Exactly what and why was the 2nd amendment written like it is

[Markle]

No idea.

You'll have to ask someone who believes in the false notion that the Second Amendment authorizes citizens to take up arms against a lawfully elected government.

Would you consider law enforcement, going door to door confiscating legally owned guns, tyranny? If so, should the public have the right to defend themselves and their weapons?

 

[danielpalos]

ur Founding Fathers did an most Excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. Our Second Amendment says the same thing, with or without any punctuation, "on the right wing".

Who could make this up?

I already tried it. The right wing is simply full of fallacy if they believe, punctuation has any influence in the meaning of the terms in our Second Amendment.

You're not serious, you're simply a bored troll.

Yet, You are the one with nothing but fallacy instead of a valid argument.

 

[peach174]

The militia is made up of citizen soldiers. They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.

nothing but diversion? all of those terms are collective and plural.

Collective? You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.

it is self evident. both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.

Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.

Collective is Socialism.
Individual right is freedom from Government.
That includes The Federal Government which has no right to pass any laws on any of our Amendments.
Written history proves this.

Socialism starts with a social Contract. Our federal Constitution is that form of contract.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously; telling stories is all they seem to know how to do.

Then so is the supreme court ,which says it's individual rights, not collective rights.
When governments start going down the path with collective ideology it gives the government more power and takes away individual rights.

 

[Darkwind]

Collective? You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.

it is self evident. both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.

Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.

In fact, given that the entire document is set and predicated upon ensuring and safeguarding the rights and liberties of the individual, your statement fails any logic test.

The people is an artful way of saying that each individual enjoys the exact same protections under the law and that each individual's liberty is of concern to everyone.

No, it isn't. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution. The right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.

You have already degenerated into ad hominen attacks. Do you know why? Because every arguement you have made has been shot down and debunked by those here, and by top scholars around the country.

You have resorted to repeating the same thing over and over and name calling.

I've finished in this thread as you are the only one making these absurd arguments and I don't get into "did too, did not" games.

lol. the right wing is worse. why no calling them on their spam?

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.

Natural Rights have no need to be recognized by any government. That is why they are 'natural rights'. However, the US Constitution is required to safeguard those natural rights.

 

[danielpalos]

nothing but diversion? all of those terms are collective and plural.

Collective? You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.

it is self evident. both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.

Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.

Collective is Socialism.
Individual right is freedom from Government.
That includes The Federal Government which has no right to pass any laws on any of our Amendments.
Written history proves this.

Socialism starts with a social Contract. Our federal Constitution is that form of contract.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously; telling stories is all they seem to know how to do.

Then so is the supreme court ,which says it's individual rights, not collective rights.
When governments start going down the path with collective ideology it gives the government more power and takes away individual rights.

Judicial activism does what You are implying; faithful execution of the Wisdom of our Founding Fathers, does not.

 

[danielpalos]

it is self evident. both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.

Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.

In fact, given that the entire document is set and predicated upon ensuring and safeguarding the rights and liberties of the individual, your statement fails any logic test.

The people is an artful way of saying that each individual enjoys the exact same protections under the law and that each individual's liberty is of concern to everyone.

No, it isn't. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution. The right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.

You have already degenerated into ad hominen attacks. Do you know why? Because every arguement you have made has been shot down and debunked by those here, and by top scholars around the country.

You have resorted to repeating the same thing over and over and name calling.

I've finished in this thread as you are the only one making these absurd arguments and I don't get into "did too, did not" games.

lol. the right wing is worse. why no calling them on their spam?

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.

Natural Rights have no need to be recognized by any government. That is why they are 'natural rights'. However, the US Constitution is required to safeguard those natural rights.

lol. keep your story straight, right wingers. What happened to Dred Scott, or the lgbt community regarding keeping and bearing Arms?

 

[WinterBorn]

In fact, given that the entire document is set and predicated upon ensuring and safeguarding the rights and liberties of the individual, your statement fails any logic test.

The people is an artful way of saying that each individual enjoys the exact same protections under the law and that each individual's liberty is of concern to everyone.

No, it isn't. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution. The right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.

You have already degenerated into ad hominen attacks. Do you know why? Because every arguement you have made has been shot down and debunked by those here, and by top scholars around the country.

You have resorted to repeating the same thing over and over and name calling.

I've finished in this thread as you are the only one making these absurd arguments and I don't get into "did too, did not" games.

lol. the right wing is worse. why no calling them on their spam?

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.

Natural Rights have no need to be recognized by any government. That is why they are 'natural rights'. However, the US Constitution is required to safeguard those natural rights.

lol. keep your story straight, right wingers. What happened to Dred Scott, or the lgbt community regarding keeping and bearing Arms?

Dred Scott was one of the worst decision by the SCOTUS, but was repaired by what? Was it the state constitutions that rendered Dred Scott a moot point? No, it was an amendment to the US Constitution.

As for LGBT rights, they can now marry in all 50 states. Why? Was it the state constitutions that did that? No. In fact, many states constitutions expressly forbid same sex marriages. But the SCOTUS ruled that forbidding same sex marriage violated the US Constitution. So before you try to use those against the 2nd amendment, which it does not change, remember that your claim about the power of state constitutions was slapped into oblivion by that claim.

 

[danielpalos]

The reason our Constitution is worded the way it is, is Because there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine. Only republicans have nothing but repeal.

 

[WinterBorn]

The reason our Constitution is worded the way it is, is Because there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine. Only republicans have nothing but repeal.

The way it is worded is fine.

 

[Markle]

The reason our Constitution is worded the way it is, is Because there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine. Only republicans have nothing but repeal.

 

[peach174]

Collective? You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.

it is self evident. both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.

Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.

Collective is Socialism.
Individual right is freedom from Government.
That includes The Federal Government which has no right to pass any laws on any of our Amendments.
Written history proves this.

Socialism starts with a social Contract. Our federal Constitution is that form of contract.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously; telling stories is all they seem to know how to do.

Then so is the supreme court ,which says it's individual rights, not collective rights.
When governments start going down the path with collective ideology it gives the government more power and takes away individual rights.

Judicial activism does what You are implying; faithful execution of the Wisdom of our Founding Fathers, does not.

Very Funny!
It's based on our history of individualism, which was what our Founders believed.
Judicial activism is what the progressives do.


I was talking about basic political ideology, not the courts.
Collective ideology is larger government.
Individualism ideology is less government.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The reason our Constitution is worded the way it is, is Because there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine. Only republicans have nothing but repeal.

Article VI of the US Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Known as the Supremacy Clause, it documents the Framers’ clear intent that Federal laws, the rulings of Federal courts, and decisions made by the Supreme Court would be the law of the land, with state constitutions and state laws subordinate to the Constitution, its case law, and Supreme Court rulings.

This is a settled, accepted fact of law – beyond dispute – reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, as originally intended by the Founding Generation – including the Second Amendment.

 

[WinterBorn]

The reason our Constitution is worded the way it is, is Because there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine. Only republicans have nothing but repeal.

Article VI of the US Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Known as the Supremacy Clause, it documents the Framers’ clear intent that Federal laws, the rulings of Federal courts, and decisions made by the Supreme Court would be the law of the land, with state constitutions and state laws subordinate to the Constitution, its case law, and Supreme Court rulings.

This is a settled, accepted fact of law – beyond dispute – reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, as originally intended by the Founding Generation – including the Second Amendment.

Thank you. Maybe this will put his delusions to rest. Of course, he will still talk about no one taking conservatives seriously and that you are making an appeal to ignorance. But you are right.

 

[danielpalos]

it is self evident. both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.

Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.

Collective is Socialism.
Individual right is freedom from Government.
That includes The Federal Government which has no right to pass any laws on any of our Amendments.
Written history proves this.

Socialism starts with a social Contract. Our federal Constitution is that form of contract.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously; telling stories is all they seem to know how to do.

Then so is the supreme court ,which says it's individual rights, not collective rights.
When governments start going down the path with collective ideology it gives the government more power and takes away individual rights.

Judicial activism does what You are implying; faithful execution of the Wisdom of our Founding Fathers, does not.

Very Funny!
It's based on our history of individualism, which was what our Founders believed.
Judicial activism is what the progressives do.


I was talking about basic political ideology, not the courts.
Collective ideology is larger government.
Individualism ideology is less government.

so what. how is that relevant to a discussion regarding our Second Amendment?

 

[danielpalos]

The reason our Constitution is worded the way it is, is Because there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine. Only republicans have nothing but repeal.

Article VI of the US Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Known as the Supremacy Clause, it documents the Framers’ clear intent that Federal laws, the rulings of Federal courts, and decisions made by the Supreme Court would be the law of the land, with state constitutions and state laws subordinate to the Constitution, its case law, and Supreme Court rulings.

This is a settled, accepted fact of law – beyond dispute – reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, as originally intended by the Founding Generation – including the Second Amendment.

so what. We also have a Ninth and Tenth Amendment.

 

[peach174]

Collective is Socialism.
Individual right is freedom from Government.
That includes The Federal Government which has no right to pass any laws on any of our Amendments.
Written history proves this.

Socialism starts with a social Contract. Our federal Constitution is that form of contract.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously; telling stories is all they seem to know how to do.

Then so is the supreme court ,which says it's individual rights, not collective rights.
When governments start going down the path with collective ideology it gives the government more power and takes away individual rights.

Judicial activism does what You are implying; faithful execution of the Wisdom of our Founding Fathers, does not.

Very Funny!
It's based on our history of individualism, which was what our Founders believed.
Judicial activism is what the progressives do.


I was talking about basic political ideology, not the courts.
Collective ideology is larger government.
Individualism ideology is less government.

so what. how is that relevant to a discussion regarding our Second Amendment?

Because the Supreme Court ruled that guns, are individual rights. Like every single one of the amendments are for ,each and every single American individually.
Not collective rights.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Socialism starts with a social Contract. Our federal Constitution is that form of contract.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously; telling stories is all they seem to know how to do.

Then so is the supreme court ,which says it's individual rights, not collective rights.
When governments start going down the path with collective ideology it gives the government more power and takes away individual rights.

Judicial activism does what You are implying; faithful execution of the Wisdom of our Founding Fathers, does not.

Very Funny!
It's based on our history of individualism, which was what our Founders believed.
Judicial activism is what the progressives do.


I was talking about basic political ideology, not the courts.
Collective ideology is larger government.
Individualism ideology is less government.

so what. how is that relevant to a discussion regarding our Second Amendment?

Because the Supreme Court ruled that guns, are individual rights. Like every single one of the amendments are for ,each and every single American individually.
Not collective rights.

They have ruled that it's all within common sense limits. They didn't put it that way but that is what the ruling means. It's not absolute.

 

[WinterBorn]

Then so is the supreme court ,which says it's individual rights, not collective rights.
When governments start going down the path with collective ideology it gives the government more power and takes away individual rights.

Judicial activism does what You are implying; faithful execution of the Wisdom of our Founding Fathers, does not.

Very Funny!
It's based on our history of individualism, which was what our Founders believed.
Judicial activism is what the progressives do.


I was talking about basic political ideology, not the courts.
Collective ideology is larger government.
Individualism ideology is less government.

so what. how is that relevant to a discussion regarding our Second Amendment?

Because the Supreme Court ruled that guns, are individual rights. Like every single one of the amendments are for ,each and every single American individually.
Not collective rights.

They have ruled that it's all within common sense limits. They didn't put it that way but that is what the ruling means. It's not absolute.

Indeed, the ruling did specifically say that the 2nd amendment does not mean guns cannot be regulated. But the idea that the 2nd is a collective right is still ridiculous.

 

[danielpalos]

Socialism starts with a social Contract. Our federal Constitution is that form of contract.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously; telling stories is all they seem to know how to do.

Then so is the supreme court ,which says it's individual rights, not collective rights.
When governments start going down the path with collective ideology it gives the government more power and takes away individual rights.

Judicial activism does what You are implying; faithful execution of the Wisdom of our Founding Fathers, does not.

Very Funny!
It's based on our history of individualism, which was what our Founders believed.
Judicial activism is what the progressives do.


I was talking about basic political ideology, not the courts.
Collective ideology is larger government.
Individualism ideology is less government.

so what. how is that relevant to a discussion regarding our Second Amendment?

Because the Supreme Court ruled that guns, are individual rights. Like every single one of the amendments are for ,each and every single American individually.
Not collective rights.

Not true. We have our Second and Tenth Amendments. The federalist position is that, States' rights, are included.

 

[WinterBorn]

Then so is the supreme court ,which says it's individual rights, not collective rights.
When governments start going down the path with collective ideology it gives the government more power and takes away individual rights.

Judicial activism does what You are implying; faithful execution of the Wisdom of our Founding Fathers, does not.

Very Funny!
It's based on our history of individualism, which was what our Founders believed.
Judicial activism is what the progressives do.


I was talking about basic political ideology, not the courts.
Collective ideology is larger government.
Individualism ideology is less government.

so what. how is that relevant to a discussion regarding our Second Amendment?

Because the Supreme Court ruled that guns, are individual rights. Like every single one of the amendments are for ,each and every single American individually.
Not collective rights.

Not true. We have our Second and Tenth Amendments. The federalist position is that, States' rights, are included.

The 10th amendment does not effect the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is an individual right.