True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment

[Marion Morrison]

daniel just needs a decent washy washy.

 

[there4eyeM]

Life is change, and language and thinking change naturally with time. Those unable to accept change will go the way of other species that were unable.

 

[Cellblock2429]

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
Order over Anarchy, every time!

Still on the natural rights? State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution. That is a simple fact of the way our republic works. Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right. And no state constitution can change that.

simple judicial activism. the People is plural, not singular or individual.

Yes, because the 2nd amendment is talking about a right for the citizens. There are a lot of them.

Only well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary, not the whole of the People.

No, that is incorrect. The 2nd says that a militia is necessary. But it does not say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". They specifically said "people". It is a right of the the people. Not a collective right, but a right of the people, ie citizens.

/——-/ Liberals look at the Constitution and see things that aren’t there and ignore things that are there according to their agenda.

 

[danielpalos]

True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in laments terms:

The Right To Bear Arms

Lets say YOU as a normal average person were to speak out against a Wealthy Person, I then get a Cartel or some sort of local Mafia involved to go to your house, tie you up, RAPE and Pillage your family as you watched.
The very next day, YOU WOULD LEARN TO KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.

But here in the Untied States the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted so now all the Sheeple in this land have sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry equal to or greater than Cartel's & Mafia's, so now when I try to order them to go to your house to teach you a lesson, they will risk Serious Injury or even Death, this make it much more expensive to or even impossible to SHUT YOU UP.

Yes the American Sheeple have the Right To Bear Arms, so if I was to tell the Cartel or Mafia guys to cut off your hands, they would have to do so at the base of your wrist, thus preserving YOUR arm.............. Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.

This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed, and I say ALL guns including Flint Lock Muskets......... anything that can be used in self defense, because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS.

/----/ I take the word of our Founding Fathers over a despicable, power hungry Communist like you any day:
Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
Order over Anarchy, every time!

Still on the natural rights? State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution. That is a simple fact of the way our republic works. Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right. And no state constitution can change that.

Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists. God given, inherent, unalienable, absolute Rights are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. The terminology is all synonymous!

"The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]

It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution."

Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)

That is the earliest United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject

The Right of the people (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed. That was the the intent of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments. Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."

The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of unalienable means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government. Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - NOT the individual.

Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.

Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.

 

[WinterBorn]

True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in laments terms:

The Right To Bear Arms

Lets say YOU as a normal average person were to speak out against a Wealthy Person, I then get a Cartel or some sort of local Mafia involved to go to your house, tie you up, RAPE and Pillage your family as you watched.
The very next day, YOU WOULD LEARN TO KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.

But here in the Untied States the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted so now all the Sheeple in this land have sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry equal to or greater than Cartel's & Mafia's, so now when I try to order them to go to your house to teach you a lesson, they will risk Serious Injury or even Death, this make it much more expensive to or even impossible to SHUT YOU UP.

Yes the American Sheeple have the Right To Bear Arms, so if I was to tell the Cartel or Mafia guys to cut off your hands, they would have to do so at the base of your wrist, thus preserving YOUR arm.............. Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.

This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed, and I say ALL guns including Flint Lock Muskets......... anything that can be used in self defense, because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS.

/----/ I take the word of our Founding Fathers over a despicable, power hungry Communist like you any day:
Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
Order over Anarchy, every time!

Still on the natural rights? State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution. That is a simple fact of the way our republic works. Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right. And no state constitution can change that.

Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists. God given, inherent, unalienable, absolute Rights are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. The terminology is all synonymous!

"The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]

It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution."

Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)

That is the earliest United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject

The Right of the people (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed. That was the the intent of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments. Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."

The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of unalienable means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government. Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - NOT the individual.

Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.

Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.

Both militia and people are specifically enumerated. That is true. And the separate terms were used for specific reasons.

Plural? Yes. Collective? No.

 

[Humorme]

True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in laments terms:

The Right To Bear Arms

Lets say YOU as a normal average person were to speak out against a Wealthy Person, I then get a Cartel or some sort of local Mafia involved to go to your house, tie you up, RAPE and Pillage your family as you watched.
The very next day, YOU WOULD LEARN TO KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.

But here in the Untied States the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted so now all the Sheeple in this land have sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry equal to or greater than Cartel's & Mafia's, so now when I try to order them to go to your house to teach you a lesson, they will risk Serious Injury or even Death, this make it much more expensive to or even impossible to SHUT YOU UP.

Yes the American Sheeple have the Right To Bear Arms, so if I was to tell the Cartel or Mafia guys to cut off your hands, they would have to do so at the base of your wrist, thus preserving YOUR arm.............. Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.

This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed, and I say ALL guns including Flint Lock Muskets......... anything that can be used in self defense, because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS.

/----/ I take the word of our Founding Fathers over a despicable, power hungry Communist like you any day:
Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
Order over Anarchy, every time!

Still on the natural rights? State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution. That is a simple fact of the way our republic works. Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right. And no state constitution can change that.

Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists. God given, inherent, unalienable, absolute Rights are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. The terminology is all synonymous!

"The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]

It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution."

Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)

That is the earliest United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject

The Right of the people (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed. That was the the intent of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments. Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."

The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of unalienable means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government. Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - NOT the individual.

Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.

Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.

That's a totally meaningless post.

 

[hunarcy]

Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.

If the right was reserved strictly to state militias, then why does it say the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Do you think they forgot how to spell militia?

 

[Humorme]

Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.

If the right was reserved strictly to state militias, then why does it say the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Do you think they forgot how to spell militia?

How come that every time a Right is guaranteed under the Ten Amendments, it is to the people?

1st Amendment - Right of the People
3rd Amendment - consent of the Owner
4th Amendment - Right of the People
5th Amendment - No Person
6th Amendment - a guarantee for the "accused"
7th Amendment - Guarantee of the individual to a jury trial
8th Amendment - Guarantee that the individual will not face excessive fines or be subject to cruel or unusual punishment
9th Amendment ends with by the people
10th Amendment ends with to the people

ALL of those Amendments unequivocally are guarantees to the individual and to the people. Yet some people try to argue that the Second Amendment is about protecting a state's right to maintain a militia. You couldn't sell that to an honest fifth grader.

The entire Bill of Rights is ONE bill - NOT TEN DIFFERENT ones!

The over-all theme of the Bill of Rights is about guaranteeing individual Rights of the people - most, if not all, deemed to be unalienable by the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and later the United States Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

/----/ I take the word of our Founding Fathers over a despicable, power hungry Communist like you any day:
Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
Order over Anarchy, every time!

Still on the natural rights? State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution. That is a simple fact of the way our republic works. Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right. And no state constitution can change that.

Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists. God given, inherent, unalienable, absolute Rights are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. The terminology is all synonymous!

"The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]

It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution."

Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)

That is the earliest United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject

The Right of the people (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed. That was the the intent of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments. Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."

The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of unalienable means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government. Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - NOT the individual.

Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.

Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.

Both militia and people are specifically enumerated. That is true. And the separate terms were used for specific reasons.

Plural? Yes. Collective? No.

plural means not singular, if we have to quibble.

 

[danielpalos]

/----/ I take the word of our Founding Fathers over a despicable, power hungry Communist like you any day:
Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
Order over Anarchy, every time!

Still on the natural rights? State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution. That is a simple fact of the way our republic works. Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right. And no state constitution can change that.

Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists. God given, inherent, unalienable, absolute Rights are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. The terminology is all synonymous!

"The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]

It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution."

Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)

That is the earliest United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject

The Right of the people (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed. That was the the intent of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments. Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."

The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of unalienable means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government. Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - NOT the individual.

Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.

Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.

That's a totally meaningless post.

what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.

 

[danielpalos]

Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.

If the right was reserved strictly to state militias, then why does it say the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Do you think they forgot how to spell militia?

How come that every time a Right is guaranteed under the Ten Amendments, it is to the people?

1st Amendment - Right of the People
3rd Amendment - consent of the Owner
4th Amendment - Right of the People
5th Amendment - No Person
6th Amendment - a guarantee for the "accused"
7th Amendment - Guarantee of the individual to a jury trial
8th Amendment - Guarantee that the individual will not face excessive fines or be subject to cruel or unusual punishment
9th Amendment ends with by the people
10th Amendment ends with to the people

ALL of those Amendments unequivocally are guarantees to the individual and to the people. Yet some people try to argue that the Second Amendment is about protecting a state's right to maintain a militia. You couldn't sell that to an honest fifth grader.

The entire Bill of Rights is ONE bill - NOT TEN DIFFERENT ones!

The over-all theme of the Bill of Rights is about guaranteeing individual Rights of the people - most, if not all, deemed to be unalienable by the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and later the United States Constitution.

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural or individual rights, every time we have to quibble.

 

[Cellblock2429]

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
Order over Anarchy, every time!

Still on the natural rights? State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution. That is a simple fact of the way our republic works. Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right. And no state constitution can change that.

Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists. God given, inherent, unalienable, absolute Rights are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. The terminology is all synonymous!

"The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]

It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution."

Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)

That is the earliest United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject

The Right of the people (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed. That was the the intent of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments. Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."

The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of unalienable means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government. Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - NOT the individual.

Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.

Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.

That's a totally meaningless post.

what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.

/----/ It seems your only rebuttal to these well thought out points with references is name calling.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.

If the right was reserved strictly to state militias, then why does it say the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Do you think they forgot how to spell militia?

How come that every time a Right is guaranteed under the Ten Amendments, it is to the people?

1st Amendment - Right of the People
3rd Amendment - consent of the Owner
4th Amendment - Right of the People
5th Amendment - No Person
6th Amendment - a guarantee for the "accused"
7th Amendment - Guarantee of the individual to a jury trial
8th Amendment - Guarantee that the individual will not face excessive fines or be subject to cruel or unusual punishment
9th Amendment ends with by the people
10th Amendment ends with to the people

ALL of those Amendments unequivocally are guarantees to the individual and to the people. Yet some people try to argue that the Second Amendment is about protecting a state's right to maintain a militia. You couldn't sell that to an honest fifth grader.

The entire Bill of Rights is ONE bill - NOT TEN DIFFERENT ones!

The over-all theme of the Bill of Rights is about guaranteeing individual Rights of the people - most, if not all, deemed to be unalienable by the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and later the United States Constitution.

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural or individual rights, every time we have to quibble.

/-----/ So James Madison was only kidding when he included “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” He was really talking about the State.

 

[Humorme]

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
Order over Anarchy, every time!

Still on the natural rights? State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution. That is a simple fact of the way our republic works. Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right. And no state constitution can change that.

Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists. God given, inherent, unalienable, absolute Rights are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. The terminology is all synonymous!

"The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]

It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution."

Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)

That is the earliest United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject

The Right of the people (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed. That was the the intent of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments. Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."

The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of unalienable means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government. Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - NOT the individual.

Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.

Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.

That's a totally meaningless post.

what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.

Back to that standard canard again? No sir, we cannot appeal to ignorance. When people choose ignorance over a careful reading of history and the law does not sway someone, I have no ability to force them to be right.

You cannot rebut posts that have no meaning. So there was little to do except point out that a few words strung together were meaningless.

I can't help but ask, however, what do you get out of maintaining that ignorance?

 

[Humorme]

Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.

If the right was reserved strictly to state militias, then why does it say the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Do you think they forgot how to spell militia?

How come that every time a Right is guaranteed under the Ten Amendments, it is to the people?

1st Amendment - Right of the People
3rd Amendment - consent of the Owner
4th Amendment - Right of the People
5th Amendment - No Person
6th Amendment - a guarantee for the "accused"
7th Amendment - Guarantee of the individual to a jury trial
8th Amendment - Guarantee that the individual will not face excessive fines or be subject to cruel or unusual punishment
9th Amendment ends with by the people
10th Amendment ends with to the people

ALL of those Amendments unequivocally are guarantees to the individual and to the people. Yet some people try to argue that the Second Amendment is about protecting a state's right to maintain a militia. You couldn't sell that to an honest fifth grader.

The entire Bill of Rights is ONE bill - NOT TEN DIFFERENT ones!

The over-all theme of the Bill of Rights is about guaranteeing individual Rights of the people - most, if not all, deemed to be unalienable by the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and later the United States Constitution.

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural or individual rights, every time we have to quibble.

There is no quibbling. You choose to remain ignorant and you continue to be proven wrong by so many posters that they cannot be counted.

 

[WinterBorn]

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
Order over Anarchy, every time!

Still on the natural rights? State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution. That is a simple fact of the way our republic works. Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right. And no state constitution can change that.

Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists. God given, inherent, unalienable, absolute Rights are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. The terminology is all synonymous!

"The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]

It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution."

Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)

That is the earliest United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject

The Right of the people (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed. That was the the intent of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments. Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."

The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of unalienable means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government. Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - NOT the individual.

Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.

Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.

Both militia and people are specifically enumerated. That is true. And the separate terms were used for specific reasons.

Plural? Yes. Collective? No.

plural means not singular, if we have to quibble.

I have never argued that it meant singular. But plural does not mean collective, as you insist it does. The right is for the citizens of the nation. There were more than one citizen, hence the use of the plural.

 

[WinterBorn]

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
Order over Anarchy, every time!

Still on the natural rights? State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution. That is a simple fact of the way our republic works. Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right. And no state constitution can change that.

Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists. God given, inherent, unalienable, absolute Rights are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. The terminology is all synonymous!

"The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]

It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution."

Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)

That is the earliest United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject

The Right of the people (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed. That was the the intent of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments. Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."

The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of unalienable means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government. Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - NOT the individual.

Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.

Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.

That's a totally meaningless post.

what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.

I can't speak to Humorme's intent, but your claim that the right is a collective one has no basis in fact. That makes your post meaningless in a very real sense.

 

[hunarcy]

Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.

If the right was reserved strictly to state militias, then why does it say the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Do you think they forgot how to spell militia?

How come that every time a Right is guaranteed under the Ten Amendments, it is to the people?

1st Amendment - Right of the People
3rd Amendment - consent of the Owner
4th Amendment - Right of the People
5th Amendment - No Person
6th Amendment - a guarantee for the "accused"
7th Amendment - Guarantee of the individual to a jury trial
8th Amendment - Guarantee that the individual will not face excessive fines or be subject to cruel or unusual punishment
9th Amendment ends with by the people
10th Amendment ends with to the people

ALL of those Amendments unequivocally are guarantees to the individual and to the people. Yet some people try to argue that the Second Amendment is about protecting a state's right to maintain a militia. You couldn't sell that to an honest fifth grader.

The entire Bill of Rights is ONE bill - NOT TEN DIFFERENT ones!

The over-all theme of the Bill of Rights is about guaranteeing individual Rights of the people - most, if not all, deemed to be unalienable by the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and later the United States Constitution.

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural or individual rights, every time we have to quibble.

/-----/ So James Madison was only kidding when he included “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” He was really talking about the State.

You are now arguing with a timesuck troll who will continue to say irrational and incorrect things even when the truth has been proven. Trolls like that ignore facts like "The People" refers to individuals instead of the State. His content is so inane that I don't even bother to read it.

 

[The Irish Ram]

True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in laments terms:

The Right To Bear Arms

Lets say YOU as a normal average person were to speak out against a Wealthy Person, I then get a Cartel or some sort of local Mafia involved to go to your house, tie you up, RAPE and Pillage your family as you watched.
The very next day, YOU WOULD LEARN TO KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.

But here in the Untied States the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted so now all the Sheeple in this land have sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry equal to or greater than Cartel's & Mafia's, so now when I try to order them to go to your house to teach you a lesson, they will risk Serious Injury or even Death, this make it much more expensive to or even impossible to SHUT YOU UP.

Yes the American Sheeple have the Right To Bear Arms, so if I was to tell the Cartel or Mafia guys to cut off your hands, they would have to do so at the base of your wrist, thus preserving YOUR arm.............. Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.

This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed, and I say ALL guns including Flint Lock Muskets......... anything that can be used in self defense, because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS.

Not only do I have a right to own them, I have the right to aim them.

Let's ask President Jefferson to clarify it for us:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

He signed it into law. If anybody knows what it means, he should.

Now, look up "infringement" to understand "do not infringe" upon this right. Then stop doing it.

 

[danielpalos]

Still on the natural rights? State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution. That is a simple fact of the way our republic works. Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right. And no state constitution can change that.

Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists. God given, inherent, unalienable, absolute Rights are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. The terminology is all synonymous!

"The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]

It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution."

Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)

That is the earliest United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject

The Right of the people (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed. That was the the intent of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments. Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."

The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of unalienable means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government. Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - NOT the individual.

Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.

Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.

That's a totally meaningless post.

what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.

/----/ It seems your only rebuttal to these well thought out points with references is name calling.
View attachment 184431

dude; I know how to use a dictionary. natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.