"Well Regulated Militia"

[chikenwing]

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?

I don't know how does it??,that ruling just says corps are people and they get the same rights.

 

[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.

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

Even if you were right (let's give you that temporarily, regardless of whether you are right or not), this thread is about "Well Regulated."

 

[chikenwing]

Without each individual empowered by each and every right expresses in terms of the "collective" you couldn't have said collective.

You can't generalize the term people to us as leverage against the person.

 

[konradv]

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?

I don't know how does it??,that ruling just says corps are people and they get the same rights.

Aren't corporations "collectives"?

 

[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.

Even if you were right (let's give you that temporarily, regardless of whether you are right or not), this thread is about "Well Regulated."

You waited long enough to say so. You were quite eager to argue, until you started losing and decided to throw a hissy fit.

 

[regent]

The first ten amendments have been changed at times. Originally they were only a deterrent to the national government not the states, but then the Court has been slowly applying them to the states as well. None of the rights are absolute and all have been before the courts, and eventually the second amendment will go before the Court again. What might the passage of time portend for the second amendment?

 

[chikenwing]

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

I don't know how does it??,that ruling just says corps are people and they get the same rights.

Aren't corporations "collectives"?

might be why they ruled the way they did,I haven't paid much attention to that ,other than thinking its kinda odd.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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

Even if you were right (let's give you that temporarily, regardless of whether you are right or not), this thread is about "Well Regulated."

You waited long enough to say so. You were quite eager to argue, until you started losing and decided to throw a hissy fit.

I never admitted, notice I said "temporary, regardless, whether or not." It was a devil's advocate, hypothetical --- apparently that's beyond your comprehension.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

None of the rights are absolute

Is a woman's right to vote absolute?

I can play games too.

Is the Third Amendment absolute? I fucking hope so.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

We’ll take this as a ‘no’ to engaging in an objective, factual, rational discussion of what regulations are likely Constitutional and what are not, then.

 

[konradv]

None of the rights are absolute

Is a woman's right to vote absolute?

I can play games too.

Presumably not, if she's a felon.

 

[chikenwing]

None of the rights are absolute

Is a woman's right to vote absolute?

I can play games too.

Not if your a felon,just saying could be thats wrong,but currently the law.

 

[bripat9643]

I agree, that's not the real point of the amendment. IMO, it's the use of the word "people", i.e. guns can't be banned outright, because that would be a violation of the rights of "the people". Controls can be put in place, however, because the word "person", as found in other amendments, is not used and is, therefore, not an individual right.

So freedom of speech is not an individual right?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I don't know how does it??,that ruling just says corps are people and they get the same rights.

Aren't corporations "collectives"?

might be why they ruled the way they did,I haven't paid much attention to that ,other than thinking its kinda odd.

Corporation operate under Uniform Commercial Code, where a person is defined as either "an individual or a corporation or any other commercial entity."

International Maritime/Admiralty Law (UCC) operates under a separate Jurisdiction from Law and Equity, and is directly recognized in Article III of the Constitution. Constitutional rights do not apply under Maritime Jurisdiction. This is how England managed to convict John Hancock without a jury, because they put him in Admiralty court.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You just dispensed with the Bill of Rights. Of course, that has been the central aim of liberalism since its inception.

 

[konradv]

I agree, that's not the real point of the amendment. IMO, it's the use of the word "people", i.e. guns can't be banned outright, because that would be a violation of the rights of "the people". Controls can be put in place, however, because the word "person", as found in other amendments, is not used and is, therefore, not an individual right.

So freedom of speech is not an individual right?

You can be be prosecuted for revealing state secrets or risk being sued for slander, libel or revealing trade secrets. It's a right of "the people", but it isn't absolute.

 

[konradv]

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.

You just dispensed with the Bill of Rights. Of course, that has been the central aim of liberalism since its inception.

You totally misinterpreted the post. I just pointed out that there are exceptions. Very few rights are absolute.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

None of the rights are absolute

Is a woman's right to vote absolute?

No.

She must be a citizen, not a felon, registered to vote, and in compliance with any other regulation in her state of residence.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

All you proved is that you don't know what rights are. "whatever government decides to protect" is not the definition.

 

[bripat9643]

Socialist puke.

Ignorant troll.

boot licking commie moron.