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

[WinterBorn]

"People" can infer a singular, as in "people sometime sit in that chair". Obviously, one person sits in a chair at a time.
Saying "the people" is collective in sense, as in "the people want change".
"The right of persons to bear arms" would definitely be individuals. "The right of the people" would be collective.
Personally, I don't understand exactly what your problems are in this thread and have no opinion; this is only contributed as an observation on vocabulary and semantics.
P.S.; wouldn't the right to bear arms limit arms to those that could be born, thus excluding cannons and such?

No, it can't. The People is plural, not singular, especially if we have to quibble.

Because, once again, that right is guaranteed for more than one person.

 

[danielpalos]

"People" can infer a singular, as in "people sometime sit in that chair". Obviously, one person sits in a chair at a time.
Saying "the people" is collective in sense, as in "the people want change".
"The right of persons to bear arms" would definitely be individuals. "The right of the people" would be collective.
Personally, I don't understand exactly what your problems are in this thread and have no opinion; this is only contributed as an observation on vocabulary and semantics.
P.S.; wouldn't the right to bear arms limit arms to those that could be born, thus excluding cannons and such?

No, it can't. The People is plural, not singular, especially if we have to quibble.

Because, once again, that right is guaranteed for more than one person.

The People. Civil rights, do that.

 

[WinterBorn]

"People" can infer a singular, as in "people sometime sit in that chair". Obviously, one person sits in a chair at a time.
Saying "the people" is collective in sense, as in "the people want change".
"The right of persons to bear arms" would definitely be individuals. "The right of the people" would be collective.
Personally, I don't understand exactly what your problems are in this thread and have no opinion; this is only contributed as an observation on vocabulary and semantics.
P.S.; wouldn't the right to bear arms limit arms to those that could be born, thus excluding cannons and such?

No, it can't. The People is plural, not singular, especially if we have to quibble.

Because, once again, that right is guaranteed for more than one person.

The People. Civil rights, do that.

And you maintain that the right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, is not a civil right?

 

[danielpalos]

"People" can infer a singular, as in "people sometime sit in that chair". Obviously, one person sits in a chair at a time.
Saying "the people" is collective in sense, as in "the people want change".
"The right of persons to bear arms" would definitely be individuals. "The right of the people" would be collective.
Personally, I don't understand exactly what your problems are in this thread and have no opinion; this is only contributed as an observation on vocabulary and semantics.
P.S.; wouldn't the right to bear arms limit arms to those that could be born, thus excluding cannons and such?

No, it can't. The People is plural, not singular, especially if we have to quibble.

Because, once again, that right is guaranteed for more than one person.

The People. Civil rights, do that.

And you maintain that the right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, is not a civil right?

changing your story again, story teller? The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed, when it is about the security of a free State.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Good thing we have a Second Amendment as a Prohibition on Government propaganda and rhetoric.

the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be Infringed.

If you want to take up arms against the gov't over propaganda and rhetoric, go right ahead. Prison is going to be rough.

Exactly.

Just because a minority of citizens incorrectly and subjectively perceive the government to have become ‘tyrannical’ doesn’t warrant ‘taking up arms’ against a government lawfully and Constitutionally installed by the people reflecting the will of the people – there’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment which authorizes such nonsense.

 

[danielpalos]

Good thing we have a Second Amendment as a Prohibition on Government propaganda and rhetoric.

the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be Infringed.

If you want to take up arms against the gov't over propaganda and rhetoric, go right ahead. Prison is going to be rough.

Exactly.

Just because a minority of citizens incorrectly and subjectively perceive the government to have become ‘tyrannical’ doesn’t warrant ‘taking up arms’ against a government lawfully and Constitutionally installed by the people reflecting the will of the people – there’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment which authorizes such nonsense.

We have a First Amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The rights enumerated in the Constitution are unalienable meaning they cannot be divorced from the individual. The governemnt has neither the power not the authority to grant these unalienable rights as they are inherent in the individual from the moment of birth.

This idea in an integral part of the Constitution.

There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment. Unalienable rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

What the right wing wants to do, is infringe upon the doctrine of separation of powers, without just Cause.

Every right is an individual right.

Every right enumerated in the Constitution is not granted by the government therefore cannot be take away by the government

And the Constitution also states that the rights listed in the Bill of rights are not the only rights an individual has

The authors of the Bill of Rights believed the 10 rights they started with to be some of the most important therefore in need of the most protection

No, they are aren't. They are civil rights, expressly declared.

Every single right belongs to the individual
Every right that belongs to the individual is his from birth

The government does not have the authority to grant or revoke these rights.

These tenets are the bedrock of the Constitution.

Bill of Rights - Bill of Rights Institute

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. James Madison wrote the amendments, which list specific prohibitions on governmental power, in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties.

LOL, and yet these rights you claim all have exceptions under the law.

Correct.

Our rights are inalienable, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

Although inalienable, they are neither ‘unlimited’ nor ‘absolute’ – they are subject to regulation and restrictions by government, consistent with Constitutional case law, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

 

[WinterBorn]

"People" can infer a singular, as in "people sometime sit in that chair". Obviously, one person sits in a chair at a time.
Saying "the people" is collective in sense, as in "the people want change".
"The right of persons to bear arms" would definitely be individuals. "The right of the people" would be collective.
Personally, I don't understand exactly what your problems are in this thread and have no opinion; this is only contributed as an observation on vocabulary and semantics.
P.S.; wouldn't the right to bear arms limit arms to those that could be born, thus excluding cannons and such?

No, it can't. The People is plural, not singular, especially if we have to quibble.

Because, once again, that right is guaranteed for more than one person.

The People. Civil rights, do that.

And you maintain that the right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, is not a civil right?

changing your story again, story teller? The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed, when it is about the security of a free State.

I have not changed my story. And the militia is made up of armed citizen soldiers. "The right of the people" not "The right of the militia"

 

[danielpalos]

No, it can't. The People is plural, not singular, especially if we have to quibble.

Because, once again, that right is guaranteed for more than one person.

The People. Civil rights, do that.

And you maintain that the right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, is not a civil right?

changing your story again, story teller? The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed, when it is about the security of a free State.

I have not changed my story. And the militia is made up of armed citizen soldiers. "The right of the people" not "The right of the militia"

How did that work for the South? Only well regulated militias of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[Pop23]

Because, once again, that right is guaranteed for more than one person.

The People. Civil rights, do that.

And you maintain that the right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, is not a civil right?

changing your story again, story teller? The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed, when it is about the security of a free State.

I have not changed my story. And the militia is made up of armed citizen soldiers. "The right of the people" not "The right of the militia"

How did that work for the South? Only well regulated militias of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

"...the right of the people...shall not be infringed."

 

[WinterBorn]

Because, once again, that right is guaranteed for more than one person.

The People. Civil rights, do that.

And you maintain that the right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, is not a civil right?

changing your story again, story teller? The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed, when it is about the security of a free State.

I have not changed my story. And the militia is made up of armed citizen soldiers. "The right of the people" not "The right of the militia"

How did that work for the South? Only well regulated militias of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

The Romans. The South. YOu bounce around like a rubber ball.

How did it work out? It worked out surprisingly well. It was expected to be so one sided that society's finest came out with picnics to watch the rebels get their comeuppance. One of the best land armies in the world was expected to run through the Confederate Army like a hot knife through butter. The southerners were, by military standards, poorly equipped. The first new Union recruits were only conscripted for 90 days because the war was expected to be very short.

So what does all that have to do with the topic?

 

[danielpalos]

The People. Civil rights, do that.

And you maintain that the right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, is not a civil right?

changing your story again, story teller? The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed, when it is about the security of a free State.

I have not changed my story. And the militia is made up of armed citizen soldiers. "The right of the people" not "The right of the militia"

How did that work for the South? Only well regulated militias of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

"...the right of the people...shall not be infringed."

only in right wing fantasy. The entire South, got Infringed by well regulated militias of the United States.

 

[danielpalos]

The People. Civil rights, do that.

And you maintain that the right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, is not a civil right?

changing your story again, story teller? The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed, when it is about the security of a free State.

I have not changed my story. And the militia is made up of armed citizen soldiers. "The right of the people" not "The right of the militia"

How did that work for the South? Only well regulated militias of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

The Romans. The South. YOu bounce around like a rubber ball.

How did it work out? It worked out surprisingly well. It was expected to be so one sided that society's finest came out with picnics to watch the rebels get their comeuppance. One of the best land armies in the world was expected to run through the Confederate Army like a hot knife through butter. The southerners were, by military standards, poorly equipped. The first new Union recruits were only conscripted for 90 days because the war was expected to be very short.

So what does all that have to do with the topic?

nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise. telling stories, is what y'all are best at.

 

[Pop23]

And you maintain that the right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, is not a civil right?

changing your story again, story teller? The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed, when it is about the security of a free State.

I have not changed my story. And the militia is made up of armed citizen soldiers. "The right of the people" not "The right of the militia"

How did that work for the South? Only well regulated militias of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

"...the right of the people...shall not be infringed."

only in right wing fantasy. The entire South, got Infringed by well regulated militias of the United States.

Dude, you wrote the answer yourself. You don't even believe your own shit. Why would we?

 

[WinterBorn]

And you maintain that the right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, is not a civil right?

changing your story again, story teller? The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed, when it is about the security of a free State.

I have not changed my story. And the militia is made up of armed citizen soldiers. "The right of the people" not "The right of the militia"

How did that work for the South? Only well regulated militias of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

"...the right of the people...shall not be infringed."

only in right wing fantasy. The entire South, got Infringed by well regulated militias of the United States.

Yes they did. But then, they were a defeated foreign nation. They regained their 2nd amendment individual rights later.

 

[WinterBorn]

And you maintain that the right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, is not a civil right?

changing your story again, story teller? The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed, when it is about the security of a free State.

I have not changed my story. And the militia is made up of armed citizen soldiers. "The right of the people" not "The right of the militia"

How did that work for the South? Only well regulated militias of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

The Romans. The South. YOu bounce around like a rubber ball.

How did it work out? It worked out surprisingly well. It was expected to be so one sided that society's finest came out with picnics to watch the rebels get their comeuppance. One of the best land armies in the world was expected to run through the Confederate Army like a hot knife through butter. The southerners were, by military standards, poorly equipped. The first new Union recruits were only conscripted for 90 days because the war was expected to be very short.

So what does all that have to do with the topic?

nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise. telling stories, is what y'all are best at.

For those of you not familiar with Daniel's debate style, the post above translates as "I do not have an actual argument so I will just go with an insult"

 

[there4eyeM]

changing your story again, story teller? The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed, when it is about the security of a free State.

I have not changed my story. And the militia is made up of armed citizen soldiers. "The right of the people" not "The right of the militia"

How did that work for the South? Only well regulated militias of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

"...the right of the people...shall not be infringed."

only in right wing fantasy. The entire South, got Infringed by well regulated militias of the United States.

Yes they did. But then, they were a defeated foreign nation. They regained their 2nd amendment individual rights later.

Respectfully, the states in rebellion were not a foreign nation. The attempt to unilaterally separate from their membership in the Perpetual Union was put down by the rest of the nation there were part of.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have not changed my story. And the militia is made up of armed citizen soldiers. "The right of the people" not "The right of the militia"

How did that work for the South? Only well regulated militias of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

"...the right of the people...shall not be infringed."

only in right wing fantasy. The entire South, got Infringed by well regulated militias of the United States.

Yes they did. But then, they were a defeated foreign nation. They regained their 2nd amendment individual rights later.

Respectfully, the states in rebellion were not a foreign nation. The attempt to unilaterally separate from their membership in the Perpetual Union was put down by the rest of the nation there were part of.

Different president, different capital, different currency, different military, and a different constitution. They considered themselves a foreign nation.

 

[there4eyeM]

How did that work for the South? Only well regulated militias of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

"...the right of the people...shall not be infringed."

only in right wing fantasy. The entire South, got Infringed by well regulated militias of the United States.

Yes they did. But then, they were a defeated foreign nation. They regained their 2nd amendment individual rights later.

Respectfully, the states in rebellion were not a foreign nation. The attempt to unilaterally separate from their membership in the Perpetual Union was put down by the rest of the nation there were part of.

Different president, different capital, different currency, different military, and a different constitution. They considered themselves a foreign nation.

One could substitute 'rival' for "different". They may have had an identity problem (similar to those who cannot accept how nature formed them), but the part of the United States that attempted to secede was proven wrong.

 

[Wry Catcher]

How did that work for the South? Only well regulated militias of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

"...the right of the people...shall not be infringed."

only in right wing fantasy. The entire South, got Infringed by well regulated militias of the United States.

Yes they did. But then, they were a defeated foreign nation. They regained their 2nd amendment individual rights later.

Respectfully, the states in rebellion were not a foreign nation. The attempt to unilaterally separate from their membership in the Perpetual Union was put down by the rest of the nation there were part of.

Different president, different capital, different currency, different military, and a different constitution. They considered themselves a foreign nation.

Sure, and you consider yourself a patriot. Self awareness seems to be a challenge.