Would you be willing to accept this Second Amendment compromise?

[danielpalos]

There is no language denoting Individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.

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.​

This is what I was talking about.

The liberal reading: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
The conservative reading: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
The actual text: 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.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state

I was, of course, responding to Mr. Palos' claim that there was no individual right stated in the Second Amendment. But it clearly refers to “the right of the people”. Only in a Marxist-style collectivist hive society would a “right of the people” mean anything other than a right that belongs to each free individual member of that society.

The key operative part of the Second Amendment is “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” This makes it clear that it is affirming a right that belongs to the people, not to the federal government, the states, nor to any other part of government, but to each individual member of our society. It also forbids government from infringing this right in any way. “Infringe” is a rather curious word, that was carefully chosen for this use. It is related the the word “fringe”, referring to the barest edges of something. What it means, here, is that government is forbidden from even touching the barest edges of the right that is affirmed herein.

Outside of that, what remains are a statement describing and defining which right it is that is being so affirmed, and a statement of a purpose for which the founders deemed this right so worthy of such strong and absolute protection.

not at all, dear; words, as terms, have specific meaning at law.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am not sure what you mean; our Founding Fathers said what they meant and meant what they said. There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.

Pretty much what I said. They wrote an Amendment about an individual right, they interpreted and applied it as an individual right, the Supreme Court upheld it as an individual right (and thought it was so obvious, they've hardly ever even felt the need to address it). The only people who are confused about it being an individual right are dipshits trying to weasel their way around to forcing their worldview onto others. FYI, that'd be you, Chuckles.

Yes, you pretty much appealed to ignorance of the law. I hope our juniors don't fall for it.

Our Second Article of Amendment contains no language establishing Individual rights.

What does "the right of the people" mean in "I went to public school, give me my marching orders" land?

Before you say something stupid - in other words, before you say anything at all - let me point out that the Founding Fathers were extremely specific about their word choices. There is not one single time in the Constitution where they use the phrase "the people" without it specifically referring to individual citizens.

Now then, what pig-ignorant thing were you going to say it meant?

 

[danielpalos]

It is a Collective term, not an Individual term, should we need to quibble in legal venues, dear.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The current text: "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."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

The current text: "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."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces.

You'll notice the people have the right to keep and bear arms, not only the militia.
A big NO to your suggestion.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There is no language denoting Individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.

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.​

The People is collective, not Individual, dear.

Only in a Marxist-type collectivist hive society, which the United States is not. The United States is (or at least is supposed to be, and was assumed by those who wrote the Constitution to be) a society of free and independent individuals; and in such a society, “the people” refers to each of these individuals.

 

[danielpalos]

The current text: "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."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

The current text: "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."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces.

You'll notice the people have the right to keep and bear arms, not only the militia.
A big NO to your suggestion.

That is not the point; the point is that the People is not the Person. There is a difference. Thus, there can be no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, which explains the Intent and Purpose of why it is necessary and proper.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no language denoting Individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.

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.​

The People is collective, not Individual, dear.

Only in a Marxist-type collectivist hive society, which the United States is not. The United States is (or at least is supposed to be, and was assumed by those who wrote the Constitution to be) a society of free and independent individuals; and in such a society, “the people” refers to each of these individuals.

you, Sir; really just need to acquire and possess, a clue and a Cause.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It is a Collective term, not an Individual term, should we need to quibble in legal venues, dear.

Except it isn't.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The current text: "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."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

The current text: "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."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces.

You'll notice the people have the right to keep and bear arms, not only the militia.
A big NO to your suggestion.

That is not the point; the point is that the People is not the Person. There is a difference. Thus, there can be no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, which explains the Intent and Purpose of why it is necessary and proper.

The right to keep arms is the right of people to own weapons so the US govt can't take them away.
The right to bear arms is the right of people to be in the militia so they can use these weapons.

If it were a collective right it would be null and void. It would be a waste of time to write the thing in the first place.

Yeah, let's write a clause, and make it collective, so that the right of the collective to own weapons so the US govt can't take them away, but we make it collective so the US govt CAN take them away.

Hmm.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You'll notice the people have the right to keep and bear arms, not only the militia.
A big NO to your suggestion.

The militia doesn't have a right to keep arms, nor does it have a right to bear arms. The issues of the militia are brought up in article 1 section 8, not in the 2A.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

That is not the point; the point is that the People is not the Person. There is a difference. Thus, there can be no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, which explains the Intent and Purpose of why it is necessary and proper.

“People” is the plural form of “person”. If there was only one individual to whom the Second Amendment applied, then it would be properly written “…the right of the person…”. But there's more than one. Last I knew, the number was on the order of about three hundred million people.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The current text: "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."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

The current text: "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."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces.

You'll notice the people have the right to keep and bear arms, not only the militia.
A big NO to your suggestion.

That is not the point; the point is that the People is not the Person. There is a difference. Thus, there can be no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, which explains the Intent and Purpose of why it is necessary and proper.

That is not the point; the point is that the People is not the Person.

I'm wondering what is your definition of "the People" and "the Person"?

 

[danielpalos]

It is a Collective term, not an Individual term, should we need to quibble in legal venues, dear.

Except it isn't.

yes, dear; it is.

 

[danielpalos]

The current text: "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."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

The current text: "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."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces.

You'll notice the people have the right to keep and bear arms, not only the militia.
A big NO to your suggestion.

That is not the point; the point is that the People is not the Person. There is a difference. Thus, there can be no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, which explains the Intent and Purpose of why it is necessary and proper.

The right to keep arms is the right of people to own weapons so the US govt can't take them away.
The right to bear arms is the right of people to be in the militia so they can use these weapons.

If it were a collective right it would be null and void. It would be a waste of time to write the thing in the first place.

Yeah, let's write a clause, and make it collective, so that the right of the collective to own weapons so the US govt can't take them away, but we make it collective so the US govt CAN take them away.

Hmm.

dear, here is the Intent and Purpose: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"

notice how your hearsay and soothsay is nowhere to be found.

 

[danielpalos]

You'll notice the people have the right to keep and bear arms, not only the militia.
A big NO to your suggestion.

The militia doesn't have a right to keep arms, nor does it have a right to bear arms. The issues of the militia are brought up in article 1 section 8, not in the 2A.

dear; the People are the Militia. Only the People who are a well regulated Militia have literal recourse.

 

[danielpalos]

That is not the point; the point is that the People is not the Person. There is a difference. Thus, there can be no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, which explains the Intent and Purpose of why it is necessary and proper.

“People” is the plural form of “person”. If there was only one individual to whom the Second Amendment applied, then it would be properly written “…the right of the person…”. But there's more than one. Last I knew, the number was on the order of about three hundred million people.

no, dear; the security of a free State may involve the coercive use of force to accomplish that end.

 

[danielpalos]

The current text: "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."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

The current text: "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."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces.

You'll notice the people have the right to keep and bear arms, not only the militia.
A big NO to your suggestion.

That is not the point; the point is that the People is not the Person. There is a difference. Thus, there can be no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, which explains the Intent and Purpose of why it is necessary and proper.

That is not the point; the point is that the People is not the Person.

I'm wondering what is your definition of "the People" and "the Person"?

did you miss it? one is collective and one is Individual.

 

[Pete7469]

The current text: "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."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

I would say you are weapons grade stupid.

When a person can only be armed through government permission, they have no rights. The entire concept of your post means that the right OF THE PEOPLE to be armed is predicated on their subservience to government and only a blithering idiot or a criminally insane totalitarian sociopath would promote such an idea.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

yes, dear; it is.

I very much doubt that there is anyone in this forum with whom you have any sort of relationship such that it is appropriate to address any such person as “dear”. In my case, the term would be appropriate only to or from female relatives close friends or acquaintances, such as my wife, my mother, my sister, my niece, a few assorted cousins, and a few close friends. Certainly not some light-loafered stranger on an internet forum.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The current text: "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."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

The current text: "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."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces.

You'll notice the people have the right to keep and bear arms, not only the militia.
A big NO to your suggestion.

That is not the point; the point is that the People is not the Person. There is a difference. Thus, there can be no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, which explains the Intent and Purpose of why it is necessary and proper.

That is not the point; the point is that the People is not the Person.

I'm wondering what is your definition of "the People" and "the Person"?

did you miss it? one is collective and one is Individual.

So you don't have the actual definitions?