- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You are a felon, so dont worry about it.This is for all of you that advance the "collective rights" theory regarding the 2nd amendment.
In the whole of the BoR's all of the amendments are generally believed to be talking about individual rights. And they are applied as such. From the 1st amendment to the 10th amendment, each one is applied as an individual right or in the case of the 10th amendment individual States Rights. Even laws that restrict certain of these rights are applied legally on an individual or individual state basis and not a collective basis.
With the exception of the 2nd Amendment.
So here is my question to you. Why, out of all the amendments in the BoR's, would those that wrote the BoR's write the 2nd Amendment as only being a collective right? And expect it to be applied as such?
To me it makes no sense that those that wrote the BoR's would include a collective right in a document that was designed to protect individuals from the government. Especially when you consider that the government IS the representitive of the collective and not the individual.
You are a felon, so dont worry about it.
This thread has nothing to do with my status as a felon. Please stay on topic.
The main problem is that the argument has been convoluted by agendists since at least the late 1800s. The BOR was specifically drafted to be direct prohibitions on specific rights by government, the fourteenth tied the BOR to the states. The founders well established that rights are not granted, and that they could only be infringed by government, therefore the government was to only intercede by law only should the rights of an individual be endangered and it was within an enumerated power granted it.This is for all of you that advance the "collective rights" theory regarding the 2nd amendment.
In the whole of the BoR's all of the amendments are generally believed to be talking about individual rights. And they are applied as such. From the 1st amendment to the 10th amendment, each one is applied as an individual right or in the case of the 10th amendment individual States Rights. Even laws that restrict certain of these rights are applied legally on an individual or individual state basis and not a collective basis.
With the exception of the 2nd Amendment.
So here is my question to you. Why, out of all the amendments in the BoR's, would those that wrote the BoR's write the 2nd Amendment as only being a collective right? And expect it to be applied as such?
To me it makes no sense that those that wrote the BoR's would include a collective right in a document that was designed to protect individuals from the government. Especially when you consider that the government IS the representitive of the collective and not the individual.
You are a felon, so dont worry about it.
Talk about a low blow.
You are a felon, so dont worry about it.
I saw that thread, and I do believe he said it may or may not have been hypothetical. You shouldn't beat up on him for advocating our rights. I was a felon as well until I got it ex-sponged. (assault battery, I was a minor at the time of conviction) Besides, I think if a felon goes 25+ years without getting in more trouble they should at the very least have the option to apply to get their 2nd A. right back.Its true, he did a whole thread about him being a felon. Its called, Iam a felon.
So him talking about his gun rights is moot. He dont have any.
I saw that thread, and I do believe he said it may or may not have been hypothetical. You shouldn't beat up on him for advocating our rights. I was a felon as well until I got it ex-sponged. (assault battery, I was a minor at the time of conviction) Besides, I think if a felon goes 25+ years without getting in more trouble they should at the very least have the option to apply to get their 2nd A. right back.
You are a felon, so dont worry about it.
Moderator's Warning: |
Why? You are going for the 2A "collective rights" argument. Its an individual right. Iam sure you will get around to the "well so and so has these rights, so should I". And being a felon, what difference does it make to you?
Sure, and he can. He just gave a BS excuse of no money saved up to do it in over 20 years. Well, should have worried about that BEFORE becoming a felon.
This is for all of you that advance the "collective rights" theory regarding the 2nd amendment.
In the whole of the BoR's all of the amendments are generally believed to be talking about individual rights. And they are applied as such. From the 1st amendment to the 10th amendment, each one is applied as an individual right or in the case of the 10th amendment individual States Rights. Even laws that restrict certain of these rights are applied legally on an individual or individual state basis and not a collective basis.
With the exception of the 2nd Amendment.
So here is my question to you. Why, out of all the amendments in the BoR's, would those that wrote the BoR's write the 2nd Amendment as only being a collective right? And expect it to be applied as such?
To me it makes no sense that those that wrote the BoR's would include a collective right in a document that was designed to protect individuals from the government. Especially when you consider that the government IS the representitive of the collective and not the individual.
That's very true. I don't have to worry about it anymore because it's ex-sponged.He could have given that reason for the sake of his hypothetical.
Why? You are going for the 2A "collective rights" argument. Its an individual right. Iam sure you will get around to the "well so and so has these rights, so should I". And being a felon, what difference does it make to you?
I'm pretty sure you were saying this, but I want to as well. They should also get their right to vote back in my opinion, but that's for another thread.A person does not lose their citizenship simply by being a felon. Once a citizen has fully paid for their crime by completing the punishment meted out by society they are just as deserving as you to obtain the return of all rights lost during such punishment.
While a citizen is under state control, either imprisonment or supervised release, it is the duty of the State to not only monitor him but also protect him from harm. Once he is freed from imprisonment and all supervision he regains the inherent right of self-defense and should rightly be allowed the same ability to defend himself as any other citizen has.
To state it is an "individual right," then claim it can be permanently denied a free citizen is absolute hypocrisy. The only way to permanently deny a citizen his rights would be to either adopt laws making the ONLY punishment for criminality death, OR make the punishment for ALL crimes life imprisonment without any possibility of parole.
The entire pre-amble for starters, and then the specific enumerations of power, THEN the prohibitions on government against actions in the BOR. In no way is that construed to mean "collective" rights.What makes you so sure it is not intended to be both an individual and a collective right?
The entire pre-amble for starters, and then the specific enumerations of power, THEN the prohibitions on government against actions in the BOR. In no way is that construed to mean "collective" rights.
The entire pre-amble for starters, and then the specific enumerations of power, THEN the prohibitions on government against actions in the BOR. In no way is that construed to mean "collective" rights.
I believe Fisher is right, it is both a collective right AND an individual right. It is an inalienable natural individual right, and it is a collective right in regards to states counties districts ect.
This is for all of you that advance the "collective rights" theory regarding the 2nd amendment.
In the whole of the BoR's all of the amendments are generally believed to be talking about individual rights. And they are applied as such. From the 1st amendment to the 10th amendment, each one is applied as an individual right or in the case of the 10th amendment individual States Rights. Even laws that restrict certain of these rights are applied legally on an individual or individual state basis and not a collective basis.
With the exception of the 2nd Amendment.
So here is my question to you. Why, out of all the amendments in the BoR's, would those that wrote the BoR's write the 2nd Amendment as only being a collective right? And expect it to be applied as such?
To me it makes no sense that those that wrote the BoR's would include a collective right in a document that was designed to protect individuals from the government. Especially when you consider that the government IS the representitive of the collective and not the individual.
What makes you so sure it is not intended to be both an individual and a collective right? Not everything under the sun is one or the other. I could go into a more detailed description of why I think it was intended to be both, but I will just leave you this little nugget to chew on: A William & Mary Law review article did a survey of all the colonial era US probate cases that are available in the various databases. What they found was that something like 73% of male estates had firearms specifically listed in them (including George Washington whom I think devised his pistols to Lafayette IIRC).
I'd rather think that the right to bear arms along with free speech, freedom of religion, etc. are individual rights that can also be exercised collectively. For example, a person can set up a soap box and speak, and a group can gather and march in protest. A person can carry a weapon for self-defense; or a group can organize a militia for group defense.
This is for all of you that advance the "collective rights" theory regarding the 2nd amendment.
In the whole of the BoR's all of the amendments are generally believed to be talking about individual rights. And they are applied as such. From the 1st amendment to the 10th amendment, each one is applied as an individual right or in the case of the 10th amendment individual States Rights. Even laws that restrict certain of these rights are applied legally on an individual or individual state basis and not a collective basis.
With the exception of the 2nd Amendment.
So here is my question to you. Why, out of all the amendments in the BoR's, would those that wrote the BoR's write the 2nd Amendment as only being a collective right? And expect it to be applied as such?
To me it makes no sense that those that wrote the BoR's would include a collective right in a document that was designed to protect individuals from the government. Especially when you consider that the government IS the representitive of the collective and not the individual.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?