H. Lee White
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 1,907
- Reaction score
- 1,014
- Location
- The great lakes
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
The real 2nd amendment
by
wolfman24
http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/wolfman24/776-real-2nd-amendment.html
Thus, false premise.
Other than that - In the context defined above, certainly.
So what?
Thus, false premise.
It prevents the federal (and later, state) government(s) from exercising ANY of its powers in such a manner that infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Regardless of the stated, perceived or otherwise argued powers provided to the federal government, those that you have listed or otherwise, none may infringe on the rights of the people.
The main focus is so that the people will always have access to the means necessary to effectively exercise their right to keep and bear arms, individually or collectively, recognizing that the militia is necessary, and that the government, in an effort to remove resistance to its efforts, is able to neglect, if not outright negate, the militia to the point that it offers no security for a free state.
You error lies in your perception that right to keep and bear arms that can be expressed only collectively because the militia, in effect and in its mission, is a collaborative.
First:
Your argument is a non sequitur – you make no argument as to how the fact that the collaborative nature of the militia necessitates that the right to of the people to keep and bear arms ad protected by the constitutionis collective as well, if for no other reason that you do not show that the right of the people is limited to service within the militia to the exclusion of, say, self-defense. Absent this relation, your argument fails.
Second:
By definition, a militia action is a collaborative effort in that a militia is a group of people, but a group of people cannot exercise a right that each member of that groups does not have, and can exercise, as individuals – and so, the militia can have no right to keep and bear arms unless each of its individual members also have that right.
That is, concerning the people, “collective rights” do not - indeed, cannot - exist except as a function of individual rights acting in concert.
The right to speak freely does not in any way depend on others also speaking freely.
The right to worship freely…
The right to be free from forcibly quartered troops…
The right to be secure in your person and papers..
The right to be free from forced self-incrimination…
Et cetera
All of these are individual rights, exercisable by the individual, regardless of any similar exercise by the collective; as such, your point is thusly negated.
Fact of the matter is there is absolutely no evidence that anyone involved in the creation or ratification of the constitution or the bill of rights understood, let alone argued, that the 2nd protected a collective right to the absolute exclusion of an individual right, and as such, there’s absolutely no basis for the claim that the founders intended any such thing – indeed, you argue that the founders fully intended that the right to arms exists for the defense of the nation, state and community, but not the home, the family and the individual, a position for which there is absolutely no support.
If you disagree, please feel free to provide a citation to that effect.
Show that this model was applied as you say. Be sure to include citations.
And then, even if true, none of this has any bearing on the individual v collective-only right.
by
wolfman24
http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/wolfman24/776-real-2nd-amendment.html
That’s the general and western-amero-anglo-centric definition – a constitution can just as easily define a dictatorship and have no regards for the rights of the people.
Thus, false premise.
In that, we, the people, were speaking as a group in defining the powers granted by the constitution to the government, and the role that they intended that government to play, yes – “We the People” is a statement of a collaborative effort and acceptance.
In the context defined above, certainly.
All 13 colonies ratified the Constitution – Rhode Island was the last, in May 1790.
Other than that - In the context defined above, certainly.
So what?
The constitution, absent the bill of rights, addresses the rights of the people exactly one time – A2S8:8, regarding patents and copyrights, both of which are unquestionably individual rights.
Thus, false premise.
Correct
All of them.
It prevents the federal (and later, state) government(s) from exercising ANY of its powers in such a manner that infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Regardless of the stated, perceived or otherwise argued powers provided to the federal government, those that you have listed or otherwise, none may infringe on the rights of the people.
Incorrect.
The main focus is so that the people will always have access to the means necessary to effectively exercise their right to keep and bear arms, individually or collectively, recognizing that the militia is necessary, and that the government, in an effort to remove resistance to its efforts, is able to neglect, if not outright negate, the militia to the point that it offers no security for a free state.
You error lies in your perception that right to keep and bear arms that can be expressed only collectively because the militia, in effect and in its mission, is a collaborative.
First:
Your argument is a non sequitur – you make no argument as to how the fact that the collaborative nature of the militia necessitates that the right to of the people to keep and bear arms ad protected by the constitutionis collective as well, if for no other reason that you do not show that the right of the people is limited to service within the militia to the exclusion of, say, self-defense. Absent this relation, your argument fails.
Second:
By definition, a militia action is a collaborative effort in that a militia is a group of people, but a group of people cannot exercise a right that each member of that groups does not have, and can exercise, as individuals – and so, the militia can have no right to keep and bear arms unless each of its individual members also have that right.
That is, concerning the people, “collective rights” do not - indeed, cannot - exist except as a function of individual rights acting in concert.
This is absolutely false.
The right to speak freely does not in any way depend on others also speaking freely.
The right to worship freely…
The right to be free from forcibly quartered troops…
The right to be secure in your person and papers..
The right to be free from forced self-incrimination…
Et cetera
All of these are individual rights, exercisable by the individual, regardless of any similar exercise by the collective; as such, your point is thusly negated.
That’s not what it says. As such, any argument based on this language is necessarily unsound.
More accurately… what you perceive the constitution to say is not what the founders intended.
Fact of the matter is there is absolutely no evidence that anyone involved in the creation or ratification of the constitution or the bill of rights understood, let alone argued, that the 2nd protected a collective right to the absolute exclusion of an individual right, and as such, there’s absolutely no basis for the claim that the founders intended any such thing – indeed, you argue that the founders fully intended that the right to arms exists for the defense of the nation, state and community, but not the home, the family and the individual, a position for which there is absolutely no support.
If you disagree, please feel free to provide a citation to that effect.
Define that model. Be sure to include citations.
Show that this model was applied as you say. Be sure to include citations.
And then, even if true, none of this has any bearing on the individual v collective-only right.
Please cite any source that illustrates that the people who had their “own guns” for service in the militia were prohibited from using them for any and every lawful use one might have for a gun, including the right to individual self defense. Absent this citation, there’s absolutely no merit in the claim that they had their own guns, “but for the prescribed reasons outlined in the Constitution.”
You have demonstrated your perception, but you fail to bring any substantive support for that perception.
Arguing that the court may someday see things your way in no way addresses the soundness of the courts current holdings, and so does nothing to address these citations of the court. Standing jurisprudence says that for all constitutional, political and legal purposes, your position is wrong; while you can argue otherwise, your argument has no bearing whatsoever on any constitutional, political or legal issue.
