The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[danielpalos]

Civil rights are distinct from the concept of natural and individual rights. That is the point we are quibbling. Thanks.

Not really. Rights are right. One can certainly break them down into specific subcategories for organizational purposes if they want, but at the end of the day, they are still rights. One does not differ from the other in terms of the ramifications.

A “Civil Right” is an individual right just as a “Natural Right” is an individual right. There is simply no such thing as “collective” rights.

The People are plural and collective as the electorate of the United States.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Are we back to leftists trying to misinterpret the 2nd Amendment?

Do they ever get tired? For Odin's sake.

The Constitution forbids Congress from regulating arms via the 2nd Amendment. That's it. It has nothing to do with a militia or the security of a free state. It is a bar on Congressional action. It is a reservation of power to the States.

Thus, all federal gun laws are unconstitutional and should be struck down as such. End of story.

That's it.

There is no need to get into a long debate about rights, "collective" or otherwise.

 

[danielpalos]

Are we back to leftists trying to misinterpret the 2nd Amendment?

Do they ever get tired? For Odin's sake.

The Constitution forbids Congress from regulating arms via the 2nd Amendment. That's it. It has nothing to do with a militia or the security of a free state. It is a bar on Congressional action. It is a reservation of power to the States.

Thus, all federal gun laws are unconstitutional and should be struck down as such. End of story.

That's it.

There is no need to get into a long debate about rights, "collective" or otherwise.

The militia gets its wellness of regulation from Congress and the militia acts.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The people protesting our 2nd Amendment literally have no idea what they are even protesting...

#MarchForOurLives Protesters: "Ban Assault Weapons!" Can't Define 'Assault Weapon'

I wish this was surprising. But I was talking to a friend of a friend the other day. He tried to tell me what a shooting enthusiast he was, and then proceeded to rant about how we need to ban bump stocks immediately because "an attachment that can convert a gun to fully automatic is just wrong and unnecessary!"

People need to understand that if they're going to repeat what they hear in media soundbytes as though it were in-depth, researched fact, all the gun rights supporters are going to hear is "Guns is scary and dangerous!" And just as the above article said, they're not going to be eager to surrender their rights to that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We Are Quibbling. The Terms are Plural, not Individual

Yeah...becuase there is more than one citizen...you dumb ass.

Holy shit - you actually believed that the (s) on the end of the terms means that rights are collective?!?

View attachment 186919

Time for someone to learn the difference between "plural" and "collective", I guess.

Ever notice how much time has to be spent teaching leftists basic English grammar before you can even START informing them how ignorant they are?

 

[danielpalos]

We Are Quibbling. The Terms are Plural, not Individual

Yeah...becuase there is more than one citizen...you dumb ass.

Holy shit - you actually believed that the (s) on the end of the terms means that rights are collective?!?

View attachment 186919

Time for someone to learn the difference between "plural" and "collective", I guess.

Ever notice how much time has to be spent teaching leftists basic English grammar before you can even START informing them how ignorant they are?

Both militia, the people, and the Concept of the security of a free State, are collective, not individual.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

 

[P@triot]

Both militia, the people, and the Concept of the security of a free State, are collective, not individual.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

There is no such thing as a “collective right”. All rights are individual rights. It’s just an indisputable fact no matter how much you scream otherwise.

 

[danielpalos]

Both militia, the people, and the Concept of the security of a free State, are collective, not individual.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

There is no such thing as a “collective right”. All rights are individual rights. It’s just an indisputable fact no matter how much you scream otherwise.

The People means collective, civil rights, not natural, individual rights.

 

[hadit]

Both militia, the people, and the Concept of the security of a free State, are collective, not individual.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

There is no such thing as a “collective right”. All rights are individual rights. It’s just an indisputable fact no matter how much you scream otherwise.

The People means collective, civil rights, not natural, individual rights.

Are you thus claiming that the 1st amendment is a collective right and you as an individual can have your speech curtailed by the government? "The people" have plenty of speech that they can exercise every time they vote. You, OTOH as an individual, do not need the freedom to write what you want in a public opinion board and therefore can be silenced. Only as a well regulated group are you allowed to speak publicly. After all, speech is more dangerous than are weapons.

Is that really where you want to go?

 

[Contumacious]

Both militia, the people, and the Concept of the security of a free State, are collective, not individual.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

There is no such thing as a “collective right”. All rights are individual rights. It’s just an indisputable fact no matter how much you scream otherwise.

The People means collective, civil rights, not natural, individual rights.

So the Founding Fathers were using the "Communist Manifesto" as a guide, Do you have a link?

.

 

[danielpalos]

Both militia, the people, and the Concept of the security of a free State, are collective, not individual.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

There is no such thing as a “collective right”. All rights are individual rights. It’s just an indisputable fact no matter how much you scream otherwise.

The People means collective, civil rights, not natural, individual rights.

Are you thus claiming that the 1st amendment is a collective right and you as an individual can have your speech curtailed by the government? "The people" have plenty of speech that they can exercise every time they vote. You, OTOH as an individual, do not need the freedom to write what you want in a public opinion board and therefore can be silenced. Only as a well regulated group are you allowed to speak publicly. After all, speech is more dangerous than are weapons.

Is that really where you want to go?

we are quibbling. The People is plural not Individual; they could have used, Persons, like in most State Constitutions, where natural and individual rights, are recognized and secured via Due Process.

 

[danielpalos]

Both militia, the people, and the Concept of the security of a free State, are collective, not individual.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

There is no such thing as a “collective right”. All rights are individual rights. It’s just an indisputable fact no matter how much you scream otherwise.

The People means collective, civil rights, not natural, individual rights.

So the Founding Fathers were using the "Communist Manifesto" as a guide, Do you have a link?

.

Only in right wing, red herring fantasy. I don't need a link, Only a dictionary. Words have precise meaning. Only the right wing, never gets it. Coincidence, or conspiracy.

 

[hadit]

Both militia, the people, and the Concept of the security of a free State, are collective, not individual.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

There is no such thing as a “collective right”. All rights are individual rights. It’s just an indisputable fact no matter how much you scream otherwise.

The People means collective, civil rights, not natural, individual rights.

Are you thus claiming that the 1st amendment is a collective right and you as an individual can have your speech curtailed by the government? "The people" have plenty of speech that they can exercise every time they vote. You, OTOH as an individual, do not need the freedom to write what you want in a public opinion board and therefore can be silenced. Only as a well regulated group are you allowed to speak publicly. After all, speech is more dangerous than are weapons.

Is that really where you want to go?

we are quibbling. The People is plural not Individual; they could have used, Persons, like in most State Constitutions, where natural and individual rights, are recognized and secured via Due Process.

You ignored the question.

 

[danielpalos]

Both militia, the people, and the Concept of the security of a free State, are collective, not individual.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

There is no such thing as a “collective right”. All rights are individual rights. It’s just an indisputable fact no matter how much you scream otherwise.

The People means collective, civil rights, not natural, individual rights.

Are you thus claiming that the 1st amendment is a collective right and you as an individual can have your speech curtailed by the government? "The people" have plenty of speech that they can exercise every time they vote. You, OTOH as an individual, do not need the freedom to write what you want in a public opinion board and therefore can be silenced. Only as a well regulated group are you allowed to speak publicly. After all, speech is more dangerous than are weapons.

Is that really where you want to go?

we are quibbling. The People is plural not Individual; they could have used, Persons, like in most State Constitutions, where natural and individual rights, are recognized and secured via Due Process.

You ignored the question.

It is your fantasy, why don't You, run with it? You are simply, begging the question, as far as I am concerned.

 

[hadit]

There is no such thing as a “collective right”. All rights are individual rights. It’s just an indisputable fact no matter how much you scream otherwise.

The People means collective, civil rights, not natural, individual rights.

Are you thus claiming that the 1st amendment is a collective right and you as an individual can have your speech curtailed by the government? "The people" have plenty of speech that they can exercise every time they vote. You, OTOH as an individual, do not need the freedom to write what you want in a public opinion board and therefore can be silenced. Only as a well regulated group are you allowed to speak publicly. After all, speech is more dangerous than are weapons.

Is that really where you want to go?

we are quibbling. The People is plural not Individual; they could have used, Persons, like in most State Constitutions, where natural and individual rights, are recognized and secured via Due Process.

You ignored the question.

It is your fantasy, why don't You, run with it? You are simply, begging the question, as far as I am concerned.

I'm well aware that you operate on a completely different wavelength from most of the world.

 

[Contumacious]

Both militia, the people, and the Concept of the security of a free State, are collective, not individual.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

There is no such thing as a “collective right”. All rights are individual rights. It’s just an indisputable fact no matter how much you scream otherwise.

The People means collective, civil rights, not natural, individual rights.

So the Founding Fathers were using the "Communist Manifesto" as a guide, Do you have a link?

.

Only in right wing, red herring fantasy. I don't need a link, Only a dictionary. Words have precise meaning. Only the right wing, never gets it. Coincidence, or conspiracy.

Listen closely. we are going to get our firearms from the free market but if you bastards somehow prevent us from accessing the free market then we will get them from the blackmarket.

We will not be disarmed,

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Both militia, the people, and the Concept of the security of a free State, are collective, not individual.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

There is no such thing as a “collective right”. All rights are individual rights. It’s just an indisputable fact no matter how much you scream otherwise.

The People means collective, civil rights, not natural, individual rights.

So the Founding Fathers were using the "Communist Manifesto" as a guide, Do you have a link?

.

Only in right wing, red herring fantasy. I don't need a link, Only a dictionary. Words have precise meaning. Only the right wing, never gets it. Coincidence, or conspiracy.

Listen closely. we are going to get our firearms from the free market but if you bastards somehow prevent us from accessing the free market then we will get them from the blackmarket.

We will not be disarmed,

No one has tried to prevent you from getting your firearms from legal sources. Ever. What most (notice the word Most) want is for it to be done in a common sense method. (Notice the phrase common sense). That is done through regulation. There is no mention of Banning Weapons by anyone except by the RW Gunnutz. No one is trying to ban the guns. Regulating is not Banning. It just means that there are rules and laws that you must abide by to buy, possess, transport and use the firearm. If you meet those requirements (MOST do and notice the word MOST) then you have not problem. If you don't then you have only three choices. You can become legal, do without the firearms or become a criminal as you just suggested you would become. And Criminals have no right to own firearms of any kind.

 

[P@triot]

No one has tried to prevent you from getting your firearms from legal sources.

Another egregious lie from Duh...ryl. Fully automatic firearms were banned in the 1980’s. Now I can only purchase those that were grandfathered in prior to the ban. That’s complete and total bullshit. The U.S. government simply doesn’t have the authority to tell me what type of firearms I can own. That authority does not exist. And I remain confident that history will judge that idiotic and we will get it overturned.

Currently, you immature asshats are calling for a ban on bumpstocks. That’s not even a firearm and you want to ban it!!!

Duh....ryl here is either uninformed or incapable of an honest discussion.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

No one has tried to prevent you from getting your firearms from legal sources.

Another egregious lie from Duh...ryl. Fully automatic firearms were banned in the 1980’s. Now I can only purchase those that were grandfathered in prior to the ban. That’s complete and total bullshit. The U.S. government simply doesn’t have the authority to tell me what type of firearms I can own. That authority does not exist. And I remain confident that history will judge that idiotic and we will get it overturned.

Currently, you immature asshats are calling for a ban on bumpstocks. That’s not even a firearm and you want to ban it!!!

Duh....ryl here is either uninformed or incapable of an honest discussion.

Not banned. Regulated. You just need a FFL license to own them. And MOST people can easily pass the background check for one of those. Now, unless you are a convicted felon in a state with no amnesty program or you are a fruitcake (a high probability) then you should be able to pass it as well. The only bunch that keeps bring up the word "Banned" is you bunch of fruitcakes trying to scare small children.

 

[P@triot]

Absolutely nothing ends in catastrophic failure like left-wing policy...

Crime in the UK has spiraled out of control. There are no guns in the country, and yet the murder rate in London has now overtaken that of New York City. How can that be!? People were still hurting and killing each other, but they just moved on to doing it with knives.

They’re also confiscating — and this isn’t a joke — scissors, pliers, screwdrivers, hammers… anything AT ALL that might be used as a weapon. What’s next? A ban on hands and feet?

Yes...progressivism really is that stupid. Take away guns, people will kill with knives. Take away knives, people will kill with hammers. Take away hammers, people will kill with automobiles. Take away automobiles, people will strangle their victims to death. And all the while, the idiotic left-wing policies just set society back centuries.

Quick, hide the cutlery!