CDZ Food for thought: Right to keep and bear arms.

[Auld Phart]

Didn't even read my post, did you?

they didn't give the right to the militia, they gave it to the people.

Militia, at the time, consisted of able bodied men between the ages of 16-45.

it excluded women of all ages, boys under the age of 16, and over the age of 45, and those physically infirm.

Which is why they gave the right to the people.

you simply appeal to ignorance by believing the terms, the people and the militia, are distinguishable under the common law, for the common defense.

and you're stuck on the term militia, and ignore the rest of the amendment.

which highlights your ignorance on the subject.

projecting much, right winger? both terms, militia and the people are plural and collective, not singular and individual. who is appealing to ignorance of the simple meaning of the words involved?

you seem to be.

Question: Would 15 year old Phoebe Ann Mosey, had she lived at the time, been allowed to 'keep and bear arms'?

She was under age to belong to a militia, and the wrong sex.

But she was far more competent than the majority of men to handle firearms.

You may have heard of her under her 'stage' name.

Annie Oakley.

In what way? Simply claiming that is a fallacy without a valid argument to support it.

the valid argument has been made, time and time again.

you choose to ignore it, and I'm tired of repeating myself.

 

[Auld Phart]

Didn't even read my post, did you?

they didn't give the right to the militia, they gave it to the people.

Militia, at the time, consisted of able bodied men between the ages of 16-45.

it excluded women of all ages, boys under the age of 16, and over the age of 45, and those physically infirm.

Which is why they gave the right to the people.

you simply appeal to ignorance by believing the terms, the people and the militia, are distinguishable under the common law, for the common defense.

and you're stuck on the term militia, and ignore the rest of the amendment.

which highlights your ignorance on the subject.

projecting much, right winger? both terms, militia and the people are plural and collective, not singular and individual. who is appealing to ignorance of the simple meaning of the words involved?

you seem to be.

Question: Would 15 year old Phoebe Ann Mosey, had she lived at the time, been allowed to 'keep and bear arms'?

She was under age to belong to a militia, and the wrong sex.

But she was far more competent than the majority of men to handle firearms.

You may have heard of her under her 'stage' name.

Annie Oakley.

The people are the militia under the common law for the common defense.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

one mans opinion?

insufficient.

and fails tto make your case.

Nor does this make mine:

""The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson"

""… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette"

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"


and many more, for your reading pleasure:

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

 

[koshergrl]

Conservatives supporting the wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment ‘authorizes’ citizens who subjectively perceive the government to have become ‘tyrannical’ to ‘overthrow’ that government succeed in only exhibiting their stupidity and ignorance of the law.

In their ridiculous efforts to ‘justify’ and ‘defend’ gun ownership, rightists contrive moronic lies and inane fallacies in a failed effort to convince others of the legitimacy of possessing a firearm.

Citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right – such as the individual right to possess a firearm – as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so.

If conservatives were smart they’d acknowledge the fact that a gun in the home is more likely to kill a household member than an intruder.

If conservatives were smart they’d acknowledge the fact that there is no evidence in support of the idea that the carrying of concealed firearms reduces crime or acts as deterrent to gun crime and violence.

And if conservatives were smart they’d acknowledge the fact that there’s nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that supports citizens ‘overthrowing’ a lawfully elected government because a minority of citizens perceive that government as ‘tyrannical.’

Citizens have the right to possess guns and carry concealed firearms because the Constitution acknowledges and safeguards that right – no other justification is needed; no other argument needs to be made.

Unfortunately, conservatives aren’t smart.

You lefties are incapable of saying "you're wrong, and here is why". What you do instead is, you set the goal and would do anything, including lies, cheats, insults, attacks, etc. in order to make it happen. It did worked for you for some time, but those people that you call stupid finally saw you for what you really are.

Saying something is a "fact", like you did above, doesn't make it a fact because "you said so", but backing it up with the data that support the said fact. And since you haven't provided any data, you double down by saying, "if you were smart, you would believe this bullshit I am about to write is a fact".

You lefties are acting like you have monopoly on "facts" and deciding what "smart" is. Don't you see how stupid that is?

They are organically brain damaged and programmed not to think, but to emote, spasm uncontrollably, and attack.

 

[koshergrl]

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

Muster the unorganized militia and regulate them well, until crime drops.

Let's start with gun lovers, first.

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

read the rest of the Amendment, not just the part you like.

" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,"

The right was given to the people, not the militia.

the People are the Militia. Only well regulated militia of the whole People, are declared Necessary to the security of a free State. The unorganized militia is nowhere enumerated, necessary.

Didn't even read my post, did you?

they didn't give the right to the militia, they gave it to the people.

Militia, at the time, consisted of able bodied men between the ages of 16-45.

it excluded women of all ages, boys under the age of 16, and over the age of 45, and those physically infirm.

Which is why they gave the right to the people.

you simply appeal to ignorance by believing the terms, the people and the militia, are distinguishable under the common law, for the common defense.

The right to bear arms is a personal right and one of the primary rights our constitution protects.

When people say differently, they are lying and they are fighting to remove the foundation of our country and government. It should be a crime in this country to challenge the Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

you simply appeal to ignorance by believing the terms, the people and the militia, are distinguishable under the common law, for the common defense.

and you're stuck on the term militia, and ignore the rest of the amendment.

which highlights your ignorance on the subject.

projecting much, right winger? both terms, militia and the people are plural and collective, not singular and individual. who is appealing to ignorance of the simple meaning of the words involved?

you seem to be.

Question: Would 15 year old Phoebe Ann Mosey, had she lived at the time, been allowed to 'keep and bear arms'?

She was under age to belong to a militia, and the wrong sex.

But she was far more competent than the majority of men to handle firearms.

You may have heard of her under her 'stage' name.

Annie Oakley.

The people are the militia under the common law for the common defense.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

one mans opinion?

insufficient.

and fails tto make your case.

Nor does this make mine:

""The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson"

""… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette"

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"


and many more, for your reading pleasure:

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

That understanding by George Mason is the common law for our Republic and several States.

 

[BlackSand]

You already see the damage that the weapons which are allowed do in the hands of crazies.

We have certainly seen what they can do in the hands of an unchecked government as well ...
I am not interested in whether or not you have faith in the government.

Do you think this hypothetical situation is worth the thousands of deaths that guns cause today?

The people that will be fighting to protect their rights ... And who they will be fighting ... Aren't the ones who want to fight.
People who feel they have noting to lose in that fight (no skin in the game) ... Are the ones who will insist on it.

If you want to talk about thousands dead ... And no one really a winner ... Make sure you remember what you are talking about ...



.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Muster the unorganized militia and regulate them well, until crime drops.

Let's start with gun lovers, first.

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

read the rest of the Amendment, not just the part you like.

" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,"

The right was given to the people, not the militia.

the People are the Militia. Only well regulated militia of the whole People, are declared Necessary to the security of a free State. The unorganized militia is nowhere enumerated, necessary.

Didn't even read my post, did you?

they didn't give the right to the militia, they gave it to the people.

Militia, at the time, consisted of able bodied men between the ages of 16-45.

it excluded women of all ages, boys under the age of 16, and over the age of 45, and those physically infirm.

Which is why they gave the right to the people.

you simply appeal to ignorance by believing the terms, the people and the militia, are distinguishable under the common law, for the common defense.

The right to bear arms is a personal right and one of the primary rights our constitution protects.

When people say differently, they are lying and they are fighting to remove the foundation of our country and government. It should be a crime in this country to challenge the Constitution.

we are quibbling about the meaning of our Second Amendment. Clearly expressed powers are literal, not implied.

 

[Auld Phart]

and you're stuck on the term militia, and ignore the rest of the amendment.

which highlights your ignorance on the subject.

projecting much, right winger? both terms, militia and the people are plural and collective, not singular and individual. who is appealing to ignorance of the simple meaning of the words involved?

you seem to be.

Question: Would 15 year old Phoebe Ann Mosey, had she lived at the time, been allowed to 'keep and bear arms'?

She was under age to belong to a militia, and the wrong sex.

But she was far more competent than the majority of men to handle firearms.

You may have heard of her under her 'stage' name.

Annie Oakley.

The people are the militia under the common law for the common defense.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

one mans opinion?

insufficient.

and fails tto make your case.

Nor does this make mine:

""The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson"

""… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette"

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"


and many more, for your reading pleasure:

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

That understanding by George Mason is the common law for our Republic and several States.

What makes it more important than the others I posted, or the other on the website I provided.

common law for our Republic?

according to ?

several States?

how many out of our current 50?

Do the laws in those states prevent anyone from owning a firearm, unless they belong to a recognized Militia?

I'm guessing....NO.

your failed arguments are extremely one sided, and erroneous in most details.

 

[koshergrl]

You already see the damage that the weapons which are allowed do in the hands of crazies.

We have certainly seen what they can do in the hands of an unchecked government as well ...
I am not interested in whether or not you have faith in the government.

Do you think this hypothetical situation is worth the thousands of deaths that guns cause today?

The people that will be fighting to protect their rights ... And who they will be fighting ... Aren't the ones who want to fight.
People who feel they have noting to lose in that fight (no skin in the game) ... Are the ones who will insist on it.

If you want to talk about thousands dead ... And no one really a winner ... Make sure you remember what you are talking about ...



.

The vast majority of gun deaths in this country take place in gun free, black, neighborhoods and the perps are primarily young blacks either trying to impress older black males or with extensive rap sheets covered with violent and property crimes.

If people really wanted to stop gun deaths, they would put a wall around the inner cities and just wait until they all kill each other. It will be different than the Polish ghettos because we will go ahead and feed them...and let them keep the weapons they have. And we could let them leave...if they have no violent past offenses. Otherwise, just leave them there. Don't record the continued gun deaths within the walls.

Instant and drastic reduction (to the point of almost disappearing) of violent gun crime in the US.

 

[BlackSand]

You already see the damage that the weapons which are allowed do in the hands of crazies.

We have certainly seen what they can do in the hands of an unchecked government as well ...
I am not interested in whether or not you have faith in the government.

Do you think this hypothetical situation is worth the thousands of deaths that guns cause today?

The people that will be fighting to protect their rights ... And who they will be fighting ... Aren't the ones who want to fight.
People who feel they have noting to lose in that fight (no skin in the game) ... Are the ones who will insist on it.

If you want to talk about thousands dead ... And no one really a winner ... Make sure you remember what you are talking about ...



.

The vast majority of gun deaths in this country take place in gun free, black, neighborhoods and the perps are primarily young blacks either trying to impress older black males or with extensive rap sheets covered with violent and property crimes.

If people really wanted to stop gun deaths, they would put a wall around the inner cities and just wait until they all kill each other. It will be different than the Polish ghettos because we will go ahead and feed them...and let them keep the weapons they have. And we could let them leave...if they have no violent past offenses. Otherwise, just leave them there.

It doesn't matter as far as the Constitution and our protected rights are concerned.

I don't need an excuse for the obvious.
I don't care how or why someone wants to take my rights away.
I don't need to justify what was clearly the intent of our right to bear arms.

If anyone wants it to be any different ... They are going to have to change the Constitution.
That can be done ... And if the People feel it is necessary ... They can stake their lives on it ...

.

 

[danielpalos]

projecting much, right winger? both terms, militia and the people are plural and collective, not singular and individual. who is appealing to ignorance of the simple meaning of the words involved?

you seem to be.

Question: Would 15 year old Phoebe Ann Mosey, had she lived at the time, been allowed to 'keep and bear arms'?

She was under age to belong to a militia, and the wrong sex.

But she was far more competent than the majority of men to handle firearms.

You may have heard of her under her 'stage' name.

Annie Oakley.

The people are the militia under the common law for the common defense.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

one mans opinion?

insufficient.

and fails tto make your case.

Nor does this make mine:

""The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson"

""… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette"

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"


and many more, for your reading pleasure:

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

That understanding by George Mason is the common law for our Republic and several States.

What makes it more important than the others I posted, or the other on the website I provided.

common law for our Republic?

according to ?

several States?

how many out of our current 50?

Do the laws in those states prevent anyone from owning a firearm, unless they belong to a recognized Militia?

I'm guessing....NO.

your failed arguments are extremely one sided, and erroneous in most details.

you are confusing two different issues. natural rights, really are found and secured in our State Constitutions.

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.

 

[Auld Phart]

you seem to be.

Question: Would 15 year old Phoebe Ann Mosey, had she lived at the time, been allowed to 'keep and bear arms'?

She was under age to belong to a militia, and the wrong sex.

But she was far more competent than the majority of men to handle firearms.

You may have heard of her under her 'stage' name.

Annie Oakley.

The people are the militia under the common law for the common defense.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

one mans opinion?

insufficient.

and fails tto make your case.

Nor does this make mine:

""The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson"

""… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette"

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"


and many more, for your reading pleasure:

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

That understanding by George Mason is the common law for our Republic and several States.

What makes it more important than the others I posted, or the other on the website I provided.

common law for our Republic?

according to ?

several States?

how many out of our current 50?

Do the laws in those states prevent anyone from owning a firearm, unless they belong to a recognized Militia?

I'm guessing....NO.

your failed arguments are extremely one sided, and erroneous in most details.

you are confusing two different issues. natural rights, really are found and secured in our State Constitutions.

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.

only if you stop reading it after the word Militia.

and, if you look at my link, several presidents, and well known personages of the time disagree with you.

 

[danielpalos]

The people are the militia under the common law for the common defense.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

one mans opinion?

insufficient.

and fails tto make your case.

Nor does this make mine:

""The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson"

""… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette"

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"


and many more, for your reading pleasure:

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

That understanding by George Mason is the common law for our Republic and several States.

What makes it more important than the others I posted, or the other on the website I provided.

common law for our Republic?

according to ?

several States?

how many out of our current 50?

Do the laws in those states prevent anyone from owning a firearm, unless they belong to a recognized Militia?

I'm guessing....NO.

your failed arguments are extremely one sided, and erroneous in most details.

you are confusing two different issues. natural rights, really are found and secured in our State Constitutions.

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.

only if you stop reading it after the word Militia.

and, if you look at my link, several presidents, and well known personages of the time disagree with you.

the people is plural and collective, not singular and individual. why should I believe your allegation over the actual words in our supreme law of the land.

 

[Auld Phart]

one mans opinion?

insufficient.

and fails tto make your case.

Nor does this make mine:

""The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson"

""… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette"

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"


and many more, for your reading pleasure:

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

That understanding by George Mason is the common law for our Republic and several States.

What makes it more important than the others I posted, or the other on the website I provided.

common law for our Republic?

according to ?

several States?

how many out of our current 50?

Do the laws in those states prevent anyone from owning a firearm, unless they belong to a recognized Militia?

I'm guessing....NO.

your failed arguments are extremely one sided, and erroneous in most details.

you are confusing two different issues. natural rights, really are found and secured in our State Constitutions.

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.

only if you stop reading it after the word Militia.

and, if you look at my link, several presidents, and well known personages of the time disagree with you.

the people is plural and collective, not singular and individual. why should I believe your allegation over the actual words in our supreme law of the land.

" why should I believe your allegation over the actual words in our supreme law of the land."

you're ignoring the 'actual' words.

You keep stopping at 'Militia', and ignore the Right of the People.

 

[koshergrl]

one mans opinion?

insufficient.

and fails tto make your case.

Nor does this make mine:

""The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson"

""… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette"

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"


and many more, for your reading pleasure:

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

That understanding by George Mason is the common law for our Republic and several States.

What makes it more important than the others I posted, or the other on the website I provided.

common law for our Republic?

according to ?

several States?

how many out of our current 50?

Do the laws in those states prevent anyone from owning a firearm, unless they belong to a recognized Militia?

I'm guessing....NO.

your failed arguments are extremely one sided, and erroneous in most details.

you are confusing two different issues. natural rights, really are found and secured in our State Constitutions.

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.

only if you stop reading it after the word Militia.

and, if you look at my link, several presidents, and well known personages of the time disagree with you.

the people is plural and collective, not singular and individual. why should I believe your allegation over the actual words in our supreme law of the land.

Bullshit lolol.

Seriously. Now you are just lying. Our country was built to protect the INDIVIDUAL FROM the collective.

Sorry, we aren't accepting your adjustment of terms. The terms still mean what they always meant. The people is also the person. The people is not synonymous with government...our constitution protects the people, and the person, from the government. And the primary thing that is protected is our right to arm ourselves as we please.

 

[koshergrl]

That is what the schools teach them, however. It's classic and flagrant "misinformation" fed to the masses by statist fools in our indoctrination centers.

 

[danielpalos]

That understanding by George Mason is the common law for our Republic and several States.

What makes it more important than the others I posted, or the other on the website I provided.

common law for our Republic?

according to ?

several States?

how many out of our current 50?

Do the laws in those states prevent anyone from owning a firearm, unless they belong to a recognized Militia?

I'm guessing....NO.

your failed arguments are extremely one sided, and erroneous in most details.

you are confusing two different issues. natural rights, really are found and secured in our State Constitutions.

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.

only if you stop reading it after the word Militia.

and, if you look at my link, several presidents, and well known personages of the time disagree with you.

the people is plural and collective, not singular and individual. why should I believe your allegation over the actual words in our supreme law of the land.

" why should I believe your allegation over the actual words in our supreme law of the land."

you're ignoring the 'actual' words.

You keep stopping at 'Militia', and ignore the Right of the People.

the people is collective and plural. Not Individual. There are no individual rights in the usage of the term People in our Second Amendment. It is a fallacy of composition, to believe there are any individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

That understanding by George Mason is the common law for our Republic and several States.

What makes it more important than the others I posted, or the other on the website I provided.

common law for our Republic?

according to ?

several States?

how many out of our current 50?

Do the laws in those states prevent anyone from owning a firearm, unless they belong to a recognized Militia?

I'm guessing....NO.

your failed arguments are extremely one sided, and erroneous in most details.

you are confusing two different issues. natural rights, really are found and secured in our State Constitutions.

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.

only if you stop reading it after the word Militia.

and, if you look at my link, several presidents, and well known personages of the time disagree with you.

the people is plural and collective, not singular and individual. why should I believe your allegation over the actual words in our supreme law of the land.

Bullshit lolol.

Seriously. Now you are just lying. Our country was built to protect the INDIVIDUAL FROM the collective.

Sorry, we aren't accepting your adjustment of terms. The terms still mean what they always meant. The people is also the person. The people is not synonymous with government...our constitution protects the people, and the person, from the government. And the primary thing that is protected is our right to arm ourselves as we please.

any dictionary definition proves my point, dear.

 

[WinterBorn]

What makes it more important than the others I posted, or the other on the website I provided.

common law for our Republic?

according to ?

several States?

how many out of our current 50?

Do the laws in those states prevent anyone from owning a firearm, unless they belong to a recognized Militia?

I'm guessing....NO.

your failed arguments are extremely one sided, and erroneous in most details.

you are confusing two different issues. natural rights, really are found and secured in our State Constitutions.

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.

only if you stop reading it after the word Militia.

and, if you look at my link, several presidents, and well known personages of the time disagree with you.

the people is plural and collective, not singular and individual. why should I believe your allegation over the actual words in our supreme law of the land.

" why should I believe your allegation over the actual words in our supreme law of the land."

you're ignoring the 'actual' words.

You keep stopping at 'Militia', and ignore the Right of the People.

the people is collective and plural. Not Individual. There are no individual rights in the usage of the term People in our Second Amendment. It is a fallacy of composition, to believe there are any individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.

Absolute nonsense.

1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Is the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the gov't for a redress of grievances a collective right?

4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches & seizures a collective right?



The US Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

 

[WinterBorn]

one mans opinion?

insufficient.

and fails tto make your case.

Nor does this make mine:

""The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson"

""… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette"

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"


and many more, for your reading pleasure:

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

That understanding by George Mason is the common law for our Republic and several States.

What makes it more important than the others I posted, or the other on the website I provided.

common law for our Republic?

according to ?

several States?

how many out of our current 50?

Do the laws in those states prevent anyone from owning a firearm, unless they belong to a recognized Militia?

I'm guessing....NO.

your failed arguments are extremely one sided, and erroneous in most details.

you are confusing two different issues. natural rights, really are found and secured in our State Constitutions.

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.

only if you stop reading it after the word Militia.

and, if you look at my link, several presidents, and well known personages of the time disagree with you.

the people is plural and collective, not singular and individual. why should I believe your allegation over the actual words in our supreme law of the land.

The exact same wording is used in the 4th amendment. By your logic, there is no such thing as illegal search & seizure as long as it is only against an individual and not a group. I guess cops can stop reading people their rights under Miranda, as long as it is individuals, right?