True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment

[WinterBorn]

No, still not a collective right. Just like the other amendments are not collective rights.

yes, it is. all of our amendments are codified, collective rights of our Body Politic as Ordained and Established by our Founding Fathers.

All of the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights are specifically individual rights. That is why they were written.

James Madison wrote the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights specifically in answer to the calls for protection of the rights of the individual citizens.

No, they are not. All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.

Once again, of course all of them are plural. There were 2.5 million people in the country then. Not all fell under these rights at the time. But it was certainly not a situation for a singular word.

we are quibbling, dear; not merely telling stories.

YOu are quibbling. I am stating a fact that the word "people" would have to be plural since it refers to the population of citizens. The whole "it is a collective right" does not bear up if you know the history of the Bill of Right. There is also not one iota of proof that it was ever intended to be a collective right. The rest of the amendments that use the same word certainly are not collective rights.

 

[WinterBorn]

like what?

"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

The whole people are plural, not singular.

Your entire posting career has been to repeat the same crap over and over and over again. You've responded to my posts more than 25 times today alone.

IF / when you make any sensible point that has not been debunked, someone is sure to let you know.

Diversion is usually considered a fallacy.

Let's keep it simpler.

George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?

Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?

Why do you believe these people are irrelevant to the meaning of the Second?

Is it because they disagree with your opinion?

The People who are well regulated militia, do not whine about gun control laws.

And I repeat, have you ever been IN a civilian militia?

Do you know what the ultimate purpose of the unorganized militia (in federal law) is for?

Good luck. Dannyboy rarely, if ever, answers questions.

 

[WinterBorn]

All of the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights are specifically individual rights. That is why they were written.

James Madison wrote the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights specifically in answer to the calls for protection of the rights of the individual citizens.

No, they are not. All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.

Once again, of course all of them are plural. There were 2.5 million people in the country then. Not all fell under these rights at the time. But it was certainly not a situation for a singular word.

we are quibbling, dear; not merely telling stories.

not merely telling stories.

you seem to be telling stories...


Worthy of Mother Goose

All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.

"The right" is singular. That is what the 2nd amendment guarantees to "the people", which is plural. It is not even limited to militia. That is why they used the word "militia" in the first clause and the word "people" in the second clause.

It is a right guaranteed to the people.

 

[WinterBorn]

Your entire posting career has been to repeat the same crap over and over and over again. You've responded to my posts more than 25 times today alone.

IF / when you make any sensible point that has not been debunked, someone is sure to let you know.

Diversion is usually considered a fallacy.

Let's keep it simpler.

George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?

Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?

Why do you believe these people are irrelevant to the meaning of the Second?

Is it because they disagree with your opinion?

The People who are well regulated militia, do not whine about gun control laws.

the People consist of far more than those eligible to join a militia

irrelevant, when it concerns the security of a free State.

individual rights are in State Constitutions.

"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

The Bill of Rights specifically lists rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. Neither states nor state constitutions can override the US Constitution. That has been shown and proven to you. And you have not offered one iota of proof or evidence that state constitutions can override or overrule the US Constitution.

 

[Humorme]

Your entire posting career has been to repeat the same crap over and over and over again. You've responded to my posts more than 25 times today alone.

IF / when you make any sensible point that has not been debunked, someone is sure to let you know.

Diversion is usually considered a fallacy.

Let's keep it simpler.

George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?

Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?

Why do you believe these people are irrelevant to the meaning of the Second?

Is it because they disagree with your opinion?

The People who are well regulated militia, do not whine about gun control laws.

And I repeat, have you ever been IN a civilian militia?

Do you know what the ultimate purpose of the unorganized militia (in federal law) is for?

Good luck. Dannyboy rarely, if ever, answers questions.

He's trying to tell you what a "real militiaman would do" and he's obviously never been in a militia. I have had relatives that served in civilian militias going back to the War of Independence and I, myself, have spent over three decades in them.

Unless he / she has come relevant experience, I'd say those deflections and fantasies danielpalos has are about to go up in smoke.

 

[Humorme]

All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.

more tales

just this one:

"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

It is the whole people, except for a few public officials

nope

Not then, not now

yup; for the common defense, under the common law; it really is simple and common sense.

no age limits?

no gender limits?

you don't know much about militias in those days, do you?

Not having served in a militia, danielpalos seems to not be able to back up his / her statements. Furthermore, he / she wants to lecture everybody about where your individual Rights come from. Let's check out this article:

"Q:
What is the definition of individual rights?
A:
QUICK ANSWER
Individual rights is defined as the freedom to act, work, and behave without retribution bestowed upon members of an organization through legal, regulatory and societal standards, according to BussinessDictionary.com. Individual rights are sometimes natural, meaning the right exists just by virtue of being born; an example is the right to life.


Individual rights can be constitutional rights, such as those liberties granted to American citizens in the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights. In the USA, individual natural rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution include personal security, personal liberty, such as the right to practice one's religion and personal property rights.

Human rights are another name for individual natural rights. Human rights recognize the dignity inherent in every person as a human being, regardless of his or her particular nationality, race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, class or any other group affiliation or characteristic. The concept of human rights asserts that the rights of an individual have primacy over the rights of institutions or groups.

Individual rights are often sub-classified as civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.

Individual rights can be positive or negative. Positive rights oblige action, whereas negative rights oblige inaction. Individual civil and political rights typically are negative rights, while social and economic rights tend to be positive."

What is the definition of individual rights?

I want you to notice an important thing in that quote. It says:

"Individual rights are sometimes natural, meaning the right exists just by virtue of being born; an example is the right to life."

If you care to check it out, that is the legal definition of an unalienable Right. And the United States Supreme Court in its earliest decisions have ruled that the Constitution does not grant Rights.

 

[WinterBorn]

Diversion is usually considered a fallacy.

Let's keep it simpler.

George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?

Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?

Why do you believe these people are irrelevant to the meaning of the Second?

Is it because they disagree with your opinion?

The People who are well regulated militia, do not whine about gun control laws.

And I repeat, have you ever been IN a civilian militia?

Do you know what the ultimate purpose of the unorganized militia (in federal law) is for?

Good luck. Dannyboy rarely, if ever, answers questions.

He's trying to tell you what a "real militiaman would do" and he's obviously never been in a militia. I have had relatives that served in civilian militias going back to the War of Independence and I, myself, have spent over three decades in them.

Unless he / she has come relevant experience, I'd say those deflections and fantasies danielpalos has are about to go up in smoke.

Little Danny doesn't rely on facts. In fact, other that the one quote he keeps harping on, he has offered pretty much nothing but his own ideas. Which only show he has not read much about the subject.

 

[danielpalos]

The People who are well regulated militia, do not whine about gun control laws.

the People consist of far more than those eligible to join a militia

irrelevant, when it concerns the security of a free State.

individual rights are in State Constitutions.

"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

the fact that everyone not allowed to be in in a militia has no right to own arms, is IRRREVELANT?

You keep spewing the same crap.


Mason was one of many in the debates, why don't you quote someone else?

can't find anyone that agrees with you?

You do know even HIS quote makes you look like a fool, don't you?

"It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

the Militia was NOT the whole people.

It was only MEN, between the ages of 16-45.

anyone that would quote him is a fool.

This is where he was debating that concept, dear:

George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

I'm aware of that, jack...

was he talking to himself?

No one else discussing it?

No one had counterpoints?

This is a State supreme law of the land. As the common denominator for the common law, it makes common sense, for the common defense:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

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 right wing is simply being silly with the natural and individual rights angle.

 

[danielpalos]

All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.

more tales

just this one:

"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

It is the whole people, except for a few public officials

nope

Not then, not now

yup; for the common defense, under the common law; it really is simple and common sense.

no age limits?

no gender limits?

you don't know much about militias in those days, do you?

the right wing, never gets it.

The People are the Militia. The legislature is responsible for an Organized militia of the people.

Did Germany, have only statutory militia?

 

[danielpalos]

yes, it is. all of our amendments are codified, collective rights of our Body Politic as Ordained and Established by our Founding Fathers.

All of the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights are specifically individual rights. That is why they were written.

James Madison wrote the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights specifically in answer to the calls for protection of the rights of the individual citizens.

No, they are not. All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.

Once again, of course all of them are plural. There were 2.5 million people in the country then. Not all fell under these rights at the time. But it was certainly not a situation for a singular word.

we are quibbling, dear; not merely telling stories.

YOu are quibbling. I am stating a fact that the word "people" would have to be plural since it refers to the population of citizens. The whole "it is a collective right" does not bear up if you know the history of the Bill of Right. There is also not one iota of proof that it was ever intended to be a collective right. The rest of the amendments that use the same word certainly are not collective rights.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about terminology, either.

all i need is a dictionary; not right wing, fallacy induced fantasy.

 

[danielpalos]

No, they are not. All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.

Once again, of course all of them are plural. There were 2.5 million people in the country then. Not all fell under these rights at the time. But it was certainly not a situation for a singular word.

we are quibbling, dear; not merely telling stories.

not merely telling stories.

you seem to be telling stories...


Worthy of Mother Goose

All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.

"The right" is singular. That is what the 2nd amendment guarantees to "the people", which is plural. It is not even limited to militia. That is why they used the word "militia" in the first clause and the word "people" in the second clause.

It is a right guaranteed to the people.

the militia and the people are plural.

 

[danielpalos]

more tales

just this one:

"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

It is the whole people, except for a few public officials

nope

Not then, not now

yup; for the common defense, under the common law; it really is simple and common sense.

no age limits?

no gender limits?

you don't know much about militias in those days, do you?

Not having served in a militia, danielpalos seems to not be able to back up his / her statements. Furthermore, he / she wants to lecture everybody about where your individual Rights come from. Let's check out this article:

"Q:
What is the definition of individual rights?
A:
QUICK ANSWER
Individual rights is defined as the freedom to act, work, and behave without retribution bestowed upon members of an organization through legal, regulatory and societal standards, according to BussinessDictionary.com. Individual rights are sometimes natural, meaning the right exists just by virtue of being born; an example is the right to life.


Individual rights can be constitutional rights, such as those liberties granted to American citizens in the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights. In the USA, individual natural rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution include personal security, personal liberty, such as the right to practice one's religion and personal property rights.

Human rights are another name for individual natural rights. Human rights recognize the dignity inherent in every person as a human being, regardless of his or her particular nationality, race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, class or any other group affiliation or characteristic. The concept of human rights asserts that the rights of an individual have primacy over the rights of institutions or groups.

Individual rights are often sub-classified as civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.

Individual rights can be positive or negative. Positive rights oblige action, whereas negative rights oblige inaction. Individual civil and political rights typically are negative rights, while social and economic rights tend to be positive."

What is the definition of individual rights?

I want you to notice an important thing in that quote. It says:

"Individual rights are sometimes natural, meaning the right exists just by virtue of being born; an example is the right to life."

If you care to check it out, that is the legal definition of an unalienable Right. And the United States Supreme Court in its earliest decisions have ruled that the Constitution does not grant Rights.

The people are the militia. It is a part of a State supreme law of the land. No amount of right wing, fallacy induced fantasy, can change that.

 

[Auld Phart]

more tales

just this one:

"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

It is the whole people, except for a few public officials

nope

Not then, not now

yup; for the common defense, under the common law; it really is simple and common sense.

no age limits?

no gender limits?

you don't know much about militias in those days, do you?

the right wing, never gets it.

The People are the Militia. The legislature is responsible for an Organized militia of the people.

Did Germany, have only statutory militia?

The People are the Militia.

no

only able bodied men between the ages of 16-45 were allowed in the militia

 

[WinterBorn]

All of the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights are specifically individual rights. That is why they were written.

James Madison wrote the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights specifically in answer to the calls for protection of the rights of the individual citizens.

No, they are not. All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.

Once again, of course all of them are plural. There were 2.5 million people in the country then. Not all fell under these rights at the time. But it was certainly not a situation for a singular word.

we are quibbling, dear; not merely telling stories.

YOu are quibbling. I am stating a fact that the word "people" would have to be plural since it refers to the population of citizens. The whole "it is a collective right" does not bear up if you know the history of the Bill of Right. There is also not one iota of proof that it was ever intended to be a collective right. The rest of the amendments that use the same word certainly are not collective rights.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about terminology, either.

all i need is a dictionary; not right wing, fallacy induced fantasy.

And your dictionary shows that the word "people" is plural. Your imagination shows the word "people" to mean collective.

 

[WinterBorn]

Once again, of course all of them are plural. There were 2.5 million people in the country then. Not all fell under these rights at the time. But it was certainly not a situation for a singular word.

we are quibbling, dear; not merely telling stories.

not merely telling stories.

you seem to be telling stories...


Worthy of Mother Goose

All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.

"The right" is singular. That is what the 2nd amendment guarantees to "the people", which is plural. It is not even limited to militia. That is why they used the word "militia" in the first clause and the word "people" in the second clause.

It is a right guaranteed to the people.

the militia and the people are plural.

Congrats. You passed 4th grade grammar.

But that has nothing to do with what I said, does it? The fact that "militia" was used in the first clause and "people" was used in the second clause shows they meant the right to keep and bear arms is for the people, not just the militia. Or they would have used "militia" in both places.

 

[WinterBorn]

just this one:

"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

It is the whole people, except for a few public officials

nope

Not then, not now

yup; for the common defense, under the common law; it really is simple and common sense.

no age limits?

no gender limits?

you don't know much about militias in those days, do you?

Not having served in a militia, danielpalos seems to not be able to back up his / her statements. Furthermore, he / she wants to lecture everybody about where your individual Rights come from. Let's check out this article:

"Q:
What is the definition of individual rights?
A:
QUICK ANSWER
Individual rights is defined as the freedom to act, work, and behave without retribution bestowed upon members of an organization through legal, regulatory and societal standards, according to BussinessDictionary.com. Individual rights are sometimes natural, meaning the right exists just by virtue of being born; an example is the right to life.


Individual rights can be constitutional rights, such as those liberties granted to American citizens in the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights. In the USA, individual natural rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution include personal security, personal liberty, such as the right to practice one's religion and personal property rights.

Human rights are another name for individual natural rights. Human rights recognize the dignity inherent in every person as a human being, regardless of his or her particular nationality, race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, class or any other group affiliation or characteristic. The concept of human rights asserts that the rights of an individual have primacy over the rights of institutions or groups.

Individual rights are often sub-classified as civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.

Individual rights can be positive or negative. Positive rights oblige action, whereas negative rights oblige inaction. Individual civil and political rights typically are negative rights, while social and economic rights tend to be positive."

What is the definition of individual rights?

I want you to notice an important thing in that quote. It says:

"Individual rights are sometimes natural, meaning the right exists just by virtue of being born; an example is the right to life."

If you care to check it out, that is the legal definition of an unalienable Right. And the United States Supreme Court in its earliest decisions have ruled that the Constitution does not grant Rights.

The people are the militia. It is a part of a State supreme law of the land. No amount of right wing, fallacy induced fantasy, can change that.

The SCOTUS rulings are not fantasy. They are fact. Your claims that plural = collective is fantasy. Your claims that state constitutions override the US constitution is fantasy. You claim that the 2nd amendment speaks only about the militia is fantasy.

 

[danielpalos]

just this one:

"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

It is the whole people, except for a few public officials

nope

Not then, not now

yup; for the common defense, under the common law; it really is simple and common sense.

no age limits?

no gender limits?

you don't know much about militias in those days, do you?

the right wing, never gets it.

The People are the Militia. The legislature is responsible for an Organized militia of the people.

Did Germany, have only statutory militia?

The People are the Militia.

no

only able bodied men between the ages of 16-45 were allowed in the militia

This is an actual part of a State supreme law of the land:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Our Second Amendment is about what is Necessary to the security of a free State, not the concept of individual rights.

 

[danielpalos]

No, they are not. All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.

Once again, of course all of them are plural. There were 2.5 million people in the country then. Not all fell under these rights at the time. But it was certainly not a situation for a singular word.

we are quibbling, dear; not merely telling stories.

YOu are quibbling. I am stating a fact that the word "people" would have to be plural since it refers to the population of citizens. The whole "it is a collective right" does not bear up if you know the history of the Bill of Right. There is also not one iota of proof that it was ever intended to be a collective right. The rest of the amendments that use the same word certainly are not collective rights.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about terminology, either.

all i need is a dictionary; not right wing, fallacy induced fantasy.

And your dictionary shows that the word "people" is plural. Your imagination shows the word "people" to mean collective.

collective requires plural. Only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[danielpalos]

we are quibbling, dear; not merely telling stories.

not merely telling stories.

you seem to be telling stories...


Worthy of Mother Goose

All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.

"The right" is singular. That is what the 2nd amendment guarantees to "the people", which is plural. It is not even limited to militia. That is why they used the word "militia" in the first clause and the word "people" in the second clause.

It is a right guaranteed to the people.

the militia and the people are plural.

Congrats. You passed 4th grade grammar.

But that has nothing to do with what I said, does it? The fact that "militia" was used in the first clause and "people" was used in the second clause shows they meant the right to keep and bear arms is for the people, not just the militia. Or they would have used "militia" in both places.

No, they wouldn't. The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary not the unorganized militia of the whole People.

The right wing is simply, reading comprehension challenged.

 

[danielpalos]

nope

Not then, not now

yup; for the common defense, under the common law; it really is simple and common sense.

no age limits?

no gender limits?

you don't know much about militias in those days, do you?

Not having served in a militia, danielpalos seems to not be able to back up his / her statements. Furthermore, he / she wants to lecture everybody about where your individual Rights come from. Let's check out this article:

"Q:
What is the definition of individual rights?
A:
QUICK ANSWER
Individual rights is defined as the freedom to act, work, and behave without retribution bestowed upon members of an organization through legal, regulatory and societal standards, according to BussinessDictionary.com. Individual rights are sometimes natural, meaning the right exists just by virtue of being born; an example is the right to life.


Individual rights can be constitutional rights, such as those liberties granted to American citizens in the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights. In the USA, individual natural rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution include personal security, personal liberty, such as the right to practice one's religion and personal property rights.

Human rights are another name for individual natural rights. Human rights recognize the dignity inherent in every person as a human being, regardless of his or her particular nationality, race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, class or any other group affiliation or characteristic. The concept of human rights asserts that the rights of an individual have primacy over the rights of institutions or groups.

Individual rights are often sub-classified as civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.

Individual rights can be positive or negative. Positive rights oblige action, whereas negative rights oblige inaction. Individual civil and political rights typically are negative rights, while social and economic rights tend to be positive."

What is the definition of individual rights?

I want you to notice an important thing in that quote. It says:

"Individual rights are sometimes natural, meaning the right exists just by virtue of being born; an example is the right to life."

If you care to check it out, that is the legal definition of an unalienable Right. And the United States Supreme Court in its earliest decisions have ruled that the Constitution does not grant Rights.

The people are the militia. It is a part of a State supreme law of the land. No amount of right wing, fallacy induced fantasy, can change that.

The SCOTUS rulings are not fantasy. They are fact. Your claims that plural = collective is fantasy. Your claims that state constitutions override the US constitution is fantasy. You claim that the 2nd amendment speaks only about the militia is fantasy.

judicial activism. only the "dumb ones" fall for it.