What is Meant by "Well Regulated"?

[frigidweirdo]

I didn't say it was the right of a political party, but the right of a "group"

That group need not be a political party. And only that "group" has the right to have votes for a member of that group be counted in an election for political office.

Can an individual make their own political party without anyone else in that party, and stand for an election?

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Think: no right to be a candidate

That’s a crazy statement

 

[frigidweirdo]

That’s a crazy statement

Why is it a "crazy statement"??? I can't respond to something when you don't even say why.

 

[meaner gene]

Can an individual make their own political party without anyone else in that party, and stand for an election?

In the majority of states, NO

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Why is it a "crazy statement"??? I can't respond to something when you don't even say why.

Here’s an example

Running for Office | New York State Board of Elections

General Information on Petitions. Sample Forms, Witnesses to a Petition, Cover sheets etc.

www.elections.ny.gov

 

[frigidweirdo]

In the majority of states, NO

Really? Which states do not let you start your own political party and have only one member in that political party?

Which party does Bernie Sanders represent in the US Senate?

Which party does Angus King represent in the US Senate?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Here’s an example

Running for Office | New York State Board of Elections

General Information on Petitions. Sample Forms, Witnesses to a Petition, Cover sheets etc.

www.elections.ny.gov

Why is this an example? I'm not reading a whole document to pull out the points YOU want to make.

 

[meaner gene]

Really? Which states do not let you start your own political party and have only one member in that political party?

Which party does Bernie Sanders represent in the US Senate?

Which party does Angus King represent in the US Senate?

You need a "group" of supporters, in order to have your name on the ballot to have votes (write-in) for you counted. The group has to consist of registered voters.

An individual can't get on the ballot in the majority of states, without being a member of a group of registered voters.

[

 

[frigidweirdo]

You need a "group" of supporters, in order to have your name on the ballot to have votes (write-in) for you counted. The group has to consist of registered voters.

An individual can't get on the ballot in the majority of states, without being a member of a group of registered voters.

[

Okay, so an individual can't just be on the ballot if he chooses to? Then there's not a RIGHT.

You can have qualifications for a right. There's not right to stand for president. Elon Musk as a US CITIZEN does not have the right to stand for president, therefore NOBODY has the RIGHT to stand for president.

No right to be a candidate.

 

[meaner gene]

Okay, so an individual can't just be on the ballot if he chooses to? Then there's not a RIGHT.

Not an individual right. But a right granted to a group, and the group allowed to pick an individual from it's members to run for office.

It's no different than an amusement park having a "family day". Where individuals no longer have a right of admission. Even if you claim that you're a member of a family, you have no individual right of admission. You can only exercise that right as a "group".

You have a similar rule in some public playgrounds, that do not allow unaccompanied adults, or unaccompanied children admission. Again, where the individual has no right to the park, but instead that right is granted to a "group".

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not an individual right. But a right granted to a group, and the group allowed to pick an individual from it's members to run for office.

It's no different than an amusement park having a "family day". Where individuals no longer have a right of admission. Even if you claim that you're a member of a family, you have no individual right of admission. You can only exercise that right as a "group".

You have a similar rule in some public playgrounds, that do not allow unaccompanied adults, or unaccompanied children admission. Again, where the individual has no right to the park, but instead that right is granted to a "group".

What's the difference between a right and a privilege?

We need this question answered and agreed on before we can move forwards with this discussion.

 

[Seymour Flops]

As you documented, the majority of states do not grant the right to run for political office to the individual, but ONLY to the group.

Making it a group right.

You are right, and I was wrong.

If I did not make that clear in my previous post.

 

[meaner gene]

What's the difference between a right and a privilege?\

A privilege can be denied for any reason.
A right can only be denied with a "compelling government interest".

 

[Seymour Flops]

What's the difference between a right and a privilege?

We need this question answered and agreed on before we can move forwards with this discussion.

Yes, and let us also address the difference between "need" and "want." Agreeing on those distinctions will stop a majority of disagreements.

 

[frigidweirdo]

A privilege can be denied for any reason.
A right can only be denied with a "compelling government interest".

Well, not quite.

A right is something EVERYONE HAS.
A privilege is something people get when they've been "good".

So, the right to life is a right because everyone has it. All rights have limits. All rights can be infringed upon. A person can be executed after going through due process with it's deemed that if you've done something bad enough, then you've reached the limit of your right.

Everyone can own a gun. (we're talking adults here because kids are assumed to have reduced rights and responsibilities). However if you go to court you can have your right infringed upon if you're found guilty.

The right to stand in an election doesn't exist. The US Constitution makes this perfectly clear.

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; "

Boom, this clause says THIS IS NOT A RIGHT. Elon Musk as a US citizen gets ALL the rights everyone else gets (well, not "gets" but you know).

He did not go through due process to have this right infringed upon. Simply said, he never had this PRIVILEGE and he never well.

It's a PRIVILEGE. It's granted to only certain people.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Regulation has different meanings. One of them being "to bring order, method, or uniformity", not necessarily restrictions or limitations. Why would the militia, to secure a free state, require the government to rule it, or to make laws for it?

The security of a free state would require the people to be ready for defense should the need arise, and have certain provisions, one of them being a firearm. I think there were other things required, like a nap sack, a certain amount of gun power, lead shot, and a few other things.

The 2A was indeed referring to everyone, but it was not a collective or a group. It's just a wording thing, if it had said "the right of the person to keep and bear arms" might have been confusing I guess. "The people" doesn't have to refer to a specific group, the people can refer to every individual.

‘The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right to possess firearms. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174. There, the Court adopted a collective rights approach, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun which moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years until 2008, when the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller…’

Second Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

The original intent of the Framers was to codify in the Second Amendment a collective – not individual – right subject to government regulation.

Now it’s an individual right as determined by the Heller Court – still subject to government regulation.

 

[meaner gene]

Everyone can own a gun. (we're talking adults here because kids are assumed to have reduced rights and responsibilities).

This is where the 2nd amendment argument meets it's failure mode as being an individual right. Because many of the rigthts we see as individual, are actually collective rights, with those over 18 years old, being part of that collective.

What does the US Constitution State regarding juveniles and jury trials?
Juveniles should hold the right to a jury trial under the U.S. Constitution, but they do not. In most states, when a trial occurs, a single judge determines whether a youth loses their liberty, and that imprisonment can last for years.

 

[meaner gene]

Well, not quite.

A right is something EVERYONE HAS.
A privilege is something people get when they've been "good".

So, the right to life is a right because everyone has it. All rights have limits. All rights can be infringed upon. A person can be executed after going through due process with it's deemed that if you've done something bad enough, then you've reached the limit of your right.

Everyone can own a gun. (we're talking adults here because kids are assumed to have reduced rights and responsibilities). However if you go to court you can have your right infringed upon if you're found guilty.

The right to stand in an election doesn't exist. The US Constitution makes this perfectly clear.

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; "

Boom, this clause says THIS IS NOT A RIGHT. Elon Musk as a US citizen gets ALL the rights everyone else gets (well, not "gets" but you know).

He did not go through due process to have this right infringed upon. Simply said, he never had this PRIVILEGE and he never well.

It's a PRIVILEGE. It's granted to only certain people.

Actually that would be a right granted to a "group" (natural born citizens) from which individuals inherit the right.

Just like the right to run for senate is from the group of over 30.

 

[Ringtone]

The Supreme Court has already made that ruling, Presser v. Illinois (1886), holding that a militia can exist solely as authorized by a state government or the Federal government.

If a state or local jurisdiction prohibits the open carrying of firearms, claiming to be a member of a ‘militia’ does not void that prohibition.

Again, private armed citizens cannot ‘unilaterally’ declare themselves a ‘militia’; there is no such thing as a ‘stand-alone’ militia.

And those private individuals would be subject to the same government limits and restrictions as any other gunowner.

Last, the 9th and 10th Amendments have nothing whatsoever to do with possessing or carrying firearms.

Wrong again, Jones!

First, Presser could not and did not provide for any such authorization as you suggest vis-à-vis the federal government.

Second, it has always been held and well-understood by the people of most of the several states that Presser and Cruikshank were logically incompatible with the organizationally organic nature of the Militia in and of itself and with the incorporation clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Miller, which rightly held that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" was the beginning of the end of the blasphemous Presser. Heller stripped that bitch of its last vestige of respectability, and as I'm sure you know, Presser was overturned in McDonald v. City of Chicago.

Presser was overturned in McDonald v. City of Chicago.

Presser was overturned in McDonald v. City of Chicago.

I'm repeating myself so that there by no mistake about your error.

McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ringtone]

The Second amendment was not about the militia it was about the people's right to keep and bear arms.

And where does it state in the Heller decision that discipline must be the government that provided by the fucking government?

You are going to acknowledge you error, right?