punk!

Socialist puke!

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I'm done with you. You have NO IDEA about the philosophies which founded our country.

Now you're just being a cowardly punk!

Says the guy who ignored the Declaration of Independence and Thomas Paine's Common Sense:

The mere fact that your property can be searched proves the right is not absolute. If government has gone too far, that's a totally different argument.

As for where rights come from, without government they're meaningless. If I'm stronger than you, I can take what's yours with impunity, if there's no counter-balancing force to make me think twice.

No, the government needs to have the power to protect people from OTHERS who infringe upon their rights. Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence, or the opening chapter of Common sense?

When you violate the rights of others, the government has the right to deny you life, liberty or property (assuming due process).

Your rights are absolute, so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others.

When the government violates that above sentence, in other words the government becomes destructive of the very thing it is meant to protect, it is your right to alter or abolish it.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Common Sense:

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer! Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.

In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest, they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand motives will excite them thereto, the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labor out the common period of life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the mean time would urge him from his work, and every different want call him a different way. Disease, nay even misfortune would be death, for though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to perish than to die.

Thus necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessings of which, would supersede, and render the obligations of law and government unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to each other; but as nothing but heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen, that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other; and this remissness, will point out the necessity, of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue.

Some convenient tree will afford them a State-House, under the branches of which, the whole colony may assemble to deliberate on public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws will have the title only of Regulations, and be enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament every man, by natural right will have a seat.

But as the colony increases, the public concerns will increase likewise, and the distance at which the members may be separated, will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on every occasion as at first, when their number was small, their habitations near, and the public concerns few and trifling. This will point out the convenience of their consenting to leave the legislative part to be managed by a select number chosen from the whole body, who are supposed to have the same concerns at stake which those have who appointed them, and who will act in the same manner as the whole body would act were they present. If the colony continue increasing, it will become necessary to augment the number of the representatives, and that the interest of every part of the colony may be attended to, it will be found best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending its proper number; and that the elected might never form to themselves an interest separate from the electors, prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often; because as the elected might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the electors in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflection of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this (not on the unmeaning name of king) depends the strength of government, and the happiness of the governed.

Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz., freedom and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with snow, or our ears deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and of reason will say, it is right.

I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature, which no art can overturn, viz., that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered; and with this maxim in view, I offer a few remarks on the so much boasted constitution of England. That it was noble for the dark and slavish times in which it was erected is granted. When the world was overrun with tyranny the least therefrom was a glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise, is easily demonstrated.

Absolute governments (though the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, that they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs, know likewise the remedy, and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures. But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies, some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine.

 

[konradv]

Damn, you really are obtuse. It says reasonable search and seizure.

Another member of the peanut gallery decides to speak!!! WHAT'S obtuse about it? I'm discussing individual vs. collective rights. Let's hear your reasoning. I'm not a mind reader.

Collective rights is an oxymoron. Collectives do not have rights.

How silly are you?

Collectives are people. The USSC said so!

 

[konradv]

I'm done with you. You have NO IDEA about the philosophies which founded our country.

Now you're just being a cowardly punk!

Says the guy who ignored the Declaration of Independence and Thomas Paine's Common Sense:

Why should I? Are they going to come to your defense in the situation where there's no government and I have the drop on you?!?!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm so sick of you libtards INTENTIONALLY lying to as many people as you possibly can about this phrase. Why do I say intentionally? Because I have to keep correcting the SAME people on every Second Amendment thread. This means you know the truth about this statement, and thus have chosen to continue lying.

You’re obviously unaware of the fact that you can’t simply present statements and definitions absent their context in Constitutional case law.

The Second Amendment enshrines a right to self-defense, and the individual right to own a handgun pursuant to the right of self-defense. No right is absolute, including the Second Amendment, and the rights codified in the Amendment are subject to appropriate restrictions. See: DC v. Heller (2008).

Restrictions on Second Amendment rights, as with all rights, must be rationally based, supported by facts and evidence, and not motivated to manifest an undue burden to possession of a firearm.

Now, with this understanding of these facts of law in mind, if you want to engage in an objective, factual, rational discussion of what regulations are likely Constitutional and what are not, feel free to do so; but don’t attempt to promote an inane and failed argument that all Second Amendment restrictions are unwarranted.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Notice that not a single libtard has contested the definition of Well Regulated yet. They just keep trying to derail and deflect towards other subjects.

 

[Zona]

The beauty of the constitution is, it is allowed to catch up to the times. When that 2nd ammendment was written, its time so long ago, it NEEDS to be cahnged.

When they wrote it, slavery was happening, there was no such thing as AR-15's and women could not vote.

Fuck anyone who says it should not be changed. Fuck you.(and i am a gun owner. Love to shoot, but I dont not need a balistic missle launcher or a fully automatic gun to protect my home, like small dicked assholes need.)

Oh and god bless.

 

[Zona]

I'm so sick of you libtards INTENTIONALLY lying to as many people as you possibly can about this phrase. Why do I say intentionally? Because I have to keep correcting the SAME people on every Second Amendment thread. This means you know the truth about this statement, and thus have chosen to continue lying.

You’re obviously unaware of the fact that you can’t simply present statements and definitions absent their context in Constitutional case law.

The Second Amendment enshrines a right to self-defense, and the individual right to own a handgun pursuant to the right of self-defense. No right is absolute, including the Second Amendment, and the rights codified in the Amendment are subject to appropriate restrictions. See: DC v. Heller (2008).

Restrictions on Second Amendment rights, as with all rights, must be rationally based, supported by facts and evidence, and not motivated to manifest an undue burden to possession of a firearm.

Now, with this understanding of these facts of law in mind, if you want to engage in an objective, factual, rational discussion of what regulations are likely Constitutional and what are not, feel free to do so; but don’t attempt to promote an inane and failed argument that all Second Amendment restrictions are unwarranted.

Notice that not a single libtard has contested the definition of Well Regulated yet. They just keep trying to derail and deflect towards other subjects.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The beauty of the constitution is, it is allowed to catch up to the times. When that 2nd amendment was written, its time so long ago, it NEEDS to be changed.
.

Then Amend the Constitution via Article V to change the 2nd Amendment.

The first Amendment was also written a long time ago, by your logic, it needs to be changed.

 

[chikenwing]

As you know people's property CAN be searched and/or seized. It is, therefore, not an absolute right like you're claiming for the second. "People" is also used in the first which we know does not contain absolute rights, since speech may be limited by state or trade secrets, large assemblies require a permits and religion may be constrained as to practices, e.g. human sacrifice or the use of peyote in rituals.

As for the 9th and 10th, it should be self-evident that those aren't individual rights.

Damn, you really are obtuse. It says reasonable search and seizure.

Another member of the peanut gallery decides to speak!!! WHAT'S obtuse about it? I'm discussing individual vs. collective rights. Let's hear your reasoning. I'm not a mind reader.

The collective is the result of those each and every individual rights,one individual at a time.

 

[konradv]

Damn, you really are obtuse. It says reasonable search and seizure.

Another member of the peanut gallery decides to speak!!! WHAT'S obtuse about it? I'm discussing individual vs. collective rights. Let's hear your reasoning. I'm not a mind reader.

The collective is the result of those each and every individual rights,one individual at a time.

How does that jibe with the USSC saying that corporations are people?

 

[jasonnfree]

I'm done with you. You have NO IDEA about the philosophies which founded our country.

Now you're just being a cowardly punk!

Says the guy who ignored the Declaration of Independence and Thomas Paine's Common Sense:



No, the government needs to have the power to protect people from OTHERS who infringe upon their rights. Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence, or the opening chapter of Common sense?

When you violate the rights of others, the government has the right to deny you life, liberty or property (assuming due process).

Your rights are absolute, so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others.

When the government violates that above sentence, in other words the government becomes destructive of the very thing it is meant to protect, it is your right to alter or abolish it.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Common Sense:

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer! Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.

In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest, they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand motives will excite them thereto, the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labor out the common period of life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the mean time would urge him from his work, and every different want call him a different way. Disease, nay even misfortune would be death, for though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to perish than to die.

Thus necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessings of which, would supersede, and render the obligations of law and government unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to each other; but as nothing but heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen, that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other; and this remissness, will point out the necessity, of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue.

Some convenient tree will afford them a State-House, under the branches of which, the whole colony may assemble to deliberate on public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws will have the title only of Regulations, and be enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament every man, by natural right will have a seat.

But as the colony increases, the public concerns will increase likewise, and the distance at which the members may be separated, will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on every occasion as at first, when their number was small, their habitations near, and the public concerns few and trifling. This will point out the convenience of their consenting to leave the legislative part to be managed by a select number chosen from the whole body, who are supposed to have the same concerns at stake which those have who appointed them, and who will act in the same manner as the whole body would act were they present. If the colony continue increasing, it will become necessary to augment the number of the representatives, and that the interest of every part of the colony may be attended to, it will be found best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending its proper number; and that the elected might never form to themselves an interest separate from the electors, prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often; because as the elected might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the electors in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflection of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this (not on the unmeaning name of king) depends the strength of government, and the happiness of the governed.

Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz., freedom and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with snow, or our ears deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and of reason will say, it is right.

I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature, which no art can overturn, viz., that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered; and with this maxim in view, I offer a few remarks on the so much boasted constitution of England. That it was noble for the dark and slavish times in which it was erected is granted. When the world was overrun with tyranny the least therefrom was a glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise, is easily demonstrated.

Absolute governments (though the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, that they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs, know likewise the remedy, and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures. But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies, some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine.

Before you fall in love with Tom Paine you should do a little reading about him. He was for a guaranteed minimum income, taxing property,, yes, even taxing the rich the dirty socialist. He was even against slavery, the abolition of which would have cut into the profits of the very wealthy. I don't think he'd be too welcome in republican circles today.

 

[Zona]

The beauty of the constitution is, it is allowed to catch up to the times. When that 2nd amendment was written, its time so long ago, it NEEDS to be changed.
.

Then Amend the Constitution via Article V to change the 2nd Amendment.

The first Amendment was also written a long time ago, by your logic, it needs to be changed.

I am sure when it is changed, you will simply say woohoo, god bless america. I know I will.

 

[konradv]

Notice that not a single libtard has contested the definition of Well Regulated yet. They just keep trying to derail and deflect towards other subjects.

I agreed with you that that wasn't the proper way to view the amendment. At least give me that.