Nancy Grace questions the right to bear arms.

[Sallow]

It matters not one whit what you "feel" the 2nd conveys. The Court has spoken, it IS a personal right, IT IS a right conveyed irrespective of belonging to a militia.

Further the State of Florida granted Zimmerman a concealed carry permit, so long as he carried within the limits of Florida law ( which he did) he is not obliged to answer why he happened to be carrying that night.

Nothing to do with "feeling".



That's the full amendment. You folks seldom quote it in full.

Trying reading it.

It's in English.

Once again.. Let us refer back to Jefferson..

"I think the truth must now be obvious that our people are too happy at home to enter into regular service, and that we cannot be defended but by making every citizen a soldier, as the Greeks and Romans who had no standing armies; and that in doing this all must be marshaled, classed by their ages, and every service ascribed to its competent class."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1814.

Every Citizen is a member of the Militia simply by being a Citizen. Therefore right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed.

Wait a minute?

Jefferson?

Who, when a real fight came to his doorstep, fled?

Really?

That's the guy you want to hold up as a "defender" of the second amendment?

News and Features - Richmond Magazine

 

[Interpol]

I should rephrase that:

Nancy Grace admittedly ignores the right to bear arms.

And she did it with hatred, rage and ire.

I can't wait to get the video clip.

Let's not ignore it.

Let's go with it.

What militia does the person belong too and was that person involved in defense of the state?

Irrelevant questions and you know it. When a State issues a concealed carry permit one is free within the confines of State law to carry said weapon anywhere that is legal. The Supreme Court was clear the 2nd Amendment is a personal right irregardless of any membership in a militia.

Then that would be judicial activism, because the Constitution allows for the right to bear arms for people in a militia representing the state.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Nothing to do with "feeling".



That's the full amendment. You folks seldom quote it in full.

Trying reading it.

It's in English.

Once again.. Let us refer back to Jefferson..

"I think the truth must now be obvious that our people are too happy at home to enter into regular service, and that we cannot be defended but by making every citizen a soldier, as the Greeks and Romans who had no standing armies; and that in doing this all must be marshaled, classed by their ages, and every service ascribed to its competent class."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1814.

Every Citizen is a member of the Militia simply by being a Citizen. Therefore right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed.

Wait a minute?

Jefferson?

Who, when a real fight came to his doorstep, fled?

Really?

That's the guy you want to hold up as a "defender" of the second amendment?

News and Features - Richmond Magazine

Did I say he was a "defender" of the Second Amendment?

I said he was explaining the 2nd Amendment. As his explanation of the 1st has been the ground work for restraining Religious activity, I would expect that he is of sufficient Constitutional Authority to likewise explain the Second Amendment.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Let's not ignore it.

Let's go with it.

What militia does the person belong too and was that person involved in defense of the state?

Irrelevant questions and you know it. When a State issues a concealed carry permit one is free within the confines of State law to carry said weapon anywhere that is legal. The Supreme Court was clear the 2nd Amendment is a personal right irregardless of any membership in a militia.

Then that would be judicial activism, because the Constitution allows for the right to bear arms for people in a militia representing the state.

Where does it say that?

It's not in my copy of the Constitution.

 

[OriginalShroom]

And just one more quotation of Jefferson to help those with learning disabilities..

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."


--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

 

[Sallow]

Once again.. Let us refer back to Jefferson..



Every Citizen is a member of the Militia simply by being a Citizen. Therefore right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed.

Wait a minute?

Jefferson?

Who, when a real fight came to his doorstep, fled?

Really?

That's the guy you want to hold up as a "defender" of the second amendment?

News and Features - Richmond Magazine

Did I say he was a "defender" of the Second Amendment?

I said he was explaining the 2nd Amendment. As his explanation of the 1st has been the ground work for restraining Religious activity, I would expect that he is of sufficient Constitutional Authority to likewise explain the Second Amendment.

When you bring up Jefferson, you bring up a complicated individual who changed a lot of his views during the course of his life.

Like the whole "tree of liberty" thing changed after Jefferson got a good look at what that meant during the French Revolution.

Or his idea of "Federal Power" after he became President.

So you'd better be able to explain that stuff..or don't bring him up.

 

[Sallow]

Irrelevant questions and you know it. When a State issues a concealed carry permit one is free within the confines of State law to carry said weapon anywhere that is legal. The Supreme Court was clear the 2nd Amendment is a personal right irregardless of any membership in a militia.

Then that would be judicial activism, because the Constitution allows for the right to bear arms for people in a militia representing the state.

Where does it say that?

It's not in my copy of the Constitution.

Read the second amendment again.

It's pretty plain.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The original intent was to have male citizens defend the homeland.

That's what the second amendment was all about.

Got it?

The Second Amendment even tells you what it is "all about."

"Being NECESSARY to the security of a FREE state."

not

"Being OPTIONAL to the security of a POLICE state."\

Here's the full text:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The subject: A well regulated (disciplined) Militia.

The Purpose (ends): To protect Popular Sovereignty.

The Method (means): The People shall keep and bear arms, and this shall NOT be infringed.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Wait a minute?

Jefferson?

Who, when a real fight came to his doorstep, fled?

Really?

That's the guy you want to hold up as a "defender" of the second amendment?

News and Features - Richmond Magazine

Did I say he was a "defender" of the Second Amendment?

I said he was explaining the 2nd Amendment. As his explanation of the 1st has been the ground work for restraining Religious activity, I would expect that he is of sufficient Constitutional Authority to likewise explain the Second Amendment.

When you bring up Jefferson, you bring up a complicated individual who changed a lot of his views during the course of his life.

Like the whole "tree of liberty" thing changed after Jefferson got a good look at what that meant during the French Revolution.

Or his idea of "Federal Power" after he became President.

So you'd better be able to explain that stuff..or don't bring him up.

Perhaps you have some quotations of his which he later used to refute these I have provided?

At the time of the writing, debating, and adapting the Constitution, there never was a debate as to if the 2nd Amendment applied only to those in the militia or that it was not a right of the individual. As noted by Stephen P. Halbrook, no such debate ever occurred. It was considered by all that it was an individual right of the Citizen to keep and bear arms.

I would even go so far as to say that they felt it was a responsibility of each man to own and be proficient in the use of a firearm. Not only for their own protection, but, as Jefferson noted, they were the first line of defense until the regular could relieve them.

 

[Avatar4321]

Sallow,

Finally, to end your confusion...

In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis.

-- Stephen P. Halbrook, "That Every Man Be Armed", 1984

I'm not confused in the slightest.

The fact you have to go outside to constitution and indeed history shows the opposite.

Shortly after the revolution, the Continental Army was disbanded.

The original intent was to have male citizens defend the homeland.

That's what the second amendment was all about.

It had nothing whatsoever to do with personal protection, hunting or overthrowing the government.

Got it?

Wait. So you are arguing that your position is correct because he provided context for the amendment and you didn't have to?

 

[Sallow]

The original intent was to have male citizens defend the homeland.

That's what the second amendment was all about.

Got it?

The Second Amendment even tells you what it is "all about."

"Being NECESSARY to the security of a FREE state."

not

"Being OPTIONAL to the security of a POLICE state."\

Here's the full text:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The subject: A well regulated (disciplined) Militia.

The Purpose (ends): To protect Popular Sovereignty.

The Method (means): The People shall keep and bear arms, and this shall NOT be infringed.

And?

You're basically backing me up here.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Then that would be judicial activism, because the Constitution allows for the right to bear arms for people in a militia representing the state.

Where does it say that?

It's not in my copy of the Constitution.

Read the second amendment again.

It's pretty plain.

I've read it hundreds of times.

No where does it say what you are claiming it says.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

And?

You're basically backing me up here.

State your general argument, so I can determine that.

 

[Sallow]

Did I say he was a "defender" of the Second Amendment?

I said he was explaining the 2nd Amendment. As his explanation of the 1st has been the ground work for restraining Religious activity, I would expect that he is of sufficient Constitutional Authority to likewise explain the Second Amendment.

When you bring up Jefferson, you bring up a complicated individual who changed a lot of his views during the course of his life.

Like the whole "tree of liberty" thing changed after Jefferson got a good look at what that meant during the French Revolution.

Or his idea of "Federal Power" after he became President.

So you'd better be able to explain that stuff..or don't bring him up.

Perhaps you have some quotations of his which he later used to refute these I have provided?

At the time of the writing, debating, and adapting the Constitution, there never was a debate as to if the 2nd Amendment applied only to those in the militia or that it was not a right of the individual. As noted by Stephen P. Halbrook, no such debate ever occurred. It was considered by all that it was an individual right of the Citizen to keep and bear arms.

I would even go so far as to say that they felt it was a responsibility of each man to own and be proficient in the use of a firearm. Not only for their own protection, but, as Jefferson noted, they were the first line of defense until the regular could relieve them.

Why?

Jefferson isn't the sole author of the Constitution. He may not even have had much to do with it.

The Constitution is pretty clear about collective and individual rights.

The People and Persons are used to make those distinctions.

 

[Sallow]

And?

You're basically backing me up here.

State your general argument, so I can determine that.

It's in the thread.

In a nutshell, the Constitution provided for ground forces..on the cheap.

There's nothing cheaper then citizens that have to provide for their own gear.

 

[Sallow]

Where does it say that?

It's not in my copy of the Constitution.

Read the second amendment again.

It's pretty plain.

I've read it hundreds of times.

No where does it say what you are claiming it says.

So defense of the state and militia are meaningless..eh?

The only thing that's germane is the "shall not be infringed" part?

Oh man.

 

[OriginalShroom]

When you bring up Jefferson, you bring up a complicated individual who changed a lot of his views during the course of his life.

Like the whole "tree of liberty" thing changed after Jefferson got a good look at what that meant during the French Revolution.

Or his idea of "Federal Power" after he became President.

So you'd better be able to explain that stuff..or don't bring him up.

Perhaps you have some quotations of his which he later used to refute these I have provided?

At the time of the writing, debating, and adapting the Constitution, there never was a debate as to if the 2nd Amendment applied only to those in the militia or that it was not a right of the individual. As noted by Stephen P. Halbrook, no such debate ever occurred. It was considered by all that it was an individual right of the Citizen to keep and bear arms.

I would even go so far as to say that they felt it was a responsibility of each man to own and be proficient in the use of a firearm. Not only for their own protection, but, as Jefferson noted, they were the first line of defense until the regular could relieve them.

Why?

Jefferson isn't the sole author of the Constitution. He may not even have had much to do with it.

The Constitution is pretty clear about collective and individual rights.

The People and Persons are used to make those distinctions.

Please show me an example of "collective" rights being listed in the Constitution and the words "The People" are used in the same sentence.

Jefferson may not have written the entire Constitution, but his expertise on it meanings has been accepted by the Courts and the Congress, as well as the Presidency for years.

Are you now suggesting that he is not the expert on it, especially the Bill of Rights, as everyone has been led to believe for all these years? That his writings, explaining them, is not what we have be lead to believe they were?

 

[Avatar4321]

Why?

Jefferson isn't the sole author of the Constitution. He may not even have had much to do with it.

The Constitution is pretty clear about collective and individual rights.

The People and Persons are used to make those distinctions.

He had nothing to do with it. he was in France when it was written.

That doesn't mean he didnt understand it though.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

And?

You're basically backing me up here.

State your general argument, so I can determine that.

It's in the thread.

In a nutshell, the Constitution provided for ground forces..on the cheap.

There's nothing cheaper then citizens that have to provide for their own gear.

That may be the effect of the Second Amendment, that doesn't mean that it is primary purpose.

For instance, one effect of the First Amendment is that it allows for the paparazzi, does that mean it is the intended purpose of the First Amendment?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The Constitution is pretty clear about collective and individual rights.

The People and Persons are used to make those distinctions.

Ok, let's cite the Fourth Amendment, because by your definition, it is a collective right:

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.

In fact, let's examine every instance of where "The People" occurs:

PREAMBLE

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union

Article I Section 2:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,

First Amendment:

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Second Amendment:

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

Fourth 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,

Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

17th Amendment:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years;

Let's assume that none of these are individual rights, or that the individual is not the basic unit of the clause.

PREAMBLE - We, the majority of People, in order to form a more perfect Union at the expense of the minority.

Article I, Section 2 - The House of Representatives will be chosen every second year by certain groups of people, and of those groups some individuals may be excluded.

First Amendment - The right of particular groups, whose goals are to benefit the nation (as determined by the government) have the right to peacefully assemble, and if any individual shall abuse that privilege, it shall result in labeling the entire group as a terrorist organization (FBI labeled Occupy Wall Street terrorist group), as the group, the primary unit, is responsible for the actions of its divisions.

Second Amendment - The right of government approved groups to keep and bear arms, under extensive regulation (not the same as well-regulated) and surveillance, shall not be otherwise infringed, and if any privileged and licensed person shall abuse such a privileged, the entire group will suffer and be subject to increased regulations and surveillance, as the group is responsible for the actions of its divisions.

Fourth Amendment - Warrants shall not issue for protected and recognized and registered groups, but any individual not part of a government recognized group does not have this privilege.

Ninth Amendment - The enumeration in this Constitution, of certain rights, is a fruitless and useless endeavor, because obviously the Necessary and Proper Clause gives the government to pass any thing it so wishes, so there is no point in enumerating the powers of the federal government, because those powers are unlimited. Thus, the entire Constitution is a useless document. Only the government decides which groups have privileges and which do not.

Tenth Amendment - Obviously the Supremacy Clause nullifies the Tenth Amendment, even though the 10th Amendment was ratified AFTER the original Constitution, group logic.

------------------------
Do you see how dangerous your thinking is, and why none of the founding fathers expounded such ideas? Why none of the States, in their ratification documents and debates, every discussed such nonsense?

It would be funny if I was exaggerating in the above; however, I was not; in fact, it is even worse than what I wrote. That is har far we've strayed from the Constitution, that the Constitution is a foreign and alien document to present day America, thanks to: The Supreme Court.

Thomas Jefferson even warned of this:

To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

The Jury, which is the People, are the only entity permitted to interpret the Constitution, and this was very clear back in the day, by both Jefferson and the Supreme Court itself:

I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.

In 1794 First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court John Jay said, "The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."

Furthermore, that Constitution only grants the States the right to AMEND the Constitution, which puts Nullification, another doctrine of Jefferson, and very sound footing.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/kent1798.htm

1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.