The militia of the Constitution was to be well organized, well armed and well trained

[Jagger]

The militia of the Constitution was to be well organized, well armed and well trained according to a system of military discipline. If Congress had exclusive authority to provide for the militia, it might neglect the militia and thereby disarm the states. Therefore, it was necessary to grant the states power to provide for the militia, if Congress neglected to do so. The first clause of the Second Amendment acknowledges that a state must have a well regulated militia for security. The second clause should be interpreted to grant the states the power to provide for the militia, if Congress neglects to do so. Otherwise, the states would be at the mercy of Congress.

[Yurt]

so says you...

scotus says you're wrong

[Silver]

The militia of the Constitution was to be well organized, well armed and well trained according to a system of military discipline. If Congress had exclusive authority to provide for the militia, it might neglect the militia and thereby disarm the states. Therefore, it was necessary to grant the states power to provide for the militia, if Congress neglected to do so. The first clause of the Second Amendment acknowledges that a state must have a well regulated militia for security. The second clause should be interpreted to grant the states the power to provide for the militia, if Congress neglects to do so. Otherwise, the states would be at the mercy of Congress.

Obviously your not ready for the high court....unless they need a court jester....

How do YOU define..."THE PEOPLE".....?

who are "THE PEOPLE" ?

Ever hear its the right of the THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms...?

You think "THE PEOPLE" just magically turn into "THE MILITIA" because some buffoon thinks that what the founders meant....
The founders said exactly what they meant....THE PEOPLE

[Yurt]

Obviously your not ready for the high court....unless they need a court jester....

How do YOU define..."THE PEOPLE".....?

who are "THE PEOPLE" ?

Ever hear its the right of the THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms...?

You think "THE PEOPLE" just magically turn into "THE MILITIA" because some buffoon thinks that what the founders meant....
The founders said exactly what they meant....THE PEOPLE

no, never heard of the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms....do you have link?

[Mr. P]

Oh gee, Jaggers' class moved on to another chapter in class on Con Law.

They haven't made it to amendment 10 yet.

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.

[Yurt]

Oh gee, Jaggers' class moved on to another chapter in class on Con Law.

They haven't made it to amendment 10 yet.

brilliant, let me place some emphasis in the hopes that jagger gets it:


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

[Rick OShea]

The militia of the Constitution was to be well organized, well armed and well trained according to a system of military discipline. If Congress had exclusive authority to provide for the militia, it might neglect the militia and thereby disarm the states. Therefore, it was necessary to grant the states power to provide for the militia, if Congress neglected to do so.
But only up to the point where state powers did not conflict or supersede the federal constitution's Article I grants of power and federal laws enacted conforming with Article I.


The first clause of the Second Amendment acknowledges that a state must have a well regulated militia for security.
No, it is merely a statement of principle. The declarative clause has never been interpreted to command any action or been held to inform on any level about any obligation to erect any structure of militia organization. Since it has never been looked to for instruction it can hardly be argued that it demands such a structure be erected.


The second clause should be interpreted to grant the states the power to provide for the militia, if Congress neglects to do so. Otherwise, the states would be at the mercy of Congress.
It's fine that you are swallowing the gruel of the "state's right" interpretation; problem is, without any affinity for, or understanding of our fundamental constitutional principles you are woefully unprepared to question what you have been taught.

Again. the entire scope and extent of Congress' militia power is found in Art I §8, cls. 15 & 16. The 2nd Amendment has never been found to have any import upon militia powers (federal or state) because it only speaks to a right (an exception of power). Whatever power the states possess was that expressly retained by them in the militia clauses (appointment of officers and actual training under a structure created by Congress) and whatever residual powers that did not compete or conflict with the federal powers of Art I §8, cls. 15 & 16.

Here is where your house of cards collapses. For the "state's right" model to be correct it must have some action besides just being used to indirectly extinguish the claim of the protections of the 2ndA by individual citizens in the courts of America. Surely one should expect that if the 2ndA protected state militia powers from federal interference there could be one instance found of the 2nd being used to do that, you know, the simple, uncomplicated act of a state claiming the 2nd's immunity to repel federal interference . . . But, when one examines the 190 years of cases deciding who actually controls the militia you will not find that single example . . .

It's no wonder that some of those early militia cases - INEXPLICABLY (if you are correct) NOT SECOND AMENDMENT CASES - are considered foundational on the issue of federal preemption.

You can argue that the 2ndA only protects state powers from federal interference but I must ask; how can that theory be correct and actionable only against citizens while being invisible in its claimed force and what should be its actual ambit of influence (of protecting state militia interests)?

[Jagger]

Why would Congress declare that a free state must have a well regulated militia and then deny the several states the power to provide for one, if Congress neglected to do so?

[Mr. P]

Why would Congress declare that a free state must have a well regulated militia and then deny the several states the power to provide for one, if Congress neglected to do so?

Where did you find the "must have" part.

[Rick OShea]

Why would Congress declare that a free state must have a well regulated militia . . .

There must be evidence somewhere that the 2ndA mandates such a condition. Please provide a citation to that evidence.


and then deny the several states the power to provide for one, if Congress neglected to do so?

Again, whatever power the states possess was that expressly retained by them in the militia clauses (appointment of officers and actual training under a structure created by Congress) and whatever residual powers that did not compete or conflict with the federal powers of Art I §8, cls. 15 & 16.

You are constructing a false situation stating the 2ndA compels action and from that incorrect foundation nothing but confusion and inconsistent argument can follow.

You are asking me why your theory doesn't make sense to you?

I'd say because it is utterly and irreconcilably wrong.

[Jagger]

so says you...

scotus says you're wrong SCOTUS was wrong because it didn't interpret the Second Amendment by honestly, fairly and objectively applying the well established common law rules of legal interpretation existent at the time the Amendment was made.


But only up to the point where state powers did not conflict or supersede the federal constitution's Article I grants of power and federal laws enacted conforming with Article I. It was necessary to grant the states the same power that Congress had under Article One Section Eight to provide for the militia. Otherwise Congress could destroy the militia by merely neglecting it.


No, it is merely a statement of principle.
Why would Congress declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the states, and then withhold the power to provide for a militia from the states?


The declarative clause has never been interpreted to command any action or been held to inform on any level about any obligation to erect any structure of militia organization. Since it has never been looked to for instruction it can hardly be argued that it demands such a structure be erected. Why would Congress declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the states, and then withhold the power to provide for a militia from the states?


It's fine that you are swallowing the gruel of the "state's right" interpretation; problem is, without any affinity for, or understanding of our fundamental constitutional principles you are woefully unprepared to question what you have been taught. Why would Congress declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the states, and then withhold the power to provide for a militia from the states?


Again. the entire scope and extent of Congress' militia power is found in Art I §8, cls. 15 & 16. The 2nd Amendment has never been found to have any import upon militia powers (federal or state) because it only speaks to a right (an exception of power). Whatever power the states possess was that expressly retained by them in the militia clauses (appointment of officers and actual training under a structure created by Congress) and whatever residual powers that did not compete or conflict with the federal powers of Art I §8, cls. 15 & 16.
Why would Congress declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the states, and then withhold the power to provide for a militia from the states?


Here is where your house of cards collapses. For the "state's right" model to be correct it must have some action besides just being used to indirectly extinguish the claim of the protections of the 2ndA by individual citizens in the courts of America. Surely one should expect that if the 2ndA protected state militia powers from federal interference there could be one instance found of the 2nd being used to do that, you know, the simple, uncomplicated act of a state claiming the 2nd's immunity to repel federal interference . . . But, when one examines the 190 years of cases deciding who actually controls the militia you will not find that single example . . .
Why would Congress declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the states, and then withhold the power to provide for a militia from the states?


It's no wonder that some of those early militia cases - INEXPLICABLY (if you are correct) NOT SECOND AMENDMENT CASES - are considered foundational on the issue of federal preemption.
Why would Congress declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the states, and then withhold the power to provide for a militia from the states?


You can argue that the 2ndA only protects state powers from federal interference but I must ask; how can that theory be correct and actionable only against citizens while being invisible in its claimed force and what should be its actual ambit of influence (of protecting state militia interests)? Why would Congress declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the states, and then withhold the power to provide for a militia from the states?


There must be evidence somewhere that the 2ndA mandates such a condition. Please provide a citation to that evidence. Why would Congress declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the states, and then withhold the power to provide for a militia from the states?


Again, whatever power the states possess was that expressly retained by them in the militia clauses (appointment of officers and actual training under a structure created by Congress) and whatever residual powers that did not compete or conflict with the federal powers of Art I §8, cls. 15 & 16.
Why would Congress declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the states, and then withhold the power to provide for a militia from the states?


You are constructing a false situation stating the 2ndA compels action and from that incorrect foundation nothing but confusion and inconsistent argument can follow.
Why would Congress declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the states, and then withhold the power to provide for a militia from the states?

[Des]

Doesn't the fact that "the people" don't own nukes sort of make this whole argument moot, anyway?

[Hobbit]

Doesn't the fact that "the people" don't own nukes sort of make this whole argument moot, anyway?

Nope, the owning of nukes would invariably place the rights of neighbors in danger. Just as you can't stockpile dynamite in your basement because using it while on your property would damage nearby property, you can't own nukes because the fallout alone would hit a large area. They're also kind of a special case in that a small number of them can cause untold havoc. However, under the provisions I listed above, I don't think there should be 'military grade only' weapons except under contracts made as if by a business that prevented weapons manufacturers from selling to 'competitors.' Yes, I think private citizens should be allowed to own tanks and fighter jets, provided they can actually afford them.

[Des]

Nope, the owning of nukes would invariably place the rights of neighbors in danger. Just as you can't stockpile dynamite in your basement because using it while on your property would damage nearby property, you can't own nukes because the fallout alone would hit a large area. They're also kind of a special case in that a small number of them can cause untold havoc. However, under the provisions I listed above, I don't think there should be 'military grade only' weapons except under contracts made as if by a business that prevented weapons manufacturers from selling to 'competitors.' Yes, I think private citizens should be allowed to own tanks and fighter jets, provided they can actually afford them.

But...we can't. Theres no way the people of the US could overthrow the government militia-style. We'd have to use the "pen vs. the sword".

[Joe Steel]

Why would Congress declare that a free state must have a well regulated militia and then deny the several states the power to provide for one, if Congress neglected to do so?

In fact, Congress made no such declaration. With the Second Amendment, the People declared for themselves the right to an army of citizens.

[Joe Steel]

No, it is merely a statement of principle. The declarative clause has never been interpreted to command any action or been held to inform on any level about any obligation to erect any structure of militia organization. Since it has never been looked to for instruction it can hardly be argued that it demands such a structure be erected.


In fact, the Second Amendment is in its entirety a statement of principle. The People recognized the need for an army of common citizens as the best defense of their democracy and with the Second Amendment declared for themselves the right to army of common citizens and controlled by the People.

[Nukeman]

In fact, the Second Amendment is in its entirety a statement of principle. The People recognized the need for an army of common citizens as the best defense of their democracy and with the Second Amendment declared for themselves the right to army of common citizens and controlled by the People.
You know, I think there is a snowball being thrown in hell right now. I completely agree with your post in this thread. Way to go joe!!!!:beer:

[Jagger]

The People recognized the need for an army of common citizens as the best defense of their democracy and with the Second Amendment declared for themselves the right to army of common citizens and controlled by the People. The Second Amendment says nothing about an army of common citizens. It says a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.

Under Article One Section Eight, Congress was granted exclusive power to organize, arm and discipline the militia. The Anti-Federalists pointed out that Congress could destroy the militia by merely neglecting it or running it into the ground. Therefore, it was deemed necessary to grant the states concurrent power with Congress to provide for the militia, because a well regulated militia was believed to be necessary for the security of a free state, and they didn't trust Congress with exclusive power to provide for the militia.

[Rick OShea]

It was necessary to grant the states the same power that Congress had under Article One Section Eight to provide for the militia. Otherwise Congress could destroy the militia by merely neglecting it.
So you have zero understanding of federal supremacy and preemption?

You keep spouting these theories about what the states "must have" and how the states and the federal government share militia powers but you can not cite one example of these theories in practice. Again and again, for 190 years, federal powers supersede state powers and you keep telling us that the opposite is true, that states retain broad controls and direction over their militias (and that the 2ndA protects that "right").

Jagger, if you are correct you should be able to demonstrate the breadth of authority the states retain over their militia and the means, express or implied, by which state power has been preserved by claiming 2nd Amendment protection.

In the absence of such an explanation you lose.


Why would Congress declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the states, and then withhold the power to provide for a militia from the states?

Why would Congress declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the states, and then withhold the power to provide for a militia from the states?

Why would Congress declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the states, and then withhold the power to provide for a militia from the states?

Why would Congress declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the states, and then withhold the power to provide for a militia from the states?

Why would Congress declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the states, and then withhold the power to provide for a militia from the states?

Why would Congress declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the states, and then withhold the power to provide for a militia from the states?

Why would Congress declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the states, and then withhold the power to provide for a militia from the states?

Why would Congress declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the states, and then withhold the power to provide for a militia from the states?

Why would Congress declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the states, and then withhold the power to provide for a militia from the states?

Why would Congress declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the states, and then withhold the power to provide for a militia from the states?

Wow, I'm impressed.

I've never witnessed such a juvenile evasion of debate in print before.

Do you become invisible when you close your eyes?

Your fit, like most childish outbursts makes no sense.

Congress passed the Militia Act in 1792 fulfilling its role in organizing the state militias into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies as the Governors and state legislatures would direct and prescribing commonality of arms and discipline for the militia. It was the states that were derelict in their duties not following the directives of Congress and keeping up their side of the equation.

Problem is, when the states did fight the feds the cases usually centered on governors ignoring or disobeying direct orders by Congress of the President. Those cases ended badly for the states and subsequently after quite a few slap-downs, state militia powers have been extinguished.

You need to find another argument because this horse you are trying to ride is a rotten corpse.

[Hobbit]

But...we can't. Theres no way the people of the US could overthrow the government militia-style. We'd have to use the "pen vs. the sword".

Which is why I think the government needs to be reigned in on 'gun control.' The Second Amendment was intended to be our last line of defense against tyranny, and those who proclaim themselves to not be tyrants continue to defy the will of the people while slowly revoking our right to defend ourselves.


The Second Amendment says nothing about an army of common citizens. It says a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.


mi·li·tia Listen to the pronunciation of militia
Pronunciation:
\mə-ˈli-shə\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
Date:
1625

1: a body of citizens organized for military service

What was that? Was that the sound of your sh-- totally being ruined by the fact that a militia is an army of common citizens?

[Joe Steel]

The Second Amendment says nothing about an army of common citizens. It says a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.

A militia is an army of common citizens.

[Silver]

no, never heard of the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms....do you have link?

Amendment II

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.

Unless you were being facetious .....


These are the words that give all of us the right to own guns....WE ARE THE PEOPLE....unless and until the SCOTUS re-defines "the people" to mean something other than it means in plain English....and it will have to apply to "THE PEOPLE" as its mentioned in other sections of the Constitution....

[Yurt]

Amendment II

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.

Unless you were being facetious .....


These are the words that give all of us the right to own guns....WE ARE THE PEOPLE....unless and until the SCOTUS re-defines "the people" to mean something other than it means in plain English....and it will have to apply to "THE PEOPLE" as its mentioned in other sections of the Constitution....

yep

[avatar4321]

But...we can't. Theres no way the people of the US could overthrow the government militia-style. We'd have to use the "pen vs. the sword".

Sure we could if we were well planned and had significant defections.

[DragonStryk72]

The militia of the Constitution was to be well organized, well armed and well trained according to a system of military discipline. If Congress had exclusive authority to provide for the militia, it might neglect the militia and thereby disarm the states. Therefore, it was necessary to grant the states power to provide for the militia, if Congress neglected to do so. The first clause of the Second Amendment acknowledges that a state must have a well regulated militia for security. The second clause should be interpreted to grant the states the power to provide for the militia, if Congress neglects to do so. Otherwise, the states would be at the mercy of Congress.

you miss one crutial point here: Militias were supplied by the people joining them. No, seriously, that was the practice, that's why we have the term "regulars" to refer to the active duty army of the time. Joining a militia meant that you had to provide much, if not all, of your own gear, and thus, the need for personal weapons, unlike Army soldiers, whose weapons were usually provided for them.

So, in order for a militia to be well-maintained and well-regulated, you would need either a permanent tax (given this is what we were fighting against, I don't see it happening) on all state residents, or allow the people to carry their own arms to supply to the militia in the time of need, thus the right to keep and bear arms.

However, we do need to bring back militias, they are sorely needed these days to remind the federal branch that they are not the final word.

[DragonStryk72]

Sure we could if we were well planned and had significant defections.

Actually, it wouldn't be that hard, honestly. the second the states refuse to send in any more tax money, the federal branch has nothing left, while you meanwhile have an armed populace that they would need large amounts of military power to oppose, just to try and cover the ground needed.

So, what you have is a federal branch with massive, massive overages, and now no income. At the same time, they can't even depend on their own military, since it is made of the same people who are against, and now, they're not getting paid at all.

[Joe Steel]

Amendment II

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.

Unless you were being facetious .....


These are the words that give all of us the right to own guns....WE ARE THE PEOPLE....unless and until the SCOTUS re-defines "the people" to mean something other than it means in plain English....and it will have to apply to "THE PEOPLE" as its mentioned in other sections of the Constitution....

"People" is a collective noun used in the Constitution to refer to the citizenry as sovereign. A mere group of persons acting or considered as other than the sovereign are not the People.

[Jagger]

So you have zero understanding of federal supremacy and preemption? What was the understanding in 1789 with regard to whether, under the U. S. Constitution, the states had power to provide for arming organizing and disciplining the militia?

[Little-Acorn]

In fact, the Second Amendment is in its entirety a statement of principle. The People recognized the need for an army of common citizens as the best defense of their democracy and with the Second Amendment declared for themselves the right to army of common citizens and controlled by the People.

Joe Steel is quite correct, though not entirely complete. The 2nd is indeed a statement of principle - the idea that an armed and capable populace is necessary for freedom, and that ordinary people must retain their right to arms themselves as they see fit.

But a statement of principle, isn't the only thing it is. It's also a clear and firm command: Government is forbidden to take away or restrict ordinary people's right to own and carry guns and other such weapons. Period. And if various intrusive governments and their advocates (like Jagger) don't like it, too bad.

Of course, those government and their advocates (again like Jagger) constantly try to bend and twist the clear meaning of the amendment, to pretend it somehow doesn't mean what it says. It's entertaining to watch them bend themselves into pretzel shapes, digging and digging to find the oddest meanings of a few isolated phrases outside the Constitution, while ignoring the reams of clear statements by the vast majority of the Framers that contradict his hoped-for agenda.

Sorry, jaggie. Since an armed populace is necessary, govt can't take away or restrict ordinary people's guns. All your talk and rote recitation changes neither the text nor the clear meaning of the 2nd amendment. It's comical to see you screw your blinders on tighter and tighter, and try to ignore everybody laughing at you... especially those who actually understand English and the intentions of those who wrote it.

[Rick OShea]

What was the understanding in 1789 with regard to whether, under the U. S. Constitution, the states had power to provide for arming organizing and disciplining the militia?

I highly recommend you read the militia clause debate recorded in Elliot's Debates, Volume 5, it begins on page 464 (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=005/lled005.db&recNum=485&itemLink=r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(ed005244))%230050486&linkText=1) and is continued; 465 (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=005/lled005.db&recNum=486&itemLink=r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(ed005244))%230050486&linkText=1), 466 (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=005/lled005.db&recNum=487&itemLink=r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(ed005244))%230050486&linkText=1), 467 (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=005/lled005.db&recNum=488&itemLink=r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(ed005244))%230050486&linkText=1).

I would also recommend reading TO KEEP AND BEAR THEIR PRIVATE ARMS: THE ADOPTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, 1787-1791 Northern Kentucky Law Review (10 N. Ky. L. Rev. 13-39 (1982)) webpublished HERE (http://guncite.com/journals/haladopt.html) The author is the pre-eminent 2nd Amendment scholar in the USA; he wrote the Heller amicus submitted on behalf of Vice President Cheney, 55 Senators and 250 Members of Congress LINK (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacMembersUSSenate.pdf) (258kb PDF).

Federal preemption of state militia powers has been a long process and much of it begins with the Militia Act of 1792. The mere direction that the militia shall be comprised of, "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years . . . " was an ironclad rule for the states. Following the Dred Scott decision Massachusetts abolitionists wanted to change state militia law to allow free blacks to enroll in the militia. Guess what, the state was barred from that action because the national government had legislated on the subject.

It matters little what the 1789 understanding was because the entire federal / state dynamic, especially with regards to the militia was shredded after the Civil War. Congress forcefully disbanded the southern state militias (because they were the enforcers of the Black Codes in violation of the 14th Amendment) and would not permit their reconstitution for many years. Congress forced the southern states to rewrite their constitutions before being readmitted to the Union to eliminate discriminatory language such as securing the right to arms for only "free white citizens."

If you are interested, these are the SCOTUS decisions deemed instructional on the question of federal vs state militia control.

The 2ndA is absent from discussion in these cases which makes no sense if your theory was correct. That there is no discussion of the 2nd proves that the 2ndA has zero action in the sphere of militia powers, either state or federal.

Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) (1820).
Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) (1827).
Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1917)
Perpich v. Dep't of Defense, 496 U.S. (1990)

[Silver]

"People" is a collective noun used in the Constitution to refer to the citizenry as sovereign. A mere group of persons acting or considered as other than the sovereign are not the People.

What convoluted bullshit....

If the founding fathers wanted to express "the people" as sovereign they would have used that term....and WE THE PEOPLE do not have 'sovereign power or authority', individually or as a group, except as provided for as a power to VOTE and have that LIMITED form of sovereignty or power...

Its typical liberal bullshit to try and confuse the simplest of issues....
Sorry sonny....WE ARE THE PEOPLE mentioned in the Constitution....
and WE THE PEOPLE are expressly mentioned as having rights, inalienable rights...one of which is to own weapons...not merely to hunt game but more importantly to protect ourselves and our property....

[Jagger]

the reams of clear statements by the vast majority of the Framers that contradict his hoped-for agenda.
Show us reams of statements that the framers didn't want the states to have power to provide for their own militias.

[Hobbit]

Show us reams of statements that the framers didn't want the states to have power to provide for their own militias.

If the state directly provides for and controls it, it isn't a militia.

Geez, you think you'd have figured that out by now. If any government controls the force, it is no longer a militia. It's a conscription.

[Jagger]

an armed and capable populace is necessary for freedom The Second Amendment says a well regulated militia is necessary. It says nothing about an armed and capable populace being necessary.


and that ordinary people must retain their right to arms themselves as they see fit. The founders knew, from the experience with the militia during the Revolution, that relying on the people in the militia to provide their own arms wouldn't result in a well armed militia. That is why, as soon as the Federal Government had a few dollars, Congress started buying muskets for the militia.

[Yurt]

The Second Amendment says a well regulated militia is necessary. It says nothing about an armed and capable populace being necessary.

The founders knew, from the experience with the militia during the Revolution, that relying on the people in the militia to provide their own arms wouldn't result in a well armed militia. That is why, as soon as the Federal Government had a few dollars, Congress started buying muskets for the militia.

it also says nothing about who regulates teh militia now does it? what does a militia mean if it does not mean an armed and capable populace? just because congress bought muskets for the militia does not prove anything, other than congress gave muskets to the militia.

[Joe Steel]

What convoluted bullshit....

If the founding fathers wanted to express "the people" as sovereign they would have used that term....and WE THE PEOPLE do not have 'sovereign power or authority', individually or as a group, except as provided for as a power to VOTE and have that LIMITED form of sovereignty or power...

Its typical liberal bullshit to try and confuse the simplest of issues....
Sorry sonny....WE ARE THE PEOPLE mentioned in the Constitution....
and WE THE PEOPLE are expressly mentioned as having rights, inalienable rights...one of which is to own weapons...not merely to hunt game but more importantly to protect ourselves and our property....

Utter nonsense.

Obviously, the product of a semi-literate and uneducated buffoon.

[Joe Steel]

But a statement of principle, isn't the only thing it is. It's also a clear and firm command: Government is forbidden to take away or restrict ordinary people's right to own and carry guns and other such weapons. Period. And if various intrusive governments and their advocates (like Jagger) don't like it, too bad.

The Second Amendment says absolutely nothing about the personal possession of guns. It declares a right for the People not for any person or group of persons.

[Hobbit]

The Second Amendment says a well regulated militia is necessary. It says nothing about an armed and capable populace being necessary.

The founders knew, from the experience with the militia during the Revolution, that relying on the people in the militia to provide their own arms wouldn't result in a well armed militia. That is why, as soon as the Federal Government had a few dollars, Congress started buying muskets for the militia.

And you continue to ignore the repeated definitions, straight out of the dictionary, that if the militia is regulated and provided for by the state, then it ceases to be a militia.

[Rick OShea]

The Second Amendment says absolutely nothing about the personal possession of guns. It declares a right for the People not for any person or group of persons.

Meaningless . . .

The individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms is not granted, given, created, conferred or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court has also said that the citizen's right to arms is not dependent in any way on the Constitution for its existence.

If the right exists without any reference to the 2nd, how can the words and construction of the 2nd have any impact on the scope or exercise of the right?

No power was ever granted to government to impact the personal possession of guns, so none exists.

All the 2nd Amendment does is redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it does not possess.

Please cite the clause of the Constitution that permits the federal government to have any import whatsoever on the personal arms of the private citizen . . . THAT is the determining factor on whether a "right" exists because "We the People" retain everything not conferred to the care of the federal and state governments (see Amendments 9 & 10).

So again, the question is not, do the citizen's have the right to possess and use their private arms . . . The question is, does the government have the (legitimate) power to even have an opinion on the citizen's private arms?

I don't need any agent of the government to tell me what my rights are. My rights predate the Constitution and the governmental authority created by it. By the Constitution's structure, no governmental agency has any legitimate import on the extent of my rights, only of laws.

This also extends to the courts including SCOTUS . . . As a creation of the Constitution their duty is NOT to determine if a right exists, or its scope, or whether it is popular, only whether a law enacted is beyond the strictly limited, clearly defined powers delegated to the legislature.
*
I find especially repugnant any member of Congress pontificating on the extent of my rights; their purview is only the creation of law at the citizen's behest, not the citizen's rights. Their only legitimate concern regarding my rights is to not exceed the legislative authority granted to them by the Constitution . . . If the bastards could only stick to that our rights would be safe . . .

[Missileman]

The Second Amendment says nothing about an army of common citizens. It says a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.

Under Article One Section Eight, Congress was granted exclusive power to organize, arm and discipline the militia. The Anti-Federalists pointed out that Congress could destroy the militia by merely neglecting it or running it into the ground. Therefore, it was deemed necessary to grant the states concurrent power with Congress to provide for the militia, because a well regulated militia was believed to be necessary for the security of a free state, and they didn't trust Congress with exclusive power to provide for the militia.

Article 1 section 8 enpowers Congress to PROVIDE FOR...AKA FUND organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia.


To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

[Little-Acorn]

Article 1 section 8 enpowers Congress to PROVIDE FOR...AKA FUND organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia.

That's correct... and it was that way for several years after the Constitution was ratified. But then that changed when the Bill of Rights was added, containing the 2nd amendment, which modified those powers of Congress.

The modification was: Congress was no longer allowed to do ANYTHING that might restrict or take away the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons.

As Jagger pointed out (hey, he finally got one right, there goes his perfect 0-for-everything record), by some interpretations Congress might be able to disarm a militia (that is, the male populace capable of bearing arms) by not giving it any weapons, and then twisting things to say that since only Congress could arm the militia those folks could not buy their own weapons, even privately.

One purpose of the 2nd amendment, was to eliminate that "argument". No matter what Congress did (or didn't do), ordinary people (that populace again) still retained their right to own and carry guns.

[Silver]

The Second Amendment says absolutely nothing about the personal possession of guns. It declares a right for the People not for any person or group of persons.

a right for the People not for any person or group of persons

FOR the people but NOT FOR any person ???

and NOT FOR any group of persons (a group of persons is commonly known as PEOPLE)

This is quite laughable...it makes no freekin' sense ....it is beyond being stupid...

Does the 'steel' refer to the steel in your head, or for your heads density?

You're not worth the trouble of debating....arguing with you gives your lame comments a validity you don't deserve....

[DragonStryk72]

The Second Amendment says absolutely nothing about the personal possession of guns. It declares a right for the People not for any person or group of persons.

Again, Joe, where the hell is the militia getting the guns then? come on, man, seriously, pay attention, words mean shit.

[Jagger]

it also says nothing about who regulates teh militia now does it? Since a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a state, the state obviously should have the power to regulate the militia, if Congress fails to to so.


What does a militia mean if it does not mean an armed and capable populace?
Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use. Thus the law mentioned by Puffendorfl, which forbade a layman to lay hands on a priest, was adjudged to extend to him, who had hurt a priest with a weapon. Again; terms of art, or technical terms, must be taken according to the acceptation of the learned in each art, trade, and science. So in the act of settlement, where the crown of England is limited “to the princess Sophia, and the heirs “of her body, being Protestants,” it becomes necessary to call in the assistance of lawyers, to ascertain the precise idea of the words “heirs of her body;” which in a legal sense comprise only certain of her lineal descendants. Lastly, where words are clearly repugnant in two laws, the later law takes place of the elder: leges pofteriores priores contraries abrogant is a maxim of universal law, as ell as of our own constitutions. And accordingly it was laid down by a law of the twelve tables at Rome, quod populus poftremum juffit, id jus ratum efto.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_intro.asp#1

--Blackstone' Commentaries; Page 59.

The usual meaning of the word militia in 1789 was "standing force of a nation; train-bands." See 1787 edition of A Dictionary of the English Language.


Just because congress bought muskets for the militia does not prove anything, other than congress gave muskets to the militia. It's evidence that the founding generation, at the time of the founding, didn't believe that the members of the militia should have to provide their own arms. If we're going to consider post ex facto evidence, which we shouldn't, we must consider all of the evidence.

[Missileman]

It's evidence that the founding generation, at the time of the founding, didn't believe that the members of the militia should have to provide their own arms. If we're going to consider post ex facto evidence, which we shouldn't, we must consider all of the evidence.

It can very well be interpreted that Congress believed that every citizen should be armed in the interest of national security... even those unable to afford them.

[Jagger]

where the hell is the militia getting the guns then? The framers of the Constitution granted Congress the power to decide that. The Anti-Federalist didn't like the idea of Congress having exclusive power to arm the militia, because it could disarm the militia by merely neglecting it. The Second Amendment declares that a well regulated militia is essential to the security of a state. I read the second clause of the Amendment to grant the several states broad concurrent power with Congress to provide for the militia.

[Jagger]

Congress was no longer allowed to do ANYTHING that might restrict or take away the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons.
Congress was never granted general authority over arms in the first place, and denying Congress general power over arms wouldn't have done squat to ensure that the several States would have their own well regulated militias, or even well armed state militias, because in 1789, few people, as was the case during Shays's Rebellion in 1787, owned a musket or fire lock suitable for military duty.

Shays's force of rebels, all of whom were also members of the Massachusetts state militia, was poorly armed and attempted in 1787 to take the Federal Armory in Springfield Massachusetts to obtain arms suitable for military purposes. The equally poorly armed local militia under the command of General William Shepard, without permission from General Knox or Congress, commandeered the federal arms in the Springfield Armory and easily defeated Shays's men, thanks to federal cannon from the armory. Then General Shepard returned the arms to the Springfield Amory.

Congress, just two years after Shays's Rebellion, would have been crazy to have believed that a well armed militia would be be the result of relying on each member of the militia to provide his own arms.

[Jagger]

...since only Congress could arm the militia those folks could not buy their own weapons, even privately. Huh? Congress was granted broad power to regulate commerce. Buying and selling guns is commerce, dude.


No matter what Congress did (or didn't do), ordinary people (that populace again) still retained their right to own and carry guns. If you mean that the Constitution didn't grant Congress general power over guns, you're correct.

[Jagger]

....if the militia is regulated and provided for by the state, then it ceases to be a militia. http://www.criticallayouts.com/component/option,com_rsgallery2/Itemid,330/page,inline/id,14249/catid,716/limitstart,9/

Huh?

[jimnyc]

All this discussion is just "ranting" at this point. The Supreme Court has already interpreted the constitution and I still, and always did, have the right to bear arms. Those against their correct interpretation - tough shit. And get this, even if the court somehow got loaded with liberal judges and they somehow change that decision - it WON'T change anything about the citizens possessing their guns. The law already is against felons and criminals, and they're probably better armed than everyone else. I'll be buying myself a 9mm before too awfully long and if the supreme court somehow took that right away - I would still be arming myself before too long. You kooks that want to incorrectly interpret the constitution to state citizens (as a person) aren't granted that right are in a lose-lose position. You're just in an un-armed losing position. Deal with it.

[Little-Acorn]

the founding generation, at the time of the founding, didn't believe that the members of the militia should have to provide their own arms.

it was that way for several years after the Constitution was ratified. But then that changed when the Bill of Rights was added, containing the 2nd amendment, which modified those powers of Congress.

The modification was: Congress (or any other government) was no longer allowed to do ANYTHING that might restrict or take away the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons.

As Jagger pointed out (hey, he finally got one right, there goes his perfect 0-for-everything record), by some interpretations Congress might be able to disarm a militia (that is, the male populace capable of bearing arms) by not giving it any weapons, and then twisting things to say that since only Congress could arm the militia those folks could not buy their own weapons, even privately.

One purpose of the 2nd amendment, was to eliminate that "argument". No matter what Congress did (or didn't do), ordinary people (that populace again) still retained their right to own and carry guns.

[LOki]

The militia of the Constitution was to be well organized, well armed and well trained according to a system of military discipline.The presumption of a well organized, well armed and well trained militia was understood.


If Congress had exclusive authority to provide for the militia, it might neglect the militia and thereby disarm the states.Irrelevent, since the respective States were empowered by their respective Peoples to organize their own respective militas.


Therefore, it was necessary to grant the states power to provide for the militia, if Congress neglected to do so.The federal government granted no such power.


The first clause of the Second Amendment acknowledges that a state must have a well regulated militia for security.No it doesn't. The first clause of the Second Amendment acknowledges that a well regulated militia is neccessary for the security of a FREE State.


The second clause should be interpreted to grant the states the power to provide for the militia, . . .No, the second clause should be interpreted to aknowledge the RIGHT of the People to keep and bear arms.


. . . if Congress neglects to do so.The potential of Congress' neglect is irrelevent.


Otherwise, the states would be at the mercy of Congress.Again, not relevent. The 2nd Amendement is not about establishing State Powers, in any manner; but rather, enumerating one of the Rights of the People--and FORBIDDING that right from being infringed.

[LOki]

Why would Congress declare that a free state must have a well regulated militia . . .It doesn't.

[LOki]

the second amendment says nothing about an army of common citizens.

militia.

[LOki]

"People" is a collective noun used in the Constitution to refer to the citizenry as sovereign.Wrong.

[LOki]

The Second Amendment says a well regulated militia is necessary. It says nothing about an armed and capable populace being necessary.Except the part about how a regulated militia is excatly the same thing as an armed and capable populace.


The founders knew, from the experience with the militia during the Revolution, that relying on the people in the militia to provide their own arms wouldn't result in a well armed militia.Not the point of the 2nd.

[LOki]

The Second Amendment says absolutely nothing about the personal possession of guns.Except the part where the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


It declares a right for the People not for any person or group of persons.The People are a group of persons.

[Joe Steel]

Wrong.

Wrong.

[LOki]

Wrong.Demonstrate.

[Joe Steel]

Demonstrate.

OK.


"At once, in place of the individual personality of each contracting party, this act of association creates a moral and collective body, composed of as many members as the assembly contains votes, and receiving from this act its unity, its common identity, its life and its will. This public person, so formed by the union of all other persons formerly took the name of city,4 and now takes that of Republic or body politic; it is called by its members State when passive. Sovereign when active, and Power when compared with others like itself. Those who are associated in it take collectively the name of people, and severally are called citizens, as sharing in the sovereign power, and subjects, as being under the laws of the State. But these terms are often confused and taken one for another: it is enough to know how to distinguish them when they are being used with precision.

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT OR PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL RIGHT (http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon_01.htm)

[Little-Acorn]

There you go, Loki. When Rousseau said "the people", he means some weird collective multi-headed being that apparently existed in his imagination. And since Rousseau wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (including the 2nd amendment), that's what those documents meant by it, too.

How can you argue with that?

[Yurt]

Wrong.

have you read any of the other amendments, say, 1 or 4? if so, are you saying that the courts have it all wrong by allowing one person to argue that they have a right to speech or to be free from unreasonable search and seizure? if one person has the right to not have those rights trampled, why then do you make a different argument regards to the 2nd?

[Yurt]

OK.

joe, joe, joe....your link doesn't support your view at all, i fear you have engaged in another brutus v intellectual screw up by relying on something that actually defeats your point.

[Mr. P]

OK.

A very interesting site, JS.

It deserves a look folks..

You might like the Constitutional Defense section.

http://www.constitution.org/index.shtml

[LOki]

OK.FAIL.

Sovereignty is expressed the authoritative power to excercise force, and ". . .force does not create right, and that we are obliged to obey only legitimate powers.

SINCE no man has a natural authority over his fellow, and force creates no right, we must conclude that conventions form the basis of all legitimate authority among men."

Sovereignty is a function of powers, not rights. Particularly in free a nation that disavows the legitimacy of a king, the powers of the soverign body are derived of the powers of individual persons, and no soverign can have any powers that persons cannot grant.


"In fact, each individual, as a man, may have a particular will contrary or dissimilar to the general will which he has as a citizen. His particular interest may speak to him quite differently from the common interest: his absolute and naturally independent existence may make him look upon what he owes to the common cause as a gratuitous contribution, the loss of which will do less harm to others than the payment of it is burdensome to himself; and, regarding the moral person which constitutes the State as a persona ficta, because not a man, he may wish to enjoy the rights of citizenship without being ready to fulfil the duties of a subject. The continuance of such an injustice could not but prove the undoing of the body politic.

In order then that the social compact may not be an empty formula, it tacitly includes the undertaking, which alone can give force to the rest, that whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence. In this lies the key to the working of the political machine; this alone legitimises civil undertakings, which, without it, would be absurd, tyrannical, and liable to the most frightful abuses."
Despite the self contradictory notion that people being ". . . forced to be free. . ." is the legitimising factor of "civil undertakings", including the "social contract", the point made that a sovereign that disavows the Rights of the individual persons that constitute it's political body, is a sovereign that disavows the legitimacy of it's own existence.
"This public person, so formed by the union of all other persons formerly took the name of city, and now takes that of Republic or body politic; it is called by its members State when passive. Sovereign when active, and Power when compared with others like itself. Those who are associated in it take collectively the name of people, and severally are called citizens, as sharing in the sovereign power, and subjects, as being under the laws of the State. But these terms are often confused and taken one for another: it is enough to know how to distinguish them when they are being used with precision."In your very own citation Rousseau make clear that there is a difference between the sovereign, and those who are associated in it--and he predicts that YOU would become confused and take one for another.

In constitutional law (and to Rousseau), "The People" means, at it's narrowest interpretation, citizens enfranchised with political power, but its most common and usual usage--and I mean "common and usual" in the Blackstone and Tucker sense--as citizens of the nation or state politically empowered for political purposes. NOT THE STATE, NOT THE SOVEREIGN.

All this discussion of powers and the sovereign are fine, yet ultimately beside the point; as for Rights, which the Bill OF Rights specifically addresses, individual persons CANNOT grant rights to anything--individual persons HAVE rights inherently. There are no rights that the Sovereign has that are not DIRECTLY a function of the individual persons, that constitute the People, possessing those rights each individually. There are no "collective rights"; there are no "sovereign rights", that are not the individual rights of each person that comprises the collective or sovereign. Each individual possess these rights, and no social contract can legitimately dissociate the rights of the individual from the individual and then validly claim that the collective of those individuals possess those rights.

In the end, in the US Constitution, "The People" simply means the citizens of the United States of America, or where specified, the citizens of a particular State.

Joe, you were wrong in every past attempt to assert a "collective right" argument, you were wrong before you cited Rousseau, and you're still wrong now. Enjoy.

[Joe Steel]

FAIL.

Sovereignty is expressed the authoritative power to excercise force, and ". . .force does not create right, and that we are obliged to obey only legitimate powers.

SINCE no man has a natural authority over his fellow, and force creates no right, we must conclude that conventions form the basis of all legitimate authority among men."

Sovereignty is a function of powers, not rights. Particularly in free a nation that disavows the legitimacy of a king, the powers of the soverign body are derived of the powers of individual persons, and no soverign can have any powers that persons cannot grant.


"In fact, each individual, as a man, may have a particular will contrary or dissimilar to the general will which he has as a citizen. His particular interest may speak to him quite differently from the common interest: his absolute and naturally independent existence may make him look upon what he owes to the common cause as a gratuitous contribution, the loss of which will do less harm to others than the payment of it is burdensome to himself; and, regarding the moral person which constitutes the State as a persona ficta, because not a man, he may wish to enjoy the rights of citizenship without being ready to fulfil the duties of a subject. The continuance of such an injustice could not but prove the undoing of the body politic.

In order then that the social compact may not be an empty formula, it tacitly includes the undertaking, which alone can give force to the rest, that whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence. In this lies the key to the working of the political machine; this alone legitimises civil undertakings, which, without it, would be absurd, tyrannical, and liable to the most frightful abuses."
Despite the self contradictory notion that people being ". . . forced to be free. . ." is the legitimising factor of "civil undertakings", including the "social contract", the point made that a sovereign that disavows the Rights of the individual persons that constitute it's political body, is a sovereign that disavows the legitimacy of it's own existence.
"This public person, so formed by the union of all other persons formerly took the name of city, and now takes that of Republic or body politic; it is called by its members State when passive. Sovereign when active, and Power when compared with others like itself. Those who are associated in it take collectively the name of people, and severally are called citizens, as sharing in the sovereign power, and subjects, as being under the laws of the State. But these terms are often confused and taken one for another: it is enough to know how to distinguish them when they are being used with precision."In your very own citation Rousseau make clear that there is a difference between the sovereign, and those who are associated in it--and he predicts that YOU would become confused and take one for another.

In constitutional law (and to Rousseau), "The People" means, at it's narrowest interpretation, citizens enfranchised with political power, but its most common and usual usage--and I mean "common and usual" in the Blackstone and Tucker sense--as citizens of the nation or state politically empowered for political purposes. NOT THE STATE, NOT THE SOVEREIGN.

All this discussion of powers and the sovereign are fine, yet ultimately beside the point; as for Rights, which the Bill OF Rights specifically addresses, individual persons CANNOT grant rights to anything--individual persons HAVE rights inherently. There are no rights that the Sovereign has that are not DIRECTLY a function of the individual persons, that constitute the People, possessing those rights each individually. There are no "collective rights"; there are no "sovereign rights", that are not the individual rights of each person that comprises the collective or sovereign. Each individual possess these rights, and no social contract can legitimately dissociate the rights of the individual from the individual and then validly claim that the collective of those individuals possess those rights.

In the end, in the US Constitution, "The People" simply means the citizens of the United States of America, or where specified, the citizens of a particular State.

Joe, you were wrong in every past attempt to assert a "collective right" argument, you were wrong before you cited Rousseau, and you're still wrong now. Enjoy.

To label your babbling sophistry would be charitble. In this holiday season I'm feeling generous so we'll let it go at that.

However, I would mention:


Those who are associated in it take collectively the name of people, and severally are called citizens, as sharing in the sovereign power, and subjects, as being under the laws of the State. But these terms are often confused and taken one for another: it is enough to know how to distinguish them when they are being used with precision."[/i]

I have used them with precision. You need more work with the English language.

[Joe Steel]

joe, joe, joe....your link doesn't support your view at all, i fear you have engaged in another brutus v intellectual screw up by relying on something that actually defeats your point.

Please explain.

[Joe Steel]

have you read any of the other amendments, say, 1 or 4? if so, are you saying that the courts have it all wrong by allowing one person to argue that they have a right to speech or to be free from unreasonable search and seizure? if one person has the right to not have those rights trampled, why then do you make a different argument regards to the 2nd?

Generally speaking, personal rights were added to the Constitution by activist judges.

As Antonin "Fat Tony" Scalia just demonstrated, that kind of thing happens all the time.

[Yurt]

Generally speaking, personal rights were added to the Constitution by activist judges.

As Antonin "Fat Tony" Scalia just demonstrated, that kind of thing happens all the time.

are you actually saying that no one individual has a right to mount a legal challenge to a search and seizure or free speech, religion? that if the police unreasonably search and seize that you as an individual have absolutely no standing to argue against that kind of action because 'people' means the right is not individual rather: (your words) It declares a right for the People not for any person or group of persons.

Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 2
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.

Amendment 4 -
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.

[Joe Steel]

are you actually saying that no one individual has a right to mount a legal challenge to a search and seizure or free speech, religion? that if the police unreasonably search and seize that you as an individual have absolutely no standing to argue against that kind of action because 'people' means the right is not individual rather: (your words) It declares a right for the People not for any person or group of persons.

That's not what I said. I said personal rights were added to the Constitution by activist judges.

So, yes, the aggrieved party could challenge the actions you mentioned. He has rights but not because they were put in the Constitution by the text. The rights were "found" by judges.

[Yurt]

That's not what I said. I said personal rights were added to the Constitution by activist judges.

So, yes, the aggrieved party could challenge the actions you mentioned. He has rights but not because they were put in the Constitution by the text. The rights were "found" by judges.

the words in read were bolded by you, granted you referenced them, but by bolding them i assumed you agreed with them and for all intents and purposes they were your words.

you did say that about judges....do you then believe that but for the judges rulings that we do not have individual rights under the constitution? that the term: right of the people is not individual? your words strongly indicate you believe that as you have said that those very words in the second amend. do not mean a single person, rather you have espoused it means "collective."

[LOki]

To label your babbling sophistry would be charitble. In this holiday season I'm feeling generous so we'll let it go at that.In other words, you just have no game. You were wrong in every past attempt to assert a "collective right" argument, you were wrong before you cited Rousseau, and you're still wrong now.


However, I would mention:
Those who are associated in it take collectively the name of people, and severally are called citizens, as sharing in the sovereign power, and subjects, as being under the laws of the State. But these terms are often confused and taken one for another: it is enough to know how to distinguish them when they are being used with precision."[/i]I have used them with precision. But not accuracy. You can be consistently wrong, in precisely the same manner, in asserting that "the People" means "the State" or "the Sovereign", but being precise in your wrong usage just makes you precise in your error--it doesn't make you right. It's now time for you to come correct--you've been corrected over and over, your "collective right" argument has been roundly refuted, your continued embrace of the dumbfuck notion under the aegis of precise usage is just intellectual dishonesty.


You need more work with the English language.
In your very own citation Rousseau makes clear that there is a difference between the sovereign, and those who are associated in it--and he predicts that YOU would become confused and take one for another.The precision of your wrongness does not change the fact that you're wrong. You sirrah, need more work with the English language.

At the end of the day, in the US Constitution, "The People" simply means the citizens of the United States of America, or where specified, the citizens of a particular State.

[DragonStryk72]

The framers of the Constitution granted Congress the power to decide that. The Anti-Federalist didn't like the idea of Congress having exclusive power to arm the militia, because it could disarm the militia by merely neglecting it. The Second Amendment declares that a well regulated militia is essential to the security of a state. I read the second clause of the Amendment to grant the several states broad concurrent power with Congress to provide for the militia.

You're not actually answering the question, though. you're skipping around, but not answering it. I mean the guns themselves, since the states did not have government owned gunsmiths, as well as a rather prodigious number of hunters and trappers amongst the citizenry.

[Joe Steel]

In other words, you just have no game. You were wrong in every past attempt to assert a "collective right" argument, you were wrong before you cited Rousseau, and you're still wrong now.

Try again, dumbass.

I'm batting 1.000. I've never been substantially wrong about anything.

You, on the other hand, seem unable to get the day of the week right. You're attempt at this issue was, for instance, laughably inaccurate. Stupid, in fact. It suggests you've never read a thing but rightwing websites. Is that the limit of your ability?

[Jagger]

In 1788, the founding fathers made Congress responsible for arming the militia. However, some of them were afraid that the Constitution would be interpreted to deny the states power to arm their militias, if Congress neglected its duty to do so.

The Second Amendment is very ambiguous. However, it is obvious that the need for a free state to have a well regulated militia for security, was the cause that moved the founders to enact the Second Amendment. Therefore, in compliance with Blackstone's manual on rules of interpretation, the most rational and reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment is that it gives a state broad power to provide for a well regulated militia for the security of the state.

[Jagger]

You're not actually answering the question, though. you're skipping around, but not answering it. I mean the guns themselves, since the states did not have government owned gunsmiths, as well as a rather prodigious number of hunters and trappers amongst the citizenry. What was the question, you accuse me of not answering?

[Jagger]

the 2nd amendment...modified those powers of Congress. That's not what the preamble to the amendments says.


The modification was: Congress (or any other government) was no longer allowed to do ANYTHING that might restrict or take away the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons.
Congress was never granted general power to restrict or take away guns. However, it was granted the power to regulate commerce among the states, which could be used to restrict the manufacturing and selling and buying of arms.


by some interpretations Congress might be able to disarm a state militia by not giving it any weapons You speak the truth.


..and then twisting things to say that since only Congress could arm the militia those folks could not buy their own weapons, even privately.
What founder ever interpreted the Constitution to mean that folks couldn't buy their own weapons?


One purpose of the 2nd amendment, was to eliminate that "argument". The true purpose of the Second Amendment was to amuse the people, or rather to deceive them. However, even though it is an ambiguous piece of crap, we still ascertain its meaning by a fair, honest, and objective application of the well established common law rules of interpretation that the lawmakers would have kept in mind as they made the Constitution.

In the case of the Second Amendment, we're forced to resort to the last rule of interpretation which dictates that when words are extremely dubious, the best way to determine their meaning is to consider the spirit and reason of the law or the cause which moved the lawmakers to enact it. The cause that moved the lawmakers was apparently the need for a free state to provide for a well regulated militia for its security. Therefore, we must understand the Second Amendment to grant the states broad power to provide for their militias.


ordinary people retained their right to own and carry guns.
The Second Amendment doesn't say that "ordinary people retained their right to own and carry guns." We should understand the Second Amendment to grant the states broad power to provide for their militias.

[Yurt]

That's not what the preamble to the amendments says.

Congress was never granted general power to restrict or take away guns. However, it was granted the power to regulate commerce among the states, which could be used to restrict the manufacturing and selling and buying of arms.

You speak the truth.

What founder ever interpreted the Constitution to mean that folks couldn't buy their own weapons?

The true purpose of the Second Amendment was to amuse the people, or rather to deceive them. However, even though it is an ambiguous piece of crap, we still ascertain its meaning by a fair, honest, and objective application of the well established common law rules of interpretation that the lawmakers would have kept in mind as they made the Constitution.

In the case of the Second Amendment, we're forced to resort to the last rule of interpretation which dictates that when words are extremely dubious, the best way to determine their meaning is to consider the spirit and reason of the law or the cause which moved the lawmakers to enact it. The cause that moved the lawmakers was apparently the need for a free state to provide for a well regulated militia for its security. Therefore, we must understand the Second Amendment to grant the states broad power to provide for their militias.


The Second Amendment doesn't say that "ordinary people retained their right to own and carry guns." We should understand the Second Amendment to grant the states broad power to provide for their militias.

now thats funny! you guys are wrong on the second amendment because the second amendment was created to amuse people, or, er, uh deceive them. you do realize by stating this hyperbole that you actually admit we are right to believe the second amendment gives us the rights we believe to be true. but somehow, you have inside knowledge that the amendment was a LIE in order to amuse or deceive us. you're funny.

if the second is not about "ordinary" people, is the first or the fourth about ordinary people?

[Yurt]

the words in read were bolded by you, granted you referenced them, but by bolding them i assumed you agreed with them and for all intents and purposes they were your words.

you did say that about judges....do you then believe that but for the judges rulings that we do not have individual rights under the constitution? that the term: right of the people is not individual? your words strongly indicate you believe that as you have said that those very words in the second amend. do not mean a single person, rather you have espoused it means "collective."

:dance:

loki:

nice job on using his cite to prove him wrong. he got spanked before when he used brutus v and i told him this time that his cite also doesn't work and goes against what he believes.

[DragonStryk72]

In 1788, the founding fathers made Congress responsible for arming the militia. However, some of them were afraid that the Constitution would be interpreted to deny the states power to arm their militias, if Congress neglected its duty to do so.

The Second Amendment is very ambiguous. However, it is obvious that the need for a free state to have a well regulated militia for security, was the cause that moved the founders to enact the Second Amendment. Therefore, in compliance with Blackstone's manual on rules of interpretation, the most rational and reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment is that it gives a state broad power to provide for a well regulated militia for the security of the state.

"I would rather attend the difficulties of too much liberty, than too little." Benjamin Franklin

That would be one of the framers. You keep speaking of them as a single entity, and they were not. You also do not address the use of The People, as it is used in Yurt's examples of the 1st and 4th. Now, either you personally have a right to speech and privacy, or you do not, and it is subject to the will of the congress as you put it.

Nobody would have put both contexts of the word in without some way of telling them apart, but that doesn't happen here, the same exact reference is used in all three amendments, so obviously, the raitonal and reasonable point is that The People refers to the citizenry, not the State.

[DragonStryk72]

What was the question, you accuse me of not answering?

Where do the guns come from? Militias have, throughout history, been armed by the people themselves, hence why they would often be referred to as "farmers with pitchforks". The States had no personal arsenals, and no gunsmith on the government payroll at the time, instead using independent laborers. So again, where are these guns coming from? Well, it's simple: From The People.

[Little-Acorn]

The true purpose of the Second Amendment was to amuse the people, or rather to deceive them. However, even though it is an ambiguous piece of crap

In modern language, the 2nd says:

Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted.

So much for the "ambiguity" that little jagger keeps insisting he sees. Such "ambiguity" is vital to his agenda of making people think the 2nd says something it doesn't.

Unfortunately for him, the ambiguity is only in his mind... in more ways than one. :lol:

[Jagger]

now thats funny! you guys are wrong on the second amendment because the second amendment was created to amuse people, or, er, uh deceive them.


We have been for some time past and still are upon the boundless field of. amendments, and whether we shall bring any thing to issue or not is uncertain, for the opinions are almost as various as there are members, a few antis are perplexing the House and taking up their precious moments in propositions which are of such an inadmissable a nature as invariably to meet a rejection which they so justly merit, they say the propositions reported by the committee of eleven are only calculated to amuse without materialy affecting those parts of the Constitution which were particularly objectionable and therefore unavailing.

--Benjamin Goodhue to Michael Hedge, 20 August 1789, Eben F. Stone Papers, Essex Institute, Salem, Massachusetts.



*******




You will find our Amendments to the Constitution calculated merely to amuse, or rather to deceive.

--Thomas Tudor Tucker to St. George Tucker, 2 October 1789, Roberts Autograph Collection, Haverford College, Haverford, Pennsylvania

[Jagger]

if the second is not about "ordinary" people, is the first or the fourth about ordinary people? If you knew the well established common law rules of legal interpretation existent when the Constitution was made, you could determine that for yourself. If you don't even know what the rules of construction were, you have no business trying to interpret the Constitution and should leave such an important matter to those who are qualified.

[Yurt]

provide a link. further, one person does not prove your point, tucker was opposed to the constitution in its entirety. that is like quoting obama during the primaries regarding hillary. it proves nothing and it does not even come close to proving that the "true" purpose was as you say. the opinion of one person or even two persons, especially those who were OPPOSED to the entire constitution does not prove your point. that is like citing the dissenting opinion in a legal case to proclaim that the true legal ruling should be the dissenter's opinion.

nonsense.

nice try.

[Yurt]

If you knew the well established common law rules of legal interpretation existent when the Constitution was made, you could determine that for yourself. If you don't even know what the rules of construction were, you have no business trying to interpret the Constitution and should leave such an important matter to those who are qualified.

you keep parroting that bullcowpie as if repitition somehow makes your point true.

[Jagger]

You also do not address the use of The People, as it is used in Yurt's examples of the 1st and 4th. Now, either you personally have a right to speech and privacy, or you do not, and it is subject to the will of the congress as you put it. You're making the rookie mistake of assuming that a word must mean the same thing each time it is used in the Constitution. Changing the context of word can change its meaning. The words "State" and "establish" in the Constitution are good examples of how the context of a word can change its meaning.

If you knew the well established common law rules of legal interpretation existent when the Constitution was made, you wouldn't make these mistakes. Since you don't even know what the rules of construction were in the late 1700's, you should leave interpreting the Constitution to those who are actually qualified.


Nobody would have put both contexts of the word in without some way of telling them apart Huh? The word is used more than twice in the Constitution.


the same exact reference is used in all three amendments
What reference?


The People refers to the citizenry, not the State.
You need to learn the rules of construction. When a law is hopelessly ambiguous, such as is the case of the Second Amendment, the rule of interpretation is that the cause which moved the lawmakers to enact the law must be considered.

The importance of a well regulated militia for the security of a free state is the cause that moved the lawmakers to enact the Second Amendment. Therefore, we must understand the Amendment to grant the states broad power to provide for a well regulated militia, even if Congress has the same power, because otherwise, Congress by merely neglecting to arm the militia could deprive the state of a well armed militia.

[Jagger]

Where do the guns come from? Congress and the states determine where the arms for the militia come from.


Militias have, throughout history, been armed by the people themselves
That statement is false.

[Jagger]

provide a link. Use Goggle, dude, those are famous quotations.

[Jagger]

one person does not prove your pointIt's obvious to me that the Second Amendment was intentionally made to be ambiguous.

[Jagger]

you keep parroting that bullcowpie as if repitition somehow makes your point true. You need to learn the rules of construction, dude.

[Little-Acorn]

It's obvious to me that the Second Amendment was intentionally made to be ambiguous.

In modern language, the 2nd says:

Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted.

So much for the "ambiguity" that little jagger keeps insisting he sees. Such "ambiguity" is vital to his agenda of making people think the 2nd says something it doesn't.

Unfortunately for him, the ambiguity is only in his mind... in more ways than one. :lol:

[LOki]

I'm batting 1.000. I've never been substantially wrong about anything.How about this: COLLECTIVE RIGHT.

No "collective" possesses any rights as a collective. There is just no such thing as a "collective right."

Substantial enough for you?

You're batting a goose egg.


You, on the other hand, seem unable to get the day of the week right. You're attempt at this issue was, for instance, laughably inaccurate. Stupid, in fact. It suggests you've never read a thing but rightwing websites. Is that the limit of your ability?Still unable to bring any game? Not even against a "laughably inaccurate", "Stupid", attempt? You can't beat that?

Demonstrate where ANYTHING I've posted to rebut your dumbass assertion is inaccurate or stupid.

[LOki]

The Second Amendment is very ambiguous.There's nothing ambiguous about, ". . . the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed."


However, it is obvious that the need for a free state to have a well regulated militia for security, was the cause that moved the founders to enact the Second Amendment.The enacted nothing. They enumerated a right. The preamble to the Second Amendment is nothing but an expression of Congress' interest in enumerating the particular right.


Therefore, in compliance with Blackstone's manual on rules of interpretation, the most rational and reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment is that it gives a state broad power to provide for a well regulated militia for the security of the state.Laughably inaccurate. Stupid. Substanitially wrong.

[LOki]

We should understand the Second Amendment to grant the states broad power to provide for their militias.Laughably inaccurate. Stupid. Substanitially wrong.

[Jagger]

Laughably inaccurate. Stupid. Substanitially wrong. I know you are, but what am I?

[Jagger]

There's nothing ambiguous about, ". . . the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed."

The enacted nothing. They enumerated a right. The preamble to the Second Amendment is nothing but an expression of Congress' interest in enumerating the particular right.

Laughably inaccurate. Stupid. Substanitially wrong. I know you are, but what am I?

[Yurt]

I know you are, but what am I?

someone who is not capable of debating the issues.

[Jagger]

There's nothing ambiguous about, ". . . the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed." Why did you leave out the part that tell us what the reason for the Amendment was?


The preamble to the Second Amendment is nothing but an expression of Congress' interest in enumerating the particular right. That's funny.

Be a man and face the facts, dude. The cause that moved the lawmakers to enact the Second Amendment was the need for a well regulated militia to secure the free state. Why would they declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of a free state and then not give the states power to provide for what they needed for security?

[Yurt]

Why did you leave out the part that tell us what the reason for the Amendment was?

That's funny.

Be a man and face the facts, dude. The cause that moved the lawmakers to enact the Second Amendment was the need for a well regulated militia to secure the free state. Why would they declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of a free state and then not give the states power to provide for what they needed for security?

where does it state that the citizens CANNOT provide for their own militia?

[Jagger]

an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom... That may be your personal opinion, but the lawmakers believed so strongly that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of a free state, that they actually put it in the Constitution.


the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted. People having the freedom to own arms suitable for military duty never has, and never will, result in a well regulated militia.

Do you really want the members of the National Guard to pay for their own weapons and take them home?

http://www.army.mil/-images/2007/04/22/3579/size1-army.mil-2007-04-20-164937.jpg http://www.army.mil/factfiles/images/thumbs/indirect/m102_outline.gif http://www.army.mil/factfiles/images/thumbs/wheeled/stryker_outline.gif http://www.army.mil/factfiles/images/thumbs/indirect/paladin_outline.gif http://www.army.mil/factfiles/images/thumbs/indirect/m252_outline.gif http://www.army.mil/factfiles/images/thumbs/antiarmor/javelin_outline.gif http://www.army.mil/-images/2007/05/21/5155/size1-army.mil-2007-05-21-134956.jpghttp://www.army.mil/factfiles/images/thumbs/antiarmor/tow_outline.gif http://www.army.mil/-images/2007/05/14/5016/size1-army.mil-2007-05-14-155640.jpg

[Jagger]

where does it state that the citizens CANNOT provide for their own militia? The people surrendered that right to the government.

[Yurt]

The people surrendered that right to the government.

iow, you can't prove it....no surprise

national guard is NOT the militia

[LOki]

Why did you leave out the part that tell us what the reason for the Amendment was? Congress' interest in enumerating the right is irrelevent to the existence of the right.


That's funny.Really? How so?


Be a man and face the facts, dude.I'm not in denial of any facts.


The cause that moved the lawmakers to enact the Second Amendment was the need for a well regulated militia to secure the free state.Considering that you questioned my understanding of English, I find it humorous that you can't grasp it yourself.


Why would they declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of a free state and then not give the states power to provide for what they needed for security?Congress does not empower the States. There is no mention of State powers in the Second Amendement--the Second Amendment addresses a Right.

[LOki]

The people surrendered that right to the government.Laughably inaccurate. Stupid. Substanitially wrong.

[Joe Steel]

How about this: COLLECTIVE RIGHT.

No "collective" possesses any rights as a collective. There is just no such thing as a "collective right."

Substantial enough for you?

You're batting a goose egg.

You're not just wrong. You're posting nonsense.


Still unable to bring any game? Not even against a "laughably inaccurate", "Stupid", attempt? You can't beat that?

Demonstrate where ANYTHING I've posted to rebut your dumbass assertion is inaccurate or stupid.

You misinterpreted what you've posted. Try again, dumbass.

"Those who are associated in it take collectively the name of people"

As I said an earlier posting, People is a collective noun for citizens." That's consistent with my citation. My usage of the term was not imprecise or inaccurate as you said.

Get someone to explain it to you.

[LOki]

You're not just wrong. You're posting nonsense.Nonsense is the notion of a "collective right." They just do not exist outside of your retarded imagination.


You misinterpreted what you've posted. Try again, dumbass.

"Those who are associated in it take collectively the name of people"

As I said an earlier posting, People is a collective noun for citizens." No I said that. You said, ""People" is a collective noun used in the Constitution to refer to the citizenry as sovereign."


That's consistent with my citation. My usage of the term was not imprecise or inaccurate as you said.Your citation says:
". . . it is called by its members State when passive. Sovereign when active, and Power when compared with others like itself. Those who are associated in it take collectively the name of people, and severally are called citizens, as sharing in the sovereign power, and subjects, as being under the laws of the State. But these terms are often confused and taken one for another: it is enough to know how to distinguish them when they are being used with precision."
Get someone to explain it to you.Instead, I'll explain it to you, fucktard: There is a difference between who "The People" are, and what the State, or the Sovereign is--you're confused, and have taken one for another; your insuffuciency lies not in your prescision, but rather your failure to distinguish them.

[Jagger]

The founders envisioned three possible sources of arms for the militia.


Mr. KING added, to his former explanation that arming meant not only to provide for uniformity of arms, but included authority to regulate the modes of furnishing, either by the Militia themselves, the State Governments, or the National Treasury: that laws for disciplining, must involve penalties and every thing necessary for enforcing penalties.

--Madison's Notes Tuesday August 23, 1787

[Yurt]

You're not just wrong. You're posting nonsense.



You misinterpreted what you've posted. Try again, dumbass.

"Those who are associated in it take collectively the name of people"

As I said an earlier posting, People is a collective noun for citizens." That's consistent with my citation. My usage of the term was not imprecise or inaccurate as you said.

Get someone to explain it to you.

did you answer regarding the 1st and 4th amendments "the right of the people"....last we left you said judges made it individual, so i asked you if you truly believe that an individual cannot get redress for an unreasonable search and seizure or a 1st amendment violation by the government....i am curious as to your beliefs on this matter.

[Joe Steel]

did you answer regarding the 1st and 4th amendments "the right of the people"

Yes.

[Joe Steel]

Nonsense is the notion of a "collective right." They just do not exist outside of your retarded imagination.

No I said that. You said, ""People" is a collective noun used in the Constitution to refer to the citizenry as sovereign."

Your citation says:
". . . it is called by its members State when passive. Sovereign when active, and Power when compared with others like itself. Those who are associated in it take collectively the name of people, and severally are called citizens, as sharing in the sovereign power, and subjects, as being under the laws of the State. But these terms are often confused and taken one for another: it is enough to know how to distinguish them when they are being used with precision."Instead, I'll explain it to you, fucktard: There is a difference between who "The People" are, and what the State, or the Sovereign is--you're confused, and have taken one for another; your insuffuciency lies not in your prescision, but rather your failure to distinguish them.

This is what I get for paying attention to a half-wit.

Here's what I posted, half-wit:


"People" is a collective noun used in the Constitution to refer to the citizenry as sovereign. A mere group of persons acting or considered as other than the sovereign are not the People.

The reference to the The Social Contract was for the benefit of your two brain cells, to explain the notion of a "collective." It doesn't support the whole assertion, just a part of it. That's why I bolded only part of it.

Now. Do you see "used in the Constitution?" If all you have is parsing, you have to parse the whole text. You have to use all the words. Every part of a text has to be considered.

In the Constitution, the words "the People" are used to refer to the collective sovereign.

This may help understand the substance of the issue, dumbass:


The American Revolution marked a departure in the concept of popular sovereignty as it had been discussed and employed in the European historical context. With their Revolution, Americans substituted the sovereignty in the person of the English king, George III, with a collective sovereign--composed of the people. Henceforth, American revolutionaries by and large agreed and were committed to the principle that governments were legitimate only if they rested on popular sovereignty - that is, the sovereignty of the people. [1] In 18th century American political thought, "the people" excluded most of the population, such as women, African Americans, those lacking sufficient property, Native Americans, and children.[2]

This idea that the people were the sovereign--often linked with the notion of the consent of the governed--was not invented by the American revolutionaries. Rather, the consent of the governed and the idea of the people as a sovereign had clear 17th and 18th century intellectual roots in English history. [3] The American contribution lay in what Americans did with the idea that the people were the sovereign--how they struggled with and put that idea into practice. Before the American Revolution, few examples existed of a people deliberately creating their own governments. Most people in the world experienced governments as an inheritance--whether monarchies or expressions of raw power. [4] What underscored the excitement surrounding the creation of constitutions establishing governments in America after Independence was the fact that Americans deliberately and self-consciously created governments at one single moment explicitly relying on the authority of the sovereignty of the people (or "popular sovereignty").

Popular sovereignty in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_sovereignty_in_the_United_States)

...but I doubt it.

[Yurt]

great, under joe steel's form of government WE DO NOT HAVE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. if the government unreasonably seizes our property, to fucking bad according to joe steel. stalin would be proud of joe steel

[Joe Steel]

great, under joe steel's form of government WE DO NOT HAVE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. if the government unreasonably seizes our property, to fucking bad according to joe steel. stalin would be proud of joe steel

That's not what I said.

[Hobbit]

great, under joe steel's form of government WE DO NOT HAVE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. if the government unreasonably seizes our property, to fucking bad according to joe steel. stalin would be proud of joe steel

Don't encourage him. Joe is short for Joseph, and 'stalin' is Russian for 'steel.' Get it?

[Yurt]

That's not what I said.

yes it is, you said the 1, 2, 4th do not give individual rights, only collective...i even followed up and asked to make sure if you answered it and you said yes. either the amendments enumerate individuals right or not. real simple. you can't claim the 1st and 4th give an individual the right to seek redress against the government for their grievance and then argue the second does not apply to individuals.

i think you are so confused about your collective argument that you have no idea what you are actually arguing.

hobbit,

i did not catch that about his name. thanks.

[Joe Steel]

yes it is, you said the 1, 2, 4th do not give individual rights, only collective...i even followed up and asked to make sure if you answered it and you said yes. either the amendments enumerate individuals right or not. real simple. you can't claim the 1st and 4th give an individual the right to seek redress against the government for their grievance and then argue the second does not apply to individuals.

i think you are so confused about your collective argument that you have no idea what you are actually arguing.

The confusion is yours not mine.

This is what I said:


That's not what I said. I said personal rights were added to the Constitution by activist judges.

So, yes, the aggrieved party could challenge the actions you mentioned. He has rights but not because they were put in the Constitution by the text. The rights were "found" by judges.

[Yurt]

wrong, you are saying exactly what i said you are saying, that is, according the constitution (that is what we are talking about), the people of the united states of america do not have individual rights. your cliam to our individual rights is solely through "activist" judges. an interesting point is why are you arguing so vehemently against individual rights for the second, yet NEVER argue against individual rights for the rest of the amendments that are applicable?

in your commie opinion, our constitution has nothign to do with individual rights nor does the constitution grant or enumerate individual rights. you are the borg and i will not be assimilated :laugh2:

maybe you should go out there and protest all those who have been arrested because the police conducted an unreasonable search...in that, you should protest their use of courts to fight the individual charge. you should also go out there and yell from your mountain top that no one person can make a claim that the government denied that one person freedom of speech.

i think you are being hypocritical and you are digging your hole deeper and deeper.

and btw, judges DO NOT ADD to the constitution

[Silver]

Why waste your time with "Joe (the Bonehead) Steel

If he can't grasp the simplest of the rights given to "the People" in the Constitution, why bother ?
The meathead doesn't understand the simple words "THE PEOPLE"....its useless to engage him at all...

[Jagger]

The word "people" in the Second Amendment should be interpreted to mean "a free state", because to establish and maintain a well regulated militia, a free state must have the power to provide for the keeping and bearing of arms by the militia.

[Joe Steel]

The word "people" in the Second Amendment should be interpreted to mean "a free state"...

Then what do the words "free state" in the Second Amendment mean?

[Yurt]

The word "people" in the Second Amendment should be interpreted to mean "a free state", because to establish and maintain a well regulated militia, a free state must have the power to provide for the keeping and bearing of arms by the militia.

uh wrong....mr. historical meaning blah blah...how are the identical words in the 1st and 4th different in meaning from the second? the same exact phrase, but somehow you arbitrarily conclude that in the second the people is collective or the state....do you also agree with joe communist that people is collective and that the amendments do not give a individual right of redress?

so i guess the fourth really means, the state shall not conduct unreasonable searches against a free state :laugh2:

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.

_______________

also, the 5th amendment clearly indicates that the Militia is seperate from any united states military force:


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia



We the People of the United States

The Framers were an elite group - among the best and brightest America had to offer at the time. But they knew that they were trying to forge a nation made up not of an elite, but of the common man. Without the approval of the common man, they feared revolution. This first part of the Preamble speaks to the common man. It puts into writing, as clear as day, the notion that the people were creating this Constitution. It was not handed down by a god or by a king - it was created by the people.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pre.html

[Jagger]

Then what do the words "free state" in the Second Amendment mean? One of the several commonwealths or other political bodies, that comprise the North American nation known as the United States of America.

[Jagger]

uh wrong....mr. historical meaning blah blah...how are the identical words in the 1st and 4th different in meaning from the second? What is your level of education, dude? You appear not to understand the rather elementary idea that changing the context of a word can change its meaning. Until you grasp that concept, I can't help you.

[Joe Steel]

One of the several commonwealths or other political bodies, that comprise the North American nation known as the United States of America.

That's not right.


"At once, in place of the individual personality of each contracting party, this act of association creates a moral and collective body, composed of as many members as the assembly contains votes, and receiving from this act its unity, its common identity, its life and its will. This public person, so formed by the union of all other persons formerly took the name of city, and now takes that of Republic or body politic; it is called by its members State when passive. Sovereign when active, and Power when compared with others like itself. Those who are associated in it take collectively the name of people, and severally are called citizens, as sharing in the sovereign power, and subjects, as being under the laws of the State. But these terms are often confused and taken one for another: it is enough to know how to distinguish them when they are being used with precision.


THE SOCIAL CONTRACT OR PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL RIGHT (http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon_01.htm)

[Jagger]

That's not right. I was to lazy to apply the rules of construction.

[Missileman]

What is your level of education, dude? You appear not to understand the rather elementary idea that changing the context of a word can change its meaning. Until you grasp that concept, I can't help you.

If the 2nd was only supposed to authorize a militia to carry arms, it would be worded: Being necessary to the security of a free State, a well regulated Militia's right to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If the 2nd was only supposed to give the state a right as some have argued (a particularly inane argument as rights are given to citizens, not states), it would be worded: The right of a free state to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed as it's militia is necessary for it's security.

As for context, only a total dumbass would conclude the the term "the people" would mean an individual, then a state, then an individual again within a few words of each other within the same document WITHOUT a single suggestion from the author that the term is to have different meaning.

[Yurt]

What is your level of education, dude? You appear not to understand the rather elementary idea that changing the context of a word can change its meaning. Until you grasp that concept, I can't help you.

my level of education is higher than yours

you have absolutely no evidence to support a changing of context. when looking at a document, if a phrase or word is ambiguous, you first look to the document to determine meaning as understood in the document. and here, it is clear that the people means individuals. i notice you are too chickenshit to answer whether the first or fourth apply to individuals.

[Joe Steel]

I was to lazy to apply the rules of construction.

It would make no difference. They wouldn't support your position.

[Joe Steel]

As for context, only a total dumbass would conclude the the term "the people" would mean an individual, then a state, then an individual again within a few words of each other within the same document WITHOUT a single suggestion from the author that the term is to have different meaning.

The phrase "the People" means the same thing throughout the Constitution.

[Joe Steel]

my level of education is higher than yours

when looking at a document, if a phrase or word is ambiguous, you first look to the document to determine meaning as understood in the document. and here, it is clear that the people means individuals.

Utter nonsense. The Constitution uses both "persons" and "people." In context, "persons" means individuals. "People" means sovereign.

[Missileman]

Utter nonsense. The Constitution uses both "persons" and "people." In context, "persons" means individuals. "People" means sovereign.

So protection from unlawful search is not an individual right?

[Yurt]

So protection from unlawful search is not an individual right?

exactly. you can't argue that the first and fourth offer an individual right and then argue the second does not. the same phrase is used.

[Silver]

Utter nonsense. The Constitution uses both "persons" and "people." In context, "persons" means individuals. "People" means sovereign.

"THE PEOPLE" cannot and does not have different meanings in the Constitution....if the founders had wanted different meanings, they would have used different phrases.....the founders being well above the likes of you in intelligence and in using the correct words to say exactly what they meant to convey to the reader.....

Simply, if they had wanted to convey or imply sovereignty in any context of the Constitution, they would have certainly used that particular word or some other phrase to get that meaning to the reader....

Its not that "the people" can't mean sovereign, its just that in the case of Constitution and the context of the phrase "the people" in it....it doesn't...

You're dismissed.

[Joe Steel]

So protection from unlawful search is not an individual right?

It's unreasonable search, not unlawful.

And, yes, protection from unreasonable searches is an individual right because the right is declared for the "persons, houses, papers, and effects" of the People not merely for the People.


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.

[Missileman]

It's unreasonable search, not unlawful.

And, yes, protection from unreasonable searches is an individual right because the right is declared for the "persons, houses, papers, and effects" of the People not merely for the People.

And the right to assemble and to petition the government? Nothing about "persons" in that amendment...are they not individual rights?

[Joe Steel]

"THE PEOPLE" cannot and does not have different meanings in the Constitution....if the founders had wanted different meanings, they would have used different phrases.....the founders being well above the likes of you in intelligence and in using the correct words to say exactly what they meant to convey to the reader.....

Simply, if they had wanted to convey or imply sovereignty in any context of the Constitution, they would have certainly used that particular word or some other phrase to get that meaning to the reader....

Its not that "the people" can't mean sovereign, its just that in the case of Constitution and the context of the phrase "the people" in it....it doesn't...

You're dismissed.

Just plain nonsense. You're obviously attempting to discuss a subject well beyond your capacities. Please never respond again. Your postings are so stupid, the time spent reading them is utterly wasted.

[Yurt]

It's unreasonable search, not unlawful.

And, yes, protection from unreasonable searches is an individual right because the right is declared for the "persons, houses, papers, and effects" of the People not merely for the People.

:lol:

since it lists persons, maybe houses and papers have a right against unreasonable search and seizure :poke:

ya moron, it is DESCRIBING what is safe from unreasonable searches, your paraphrase scews the 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, 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.

[Joe Steel]

And the right to assemble and to petition the government? Nothing about "persons" in that amendment...are they not individual rights?

They are not individual rights.

This is a difficult concept. Think of it as you might a crowd. The crowd doesn't exist until a number of individuals have gathered. In a similar sense, for practical purposes, the People comes into existence when citizens have gathered to discuss issues.

With the First Amendment, the People have declared the right come together, to assemble, to discuss the issues concerning them and develop solutions including the orders they will give their servant, the US government..

[Joe Steel]

:lol:

since it lists persons, maybe houses and papers have a right against unreasonable search and seizure :poke:

ya moron, it is DESCRIBING what is safe from unreasonable searches, your paraphrase scews the amendment...



It's not a paraphrase, idiot. The things listed are related to individual members of the People. That's what gives the declaration the characteristics of an individual right even though it is declared for the People.

[Yurt]

They are not individual rights.

This is a difficult concept. Think of it as you might a crowd. The crowd doesn't exist until a number of individuals have gathered. In a similar sense, for practical purposes, the People comes into existence when citizens have gathered to discuss issues.

With the First Amendment, the People have declared the right come together, to assemble, to discuss the issues concerning them and develop solutions including the orders they will give their servant, the US government..

so the framers of the constitution created the amendments and purposefully excluded an individual from asserting the rights thereunder....but if two or more people had the rights violated, then and only then could they seek redress against said violation.

:lol:

sorry my fellow americans, the constitution does not apply to YOU, it is only applies to crowds, so if you are a loner, too bad, the constitution does not protect you. the police can violate your civil rights all day and night, as long as they violate ONLY YOUR rights

you're silly comrade

[Yurt]

It's not a paraphrase, idiot. The things listed are related to individual members of the People. That's what gives the declaration the characteristics of an individual right even though it is declared for the People.

huh? you just said the rights are not individual and now this. if you insist on persons, houses, papers, effects are related to individuals, then so must arms be related to individuals because last i checked a crowd does not hold one gun and fire it, individuals hold the rifle/gun and fire it.

[Missileman]

They are not individual rights.

This is a difficult concept. Think of it as you might a crowd. The crowd doesn't exist until a number of individuals have gathered. In a similar sense, for practical purposes, the People comes into existence when citizens have gathered to discuss issues.

With the First Amendment, the People have declared the right come together, to assemble, to discuss the issues concerning them and develop solutions including the orders they will give their servant, the US government..

BULLSHIT! The amendment says NOTHING about forming a crowd. Every citizen has the RIGHT to air their grievances with the government and to petition.

[Silver]

It's unreasonable search, not unlawful.

And, yes, protection from unreasonable searches is an individual right because the right is declared for the "persons, houses, papers, and effects" of the People not merely for the People.

Your reading comprehension is that of a child.....
STOP putting words into the Amendments that aren't there....

There is no right declared FOR anyone or anything....

The words are ..."The right of the people" to be secure....in their person and in their property....not for their person or for their property....

Give yourself a break and pack it in....

[Silver]

They are not individual rights.

This is a difficult concept. Think of it as you might a crowd. The crowd doesn't exist until a number of individuals have gathered. In a similar sense, for practical purposes, the People comes into existence when citizens have gathered to discuss issues.

With the First Amendment, the People have declared the right come together, to assemble, to discuss the issues concerning them and develop solutions including the orders they will give their servant, the US government..

What convoluted bullshit....its no wonder your reps are what they are....
you are a moron.....

[Yurt]

BULLSHIT! The amendment says NOTHING about forming a crowd. Every citizen has the RIGHT to air their grievances with the government and to petition.

yeah, and doesn't this crowd theory go against amendment 30:

the people shall not be subject to 3's a crowd

:laugh2:

[Jagger]

Keep in mind that the Second Amendment was intended to be ambiguous. If you assume the lawmakers meant for the Second Amendment to make rational sense, you must be able to explain why they would declare that free states need well regulated militias for their security and then not give the states the power to provide for their own militias, especially after Luther Martin, Robert Yates, Patrick Henry, George Mason and the other Anti-Federalists pitched such a fit about Congress having exclusive power to arm the militia and their fears that Congress could disarm the states by merely neglecting the militia.

[Jagger]

As for context, only a total dumbass would conclude the the term "the people" would mean an individual, then a state, then an individual again within a few words of each other within the same document WITHOUT a single suggestion from the author that the term is to have different meaning. Only an slow witted right wing gay leather boy whose whose mind has been warped by listening to too much conservative communist radio would fail to realize that the word "people" refers back to either "well regulated militia" or " free state."

[Jagger]

"THE PEOPLE" cannot... have different meanings in the Constitution.... Yes then can, dude. Just examine the use of the word "state" in the Constitution. Pay particular to the provision that reads, "He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union."

[Jagger]

You can't argue that the first and fourth offer an individual right and then argue the second does not. the same phrase is used. You can't argue that the context of a word doesn't effect its meaning.

[Jagger]

You can't argue that the first and fourth offer an individual right and then argue the second does not. the same phrase is used. You can't argue that the context of a word doesn't effect its meaning, unless you're really dumb.

[Jagger]

The phrase "the People" means the same thing throughout the Constitution. Not necessarily, dude. Change the context and you might change the meaning of a word.

For example: the term "state of the union" means one thing when used in a sentence that reads, "Texas is now a state of the union." However, it means something different when used in the sentence that reads, "President Clinton gave a very good state of the union address last night."

[Joe Steel]

Not necessarily, dude. Change the context and you might change the meaning of a word.

For example: the term "state of the union" means one thing when used in a sentence that reads, "Texas is now a state of the union." However, it means something different when used in the sentence that reads, "President Clinton gave a very good state of the union address last night."

Nevertheless, the phrase "the People" has he same meaning throughout the Constitution. It means "the collective sovereign."

[avatar4321]

Nevertheless, the phrase "the People" has he same meaning throughout the Constitution. It means "the collective sovereign."

The people, are merely a collection of individual citizens. Logic dictates then that "the people" can only have rights that individuals themselves would have.

[Missileman]

Only an slow witted right wing gay leather boy whose whose mind has been warped by listening to too much conservative communist radio would fail to realize that the word "people" refers back to either "well regulated militia" or " free state."

More BULLSHIT! If they'd wanted to assign the right of arms to the milita or the state, they'd have written "the militia's right to bear arms" or "the free state's right to bear arms".

Take the following sentence:

As vehicles sometimes slip out of park, the need of the people to enagage the parking break should be emphasized.

Using your convoluted lack of grammar skills, you'd argue that "the people" refers back to vehicles.

[Jagger]

If they'd wanted to assign the right of arms to the milita or the state, they'd have written "the militia's right to bear arms" or "the free state's right to bear arms". Get a brain, moron. If the lawmakers didn't want to give the states broad power to provide for their own militias, they wouldn't have declared that a state needed to have a well regulated militia to be secure.

[red states rule]

If the didn't want the states to have broad power to provide for their own militias, they wouldn't have declared that a state needed to have a well regulated militia to be secure.

Still on your looney anti gun campaign I see

What would you have law abiding citizens use to defend their lives and property from criminals? Harsh language?

[Jagger]

The people, are merely a collection of individual citizens. . "People" is an ambiguous word and its meaning in the Constitution should be ascertained by applying the well established common law rules of construction.


Logic dictates then that "the people" can only have rights that individuals themselves would have. You would be naive to assume the Second Amendment was made to be understood by applying logic, when it's obvious that it was made to be ambiguous.

[Jagger]

Still on your looney anti gun campaign I see

What would you have law abiding citizens use to defend their lives and property from criminals? Harsh language? I see you commies are still trying to destroy the state militias, just like Stalin and Hitler did. Why do you want the states deprived of their right to provide for their own militias, when the founders believed a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of a free state?

[Jagger]

...the phrase "the People" has he same meaning throughout the Constitution. The rules of construction dictate otherwise, Joe. Your interpretation of the words in the Constitution is worthless, because it's not the result of a fair and objective application of the common law method of interpretation that existed at the time the Constitution was made.

[Missileman]

Get a brain, moron. If the lawmakers didn't want to give the states broad power to provide for their own militias, they wouldn't have declared that a state needed to have a well regulated militia to be secure.

The "declaration" in the 2nd is the rationale behind the citizen's right to bear arms, nothing more.

[Yurt]

Keep in mind that the Second Amendment was intended to be ambiguous. If you assume the lawmakers meant for the Second Amendment to make rational sense, you must be able to explain why they would declare that free states need well regulated militias for their security and then not give the states the power to provide for their own militias, especially after Luther Martin, Robert Yates, Patrick Henry, George Mason and the other Anti-Federalists pitched such a fit about Congress having exclusive power to arm the militia and their fears that Congress could disarm the states by merely neglecting the militia.

well then, IF it was intended to be ambiguous, how is it YOU know its meaning :laugh2:



You can't argue that the context of a word doesn't effect its meaning.



You can't argue that the context of a word doesn't effect its meaning, unless you're really dumb.

only a stupidhead would need to make two posts in order to add "unless you're really dumb". :cool:

my argument stands, you can't refute it, so you commit a logical fallacy by throwing up a red herring about context. the phrase is in the SAME context in the 1st, 2nd, and 4th. there is absolutely nothing in the document that suggests a change of context. YOU are suggesting it, but the words in the four corners of the document do not suggest a change in context.

glad you dropped the education level thing stupidhead.

[Joe Steel]

The rules of construction dictate otherwise, Joe. Your interpretation of the words in the Constitution is worthless, because it's not the result of a fair and objective application of the common law method of interpretation that existed at the time the Constitution was made.

My interpretation is consistent with the usage of the era and the Founders intentions:


The Federal Framers and the People

Not surprisingly, those events influenced the federal Framers in 1787. Among the principles not expressed in the federal Constitution when it was drafted were statements of the rights of the collective sovereign—their primacy over government, their right to scrutinize governors and their government, and their right to alter or abolish government at will. A general concession that governors were the servants of the people and that the collective sovereign had the right to abolish government was one thing, but it was quite another to place words to that effect in the Constitution where it might be invoked willy-nilly. During the convention, James Madison acknowledged that the collective sovereign could “alter constitutions as they pleased.” It was, after all, “a principle in the [state] Bills of rights,” he noted. Still, popular attempts to exercise that right under state constitutions caused difficulties, as the events in Massachusetts demonstrated. Why tempt fate by including similar language in the federal Constitution?

In fact, while “the people” appeared prominently in the Preamble to “ordain and establish” the federal Constitution and later surfaced to elect members of the House of Representatives, they then disappeared from the text of the Constitution. Their absence formed a striking contrast to their presence in many state constitutions in which the people and their collective existence as the sovereign was repeatedly acknowledged. “The people” reappeared in the federal Bill of Rights added by the first Congress, but without any statements comparable to the wide-ranging expressions of the authority and rights of the collective sovereign that were found in the state constitutions. Instead, James Madison drafted the amendments as narrowly worded prohibitions on certain types of legislation. This focus had the effect of deemphasizing the people’s collective rights.

This silence about the people in the federal Constitution did not mean that the federal Framers disputed the idea that the people were the sovereign. In fact, they explicitly invoked the people’s authority in submitting the new federal Constitution for an up-or-down vote even though their convention had only been authorized to revise the Articles of Confederation. The Framers brought about a new federal Constitution in defiance of the procedures that the Articles stipulated for altering its structure by citing the legitimacy that came with the people acting as the sovereign. As Madison put it, the people could “breathe life” into the proposed new Constitution, overcoming any procedural irregularities in its creation.

In this respect, the framing of the federal Constitution was not a singular constitutional event. It was another example of the doctrine of rule by the people. Yet despite their willingness to deploy this doctrine as a political tactic, the Constitution’s supporters were reluctant to acknowledge, much less encourage, the direct authority of the people. The Federalist position simply underscored the tension inherent in the American commitment to the sovereignty of the people. That tension would resurface repeatedly over the next half-century.

AMERICA’S UNKNOWN CONSTITUTIONAL WORLD (http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=christian_fritz)

The phrase "the People" is not ambiguous. It is a phrase used deliberately to express a specific meaning.

[LOki]

This is what I get for paying attention to a half-wit.

Here's what I posted, half-wit:

"People" is a collective noun used in the Constitution to refer to the citizenry as sovereign. A mere group of persons acting or considered as other than the sovereign are not the People.

The reference to the The Social Contract was for the benefit of your two brain cells, to explain the notion of a "collective." It doesn't support the whole assertion, just a part of it. That's why I bolded only part of it.It would be helpful if you kept up with your side of the conversation retard. The exact and precise reason you referenced the social contract was to demonstrate that ""People" is a collective noun used in the Constitution to refer to the citizenry as sovereign."


Now. Do you see "used in the Constitution?" If all you have is parsing, you have to parse the whole text. You have to use all the words. Every part of a text has to be considered.

In the Constitution, the words "the People" are used to refer to the collective sovereign.Actually, I'm pretty sure you can keep up with your own half of this conversation; it's just clear that you got punked and would now rather refocus attention from the erroneuos ""People" is . . . the citizenry as sovereign" to the patently obvious ""People" is . . . used in the Constitution . . .".

So let me explain it to you again, retard; There is a difference between who "The People" are, and what the State, or the Sovereign is--you're confused, and have taken one for another; your insuffuciency lies not in your prescision, but rather your failure to distinguish them.


This may help understand the substance of the issue, dumbass:

The American Revolution marked a departure in the concept of popular sovereignty as it had been discussed and employed in the European historical context. With their Revolution, Americans substituted the sovereignty in the person of the English king, George III, with a collective sovereign--composed of the people. Henceforth, American revolutionaries by and large agreed and were committed to the principle that governments were legitimate only if they rested on popular sovereignty - that is, the sovereignty of the people. [1] In 18th century American political thought, "the people" excluded most of the population, such as women, African Americans, those lacking sufficient property, Native Americans, and children.[2]

This idea that the people were the sovereign--often linked with the notion of the consent of the governed--was not invented by the American revolutionaries. Rather, the consent of the governed and the idea of the people as a sovereign had clear 17th and 18th century intellectual roots in English history. [3] The American contribution lay in what Americans did with the idea that the people were the sovereign--how they struggled with and put that idea into practice. Before the American Revolution, few examples existed of a people deliberately creating their own governments. Most people in the world experienced governments as an inheritance--whether monarchies or expressions of raw power. [4] What underscored the excitement surrounding the creation of constitutions establishing governments in America after Independence was the fact that Americans deliberately and self-consciously created governments at one single moment explicitly relying on the authority of the sovereignty of the people (or "popular sovereignty").

Popular sovereignty in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_sovereignty_in_the_United_States)
...but I doubt it.Well, thank you. You'll note that just as Rouseau premptively warned and predicted, you're still confused about the terms. Being part of a collective does not create the sovereignty in each person that constitute "the People" who establish "the Sovereign;" sovereignty belongs to actual PERSONS ("http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sovereign), rather than the persona ficta of "the Sovereign." "The [legitimate] Soverign" derives its soverign identity from the united soverign powers of individual persons who establish it, AND "the Soverign's" political relationship to those subject to it's soverign power and authority. In the Constitution, those who establish "the Soveriegn" AND those who are subject to it's soverign power and authority, are "the People." "The people" are individual persons; and in the Constitution, the power and authority of the soverign is subject to the RIGHTS of the people.

NOTHING in your citations supports your notion that, in the Constitution, "the People" means "the State," nor does it support your notion that , in the Constitution, "the sovereignty of the People" means "the State."

NOTHING you have cited supports your notion that, in the Constitution, the Second Amendment is about a State Power.

NOTHING you have cited supports your notion that , in the Constitution (or any-fucking-where but some retard's imagination), there's such a thing as a "collective right."

You're still wrong, retard.

[Jagger]

The "declaration" in the 2nd is the rationale. I know, dude. That's why I interpret the Second Amendment to grant the several states broad power to provide for their own militias, which the Amendment declares are necessary for the security of the free states that comprise our grand and glorious Republic. When a provision is hopelessly dubious, the rules of construction prevailing in 1789 dictated that the ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the the reason and spirit of the provision, or the cause which moved the legislator to enact it.

[Jagger]

well then, IF it was intended to be ambiguous, how is it YOU know its meaning :laugh2: There's a rule of construction to deal with legal phrases in a constitution that are hopelessly dubious.

[Jagger]

...the phrase is in the SAME context in the 1st, 2nd, and 4th. The Second Amendment includes a declaration of the cause which moved the lawmakers to add the Amendment to the Constitution. The First and Fourth Amendments don't contain such a declaration.

[Jagger]

My interpretation is consistent with the usage of the era... Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use. See Blackstone's Commentaries. According to the 1787 edition of A Dictionary of the English Language, the most known significations of the word "people" were as follows.


A nation

Those who compose a community

The vulgar

The commonalty; not the primes or nobles

Persons of a particular class

Men, or persons in general

[Missileman]

I know, dude. That's why I interpret the Second Amendment to grant the several states broad power to provide for their own militias, which the Amendment declares are necessary for the security of the free states that comprise our grand and glorious Republic. When a provision is hopelessly dubious, the rules of construction prevailing in 1789 dictated that the ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the the reason and spirit of the provision, or the cause which moved the legislator to enact it.

You keep making claims of ambiguity where none exists. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infinged" is as clear as day and has the exact same meaning with or without the leading rationale.

[Joe Steel]

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification;

Rules of construction are hierarchical. The rule you cited is among the lowest ranked and is applicable only where the words at issue are not defined in the instrument itself OR where they are not known to have special meanings in particular contexts. This is the latter case. In US v Verdugo-Urquidez, the phrase was described a "term of art:"


The Fourth Amendment phrase "the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution and contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures.

In writings on statecraft and in law, "the People" means collective sovereign.

[LOki]

Rules of construction are hierarchical. The rule you cited is among the lowest ranked and is applicable only where the words at issue are not defined in the instrument itself OR where they are not known to have special meanings in particular contexts. This is the latter case. In US v Verdugo-Urquidez, the phrase was described a "term of art:"



In writings on statecraft and in law, "the People" means collective sovereign.Bullshit.

[Joe Steel]

It would be helpful if you kept up with your side of the conversation retard. The exact and precise reason you referenced the social contract was to demonstrate that ""People" is a collective noun used in the Constitution to refer to the citizenry as sovereign."

Try again, dumbass:


Here's what I posted, half-wit:


"People" is a collective noun used in the Constitution to refer to the citizenry as sovereign. A mere group of persons acting or considered as other than the sovereign are not the People.

The reference to the The Social Contract was for the benefit of your two brain cells, to explain the notion of a "collective." It doesn't support the whole assertion, just a part of it. That's why I bolded only part of it.

Let me know what part of this you don't understand and I'll explain it to you. But remember, I'm not a miracle-worker.



So let me explain it to you again, retard; There is a difference between who "The People" are, and what the State, or the Sovereign is--you're confused, and have taken one for another; your insuffuciency lies not in your prescision, but rather your failure to distinguish them.

You're confused. The People is not the State.


Well, thank you. You'll note that just as Rouseau premptively warned and predicted, you're still confused about the terms. Being part of a collective does not create the sovereignty in each person that constitute "the People" who establish "the Sovereign;"

You're confused. Individuals (each person) are not sovereign.


NOTHING in your citations supports your notion that, in the Constitution, "the People" means "the State," nor does it support your notion that , in the Constitution, "the sovereignty of the People" means "the State."

You're confused. I said neither of those things.


NOTHING you have cited supports your notion that, in the Constitution, the Second Amendment is about a State Power.

You're confused. I never said it was a State power.


NOTHING you have cited supports your notion that , in the Constitution (or any-fucking-where but some retard's imagination), there's such a thing as a "collective right."

You're wrong, dumbass.

[LOki]

You're confused. The People is not the State.I've never asserted this. You're confused.


You're confused. Individuals (each person) are not sovereign.They most certainly are. Their individual sovereignty is the foundation of governenace of the people, for thepeople, by the people.


You're confused. I said neither of those things.I'm not confused now. You will however be requred from this point forward to not assert that in the Constitution, "the People" means "the State," nor does it support your notion that , in the Constitution, "the sovereignty of the People" means "the State."


You're confused. I never said it was a State power.Good enough.


You're wrong, dumbass.I am unreservedly, and without ambiguity, correct in this. "Collective rights" are a fiction.

[Silver]

You've all heard of "Joe the Plumber".....

Now meet " Joe the ASSHOLE "

:coffee::cuckoo:

[Little-Acorn]

Jagger seems to be basing most of his quibbling on the notion that the 2nd amendment is somehow vague, or the meaning "ambiguous". It's not, of course - that's just the argument by desperate liberals who can't find any other way to pretend the 2nd doesn't means what it clearly says.

In modern language: "Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary individuals to own and carry guns and other such weapons, cannot be taken away or restricted."

Once the desperate left began lying about its "ambiguousness" and trying to pretend the Framers meant something other than what they clearly wrote, a number of scholars of colonial-era language (some of whom opposed gun ownership) have examined the 2nd amendment's language, and have concluded that there is no significant difference between what the wording meant then, and what it means today.

One such example: http://hematite.com/dragon/Schulman.html

[Jagger]

You keep making claims of ambiguity where none exists. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infinged" is as clear as day and has the exact same meaning with or without the leading rationale. Why would the Second Amendment declare that free states need a well regulated militia, if the lawmakers didn't intend for the states to have the power to provide for such? Use some common sense, dude!

[Yurt]

Why would the Second Amendment declare that free states need a well regulated militia, if the lawmakers didn't intend for the states to have the power to provide for such? Use some common sense, dude!

why did the second am. say "right of the people" and not "right of the state" then?

[Jagger]

The rule you cited is applicable only where the words at issue are not known to have special meanings in particular contexts. At the time the Constitution was made, the term "the people" wasn't a term of art, nor was it a technical term.

[Jagger]

In writings on statecraft and in law, "the People" means collective sovereign.

Art. III. In order that the people may not suffer from the long continuance in place of any justice of the peace, who shall fail of discharging the important duties of his office with ability or fidelity, all commissions of justices of the peace shall expire and become void in the term of seven years from their respective dates; and, upon the expiration of any commission, the same may, if necessary, be renewed, or another person appointed, as shall most conduce to the well-being of the commonwealth.


VIII. That every elector, before he is admitted to vote, shall, if required by the returning-officer or either of the inspectors, take an oath, or, if of the people called Quakers, an affirmation, of allegiance to the State.

[Jagger]

Jagger seems to be basing most of his quibbling on the notion that the 2nd amendment is somehow vague, or the meaning "ambiguous". It's not, of course... You're obviously just another vile and despicable conservative Satan worshiper who wants religious tyranny imposed on the American people trying to hid your desire to deprive the free states of their power to establish and maintain their own militias behind the mythical individual right to keep arms.


In modern language: "Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary individuals to own and carry guns and other such weapons, cannot be taken away or restricted." The Second Amendment means, a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the several states to establish and maintain their own militias shall not be infringed.


a number of scholars of colonial-era language have examined the 2nd amendment's language

http://www.criticallayouts.com/images/rsgallery/original/lol-cartoon-ag1.gif http://www.criticallayouts.com/images/rsgallery/original/lol-cartoon-ag1.gif http://www.criticallayouts.com/images/rsgallery/original/lol-cartoon-ag1.gif http://www.criticallayouts.com/images/rsgallery/original/lol-cartoon-ag1.gif http://www.criticallayouts.com/images/rsgallery/original/lol-cartoon-ag1.gif http://www.criticallayouts.com/images/rsgallery/original/lol-cartoon-ag1.gif http://www.criticallayouts.com/images/rsgallery/original/lol-cartoon-ag1.gif http://www.criticallayouts.com/images/rsgallery/original/lol-cartoon-ag1.gif http://www.criticallayouts.com/images/rsgallery/original/lol-cartoon-ag1.gif http://www.criticallayouts.com/images/rsgallery/original/lol-cartoon-ag1.gif

There is overwhelming evidence that the men who made the Second Amendment believed that words in a legal instrument should be interpreted by applying the well established common law rules of construction. There is no evidence whatsoever that they believed the meaning of the Constitution was supposed to be ascertained by applying the principles of language scholarship.

[Jagger]

why did the second am. say "right of the people" and not "right of the state" then? My theory is that it was written by scum bag politicians trying to deceive the people. But it doesn't matter, because, regardless of the reason for the ambiguity, the Second Amendment's meaning should be ascertained by applying the well established common law rules of construction prevailing at the time it was made.

[Yurt]

My theory is that it was written by scum bag politicians trying to deceive the people. But it doesn't matter, because, regardless of the reason for the ambiguity, the Second Amendment's meaning should be ascertained by applying the well established common law rules of construction prevailing at the time it was made.

interesting, you base your interpretation on the fact that the writers lied and purposefully deceived the people....yet you have no proof of this. the rules of construction were applied properly by the SCOTUS. your argument is really nonsensical, it boils down to:

1. the writers didn't real mean what they said or wanted us to believe they meant, they meant something else, i don't have proof, but since this fits my world view it must be true.

2. i will repeat over and over the rules of construction used the SCOTUS are wrong...you are free to dissent, but thankfully you are still wrong.

[Silver]

For more than 200 years every citizen KNEW EXACTLY what right the second amendment gave us.....over 200 years....

Then along come the neo-liberal Democrats; close cousins of Communists and Fascists,...and low and behold, suddenly the entire country has been wrong about the second amendment .....and some other conclusions we all believed about the Constitution and our rights........new rights are magically discovered after 200+ years and others disappear....abracadabra....

[Little-Acorn]

You're obviously just another vile and despicable conservative Satan worshiper
That's me!


who wants religious tyranny imposed on the American people trying to hid your desire to deprive the free states of their power to establish and maintain their own militias behind the mythical individual right to keep arms.
You left out "child molester" and "knight who says Nii". They're just as true.

But at the rate you're going, I'm sure you'll start including those soon, too. :lol:


The Second Amendment means, a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the several states to establish and maintain their own militias shall not be infringed.

That's what I said. Looks like we agree. :coffee:

[Little-Acorn]

interesting, you base your interpretation on the fact that the writers lied and purposefully deceived the people....yet you have no proof of this. the rules of construction were applied properly by the SCOTUS. your argument is really nonsensical, it boils down to:

1. the writers didn't real mean what they said or wanted us to believe they meant, they meant something else, i don't have proof, but since this fits my world view it must be true.

2. i will repeat over and over the rules of construction used the SCOTUS are wrong...you are free to dissent, but thankfully you are still wrong.

From http://hematite.com/dragon/Schulman.html

The Unabridged Second Amendment
by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The 'to keep and bear arms' is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account of the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be:

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' _only_ to 'a well-educated electorate' -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?

[Missileman]

Why would the Second Amendment declare that free states need a well regulated militia, if the lawmakers didn't intend for the states to have the power to provide for such? Use some common sense, dude!

There isn't a single thing in the Constitution that prohibits the states from having or providing for a militia...the states already had the power to do so, the second amendment does not, nor was it intended to give the states the right to form a militia. By the way, the lead in declaration in the second was inspired by the Virginia Declaration of Rights as were several other phrases in the Bill of Rights.

[LOki]

The word "people" in the Second Amendment should be interpreted to mean "a free state", because to establish and maintain a well regulated militia, a free state must have the power to provide for the keeping and bearing of arms by the militia.This is jibberish.

The word "people" should be interpreted to mean, well, PEOPLE. The 2nd Amendment makes no mention of any state power; it is about a right.

[LOki]

It's unreasonable search, not unlawful.

And, yes, protection from unreasonable searches is an individual right because the right is declared for the "persons, houses, papers, and effects" of the People not merely for the People.No, the right is recognized for the people; the people are persons; their persons are their bodies and appertentant accoutrements.

[Yurt]

there is no miliitia, there is no people, you're all crazy!

[LOki]

Keep in mind that the Second Amendment was intended to be ambiguous.Then why is it so clear?

If you INSIST that the 2nd was intended to be ambiguous, bring the evidence from the framers that asserts that intent.


If you assume the lawmakers meant for the Second Amendment to make rational sense, you must be able to explain why they would declare that free states need well regulated militias for their security and then not give the states the power to provide for their own militias, . . .First, the second amendment is NOT ABOUT GRANTING POWERS TO THE STATE, it's about recognizing a right.

Secondly, "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."

[LOki]

Only an slow witted right wing gay leather boy whose whose mind has been warped by listening to too much conservative communist radio would fail to realize that the word "people" refers back to either "well regulated militia" or " free state."No. Only a dishonest retard would insist that the word "people" shouls be interpreted as something other than "people."

[LOki]

Nevertheless, the phrase "the People" has he same meaning throughout the Constitution. It means "the collective sovereign."No it doesn't. You are wrong. "The People" as collective sovereign, is merely a colloquialism used by communists to distinguish themselves from the aristocracy. In the U.S. constitution, it means United States citizens.

[LOki]

"People" is an ambiguous word and its meaning in the Constitution should be ascertained by applying the well established common law rules of construction. Which is . . . the plural of "person."


You would be naive to assume the Second Amendment was made to be understood by applying logic, when it's obvious that it was made to be ambiguous.If you INSIST that the 2nd was intended to be ambiguous, bring the evidence from the framers that asserts that intent.

[LOki]

I see you commies are still trying to destroy the state militias, just like Stalin and Hitler did. Why do you want the states deprived of their right to provide for their own militias, when the founders believed a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of a free state?Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the State from arming militias.

[LOki]

The rules of construction dictate otherwise, Joe. Your interpretation of the words in the Constitution is worthless, because it's not the result of a fair and objective application of the common law method of interpretation that existed at the time the Constitution was made.Speak for yourself retard.

[Psychoblues]

The 2nd Amendment, like the 1st and all the others should be respected exactly as they are written without the political mumbo jumbo that is so prevalent in the America of today.

When considering them you should also consider precisely what they meant at the time they were written but also the meaning of the words they contain.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[LOki]

I know, dude. That's why I interpret the Second Amendment to grant the several states broad power to provide for their own militias, . . .You can try to do this (though it is patently unneccesary), but you cannot deny that the Second amendment specifically, and unambiguously declares that the right that people have, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

[LOki]

There's a rule of construction to deal with legal phrases in a constitution that are hopelessly dubious.Good thing then that ". . . the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms, Shall Not Be Infringed." is not in the least bit dubious.

[LOki]

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use. See Blackstone's Commentaries. According to the 1787 edition of A Dictionary of the English Language, the most known significations of the word "people" were as follows.


A nation

Those who compose a community

The vulgar

The commonalty; not the primes or nobles

Persons of a particular class

Men, or persons in general

Well look! NO mention of militia, no mention free state.

[LOki]

The Second Amendment means, a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the several states to establish and maintain their own militias shall not be infringed. No. The Second Amendment means, A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS shall not be infringed.

[Jagger]

interesting, you base your interpretation on the fact that the writers lied and purposefully deceived the people....yet you have no proof of this.

You will find our Amendments to the Constitution calculated... to deceive.

--Thomas Tudor Tucker to St. George Tucker, 2 October 1789, Roberts Autograph Collection, Haverford College, Haverford, Pennsylvania



********

With respect to amendments...they are good for nothing.

--William Grayson to Patrick Henry, 29 September 1789, Patrick Henry Papers, DLC.


*********


...little is to be expected from Congress that shall be any ways satisfactory on the subject of Amendments.. . . The English language has been carefully culled to find words feeble in their Nature or doubtful in their meaning!

--Richard Henry Lee to Patrick Henry, 27 September 1789, Miscellaneous Manuscripts, DLC.


***********


As to amendments to the Constitution, [James] Madison says he had rather have none than those agreed to by the Senate.

---Paine Wingate to John Langdon, 17 September 1789, Dreer Collection, Historical Society of Penna. Philadelphia.


**********


A careless reader would be apt to suppose that the amendments desired by the States had been graciously granted. But when the thing done is compared with that desired, nothing can be more unlike.

--Richard Henry Lee to Patrick Henry, 14 September 1789, Patrick Henry Papers, DLC. Words in brackets are taken from historian Charles Campbell's pre-Civil War transcript in the Hugh Plait Grigsby Papers, Virginia Historical Society.

[Yurt]

as i've told you before, that is not proof

maybe you should ask osama bin ladin if america a good country and viola there will be your proof

[Jagger]

For more than 200 years every citizen KNEW EXACTLY what right the second amendment gave us.. The Second Amendment has always been ambiguous and highly susceptible to unprincipled interpretations.


Then along come the neo-liberal Democrats; close cousins of Communists and Fascists,...and low and behold, suddenly the entire country has been wrong about the second amendment .....and some other conclusions we all believed about the Constitution and our rights........new rights are magically discovered after 200+ years and others disappear....abracadabra.... You despicable right wing anti-American Satan Worshiping communistic conservatives don't fool me with your crap about an individual right to keep weapons. We both know it's just a way to disguise for your true objective which is to pave the way to tyranny by depriving the several states of of their power to establish and maintain well regulated militias which are essential for the security of the states.

[Jagger]

There isn't a single thing in the Constitution that prohibits the states from having or providing for a militia... Many Americans interpreted the proposed Constitution to deprive the states of power to provide for their own militias.

[Joe Steel]

I've never asserted this. You're confused.

I quoted your own posting. Read it if you can.


They most certainly are. Their individual sovereignty is the foundation of governenace of the people, for thepeople, by the people.

Utter nonsense. Other than autocrats, individuals are not sovereign.


I'm not confused now. You will however be requred from this point forward to not assert that in the Constitution, "the People" means "the State," nor does it support your notion that , in the Constitution, "the sovereignty of the People" means "the State."

You're confused. I've never said that.


I am unreservedly, and without ambiguity, correct in this. "Collective rights" are a fiction.

You're hopelessly confused.

[Joe Steel]

At the time the Constitution was made, the term "the people" wasn't a term of art, nor was it a technical term.

You're wrong. I've given you the citations. Read them.

[Joe Steel]

Art. III. In order that the people may not suffer from the long continuance in place of any justice of the peace, who shall fail of discharging the important duties of his office with ability or fidelity, all commissions of justices of the peace shall expire and become void in the term of seven years from their respective dates; and, upon the expiration of any commission, the same may, if necessary, be renewed, or another person appointed, as shall most conduce to the well-being of the commonwealth.


VIII. That every elector, before he is admitted to vote, shall, if required by the returning-officer or either of the inspectors, take an oath, or, if of the people called Quakers, an affirmation, of allegiance to the State.

What's your point?

[Joe Steel]

No, the right is recognized for the people; the people are persons; their persons are their bodies and appertentant accoutrements.

The collective sovereign comprises individuals who may not be searched, personally or in their papers, etc.

[Joe Steel]

No. Only a dishonest retard would insist that the word "people" shouls be interpreted as something other than "people."

Exactly. That's why I won't let you interpret "the People" as anything other than "the People."

[Jagger]

What's your point? That the term "the people" wasn't a term of art or technical term.

[Jagger]

You're wrong. I've given you the citations. Read them. Your citations don't prove your claim that the term "people" meant "collective sovereign."

[Jagger]

as i've told you before, that is not proof
Scoreboard.

[Jagger]

Question: How many times did the founders use the term "collective sovereign?"

Answer: Zero.

[Little-Acorn]

Gotta love it.

Two rabid big-govt advocates arguing over exactly how the ultimate small-govt amendment in the Constitution, really supports big government.

Only in America.......!! :lol:

[Yurt]

Your citations don't prove your claim that the term "people" meant "collective sovereign."


Scoreboard.

thanks for arguing against yourself!

[Mr. P]

Gotta love it.

Two rabid big-govt advocates arguing over exactly how the ultimate small-govt amendment in the Constitution, really supports big government.

Only in America.......!! :lol:

I've been laughing at the same thing for bout 2 weeks or so now. Watching two nuts fight about their own nutty issues..what a hoot. Now THAT'S entertainment!:laugh2:

[Silver]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EdiTK4PRJM

Listen closely.....

[Joe Steel]

That the term "the people" wasn't a term of art or technical term.

Your examples don't prove that. At most they show the term was sometimes used inappropriately.

[Joe Steel]

Question: How many times did the founders use the term "collective sovereign?"

Answer: Zero.

They didn't have to use that term. They used "the People."

[Joe Steel]

Your citations don't prove your claim that the term "people" meant "collective sovereign."

In fact, they do. They clearly show the use of the term "the People" as meaning the collective sovereign.

[Silver]

Did they use the term Joe Steel anywhere....

It clearly means Imbecile Asshole....

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Jagger]

we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case.

--Patrick Henry

The founding fathers knew from experience that relying on the members of the militia to provide their own arms would result in a poorly armed militia. Since the aim of the Second Amendment is a well armed militia for the security of a free state, it should be interpreted to grant the states broad power to provide for their own militias.

[Jagger]

In fact, they do. They clearly show the use of the term "the People" as meaning the collective sovereign. I disagree, there is no evidence whatsoever that the framers intended the word "people" to mean "collective sovereign." However, there is overwhelming evidence that they meant for the word "people" to be interpreted by applying the common law rules of construction.

The words, context, subject matter and effects and consequences are ambivalent, therefore we apply the rule that,


the most universal and effectual way of discovering the true meaning of a law, when the words are dubious, is by considering the reason and spirit of it; or the cause which moved the legislator to enact it. For when this reason ceases, the laws itself ought likewise to cease with it.

The reason for the Second Amendment was that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. An individual right to keep and bear arms would not result in a well armed militia. Therefore, the most reasonable construction of the Second Amendment that it grants the states broad power to establish and maintain well armed militias for the security of the states.

[Mr. P]

we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case.

--Patrick Henry

The founding fathers knew from experience that relying on the members of the militia to provide their own arms would result in a poorly armed militia. Since the aim of the Second Amendment is a well armed militia for the security of a free state, it should be interpreted to grant the states broad power to provide for their own militias.

Two quotes for ya Jag..from the founder who pushed congress to the amendments.

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.~James Madison

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.~James Madison

[Jagger]

Two quotes for ya Jag..from the founder who pushed congress to the amendments.

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.~James Madison

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.~James Madison

Where ever did you get the silly notion that the lawmakers made the Second Amendment to be squared with those statements, one of was which, by the way, is totally bogus?

It is true that, in 1788, when James Madison made the first statement, there were few restrictions on Americans having arms. However, few Americans actually owed fire-arms suitable for military service. Congress would have known, from recent experience, that relying on the freedom of an individual to own arms suitable for military probably wouldn't result in a well armed militia.

Congress may have been trying to undermine or sabotage the militia by shifting the responsibility of arming the militia away from Congress to the people, whom Congress knew didn't have arms suitable for militia duty.

[manu1959]

Where ever did you get the silly notion that the lawmakers made the Second Amendment to be squared with those statements, one of was which, by the way, is totally bogus?

the second amendment was written to insure the people would be armed so that they would be able to protect themselves from the an "evil" government......

[Jagger]

the second amendment was written to insure the people would be armed so that they would be able to protect themselves from the an "evil" government...... The reason for the Second Amendment is actually stated in the Amendment. It says that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.

[manu1959]

The reason for the Second Amendment is actually stated in the Amendment. It says that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.

like i said......

[Missileman]

we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case.

--Patrick Henry

The founding fathers knew from experience that relying on the members of the militia to provide their own arms would result in a poorly armed militia. Since the aim of the Second Amendment is a well armed militia for the security of a free state, it should be interpreted to grant the states broad power to provide for their own militias.

An armed citizenry is the aim of the 2nd. Period! The founding fathers knew from experience that when the shit hit the fan, Farmer Brown and his weapon, personally owned or issued to him, was vital to freedom and security.

[manu1959]

An armed citizenry is the aim of the 2nd. Period! The founding fathers knew from experience that when the shit hit the fan, Farmer Brown and his weapon, personally owned or issued to him, was vital to freedom and security.

exactly..if the point was to take guns from the citizens the second amendment would have been written to take guns not grant the right to own one.....

[Jagger]

An armed citizenry is the aim of the 2nd. Period! The reason for the Second Amendment is stated in the Amendment. It says that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.


The founding fathers knew from experience that when the shit hit the fan, Farmer Brown and his weapon, personally owned or issued to him, was vital to freedom and security. Congress knew that relying on the members of the militia to provide their own arms would result in a very poorly armed militia.


we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case.

--Patrick Henry (1788)

[Jagger]

exactly..if the point was to take guns from the citizens the second amendment would have been written to take guns not grant the right to own one..... The point of the Second Amendment was that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of a free state. There were already no laws prohibiting an individual from owning arms suitable for military duty. However, in 1789, the state militias were very poorly armed. That means that either the lawmakers were not being straightforward and didn't really want well armed state militias, or, they wanted the states to have the power to provide for their own militias but were moron's who didn't know how to make the parts of a legal phrase coincide.

The rules of construction dictate that we interpret the Amendment to grant the states the power to keep and bear arms for the security of the state.

[manu1959]

The point of the Second Amendment was that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of a free state. There were already no laws prohibiting an individual from owning arms suitable for military duty. However, in 1789, the state militias were very poorly armed. That means that either the lawmakers were not being straightforward and didn't really want well armed state militias, or, they wanted the states to have the power to provide for their own militias but were moron's who didn't know how to make the parts of a legal phrase coincide.

The rules of construction dictate that we interpret the Amendment to grant the states the power to keep and bear arms for the security of the state.


so there are no laws preventing me from owning a gun and there is a law ensuring that there be a state militia......seems it is all good.....

[Yurt]

so there are no laws preventing me from owning a gun and there is a law ensuring that there be a state militia......seems it is all good.....

dude, you're good

[manu1959]

dude, you're good

spent the day watching law and order.....

[Yurt]

spent the day watching law and order.....

ha ha

[DragonStryk72]

The Second Amendment includes a declaration of the cause which moved the lawmakers to add the Amendment to the Constitution. The First and Fourth Amendments don't contain such a declaration.

But is still used in the same exact context, despite the lack of distinct explanation. The reason it was put in, if you really think about it, is because the right was new. No other nation had a distinct right to firearms, or arms of any kind, that was new for us, and as such, required a quick explanation.

[DragonStryk72]

You're obviously just another vile and despicable conservative Satan worshiper who wants religious tyranny imposed on the American people trying to hid your desire to deprive the free states of their power to establish and maintain their own militias behind the mythical individual right to keep arms.

The Second Amendment means, a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the several states to establish and maintain their own militias shall not be infringed.



http://www.criticallayouts.com/images/rsgallery/original/lol-cartoon-ag1.gif http://www.criticallayouts.com/images/rsgallery/original/lol-cartoon-ag1.gif http://www.criticallayouts.com/images/rsgallery/original/lol-cartoon-ag1.gif http://www.criticallayouts.com/images/rsgallery/original/lol-cartoon-ag1.gif http://www.criticallayouts.com/images/rsgallery/original/lol-cartoon-ag1.gif http://www.criticallayouts.com/images/rsgallery/original/lol-cartoon-ag1.gif http://www.criticallayouts.com/images/rsgallery/original/lol-cartoon-ag1.gif http://www.criticallayouts.com/images/rsgallery/original/lol-cartoon-ag1.gif http://www.criticallayouts.com/images/rsgallery/original/lol-cartoon-ag1.gif http://www.criticallayouts.com/images/rsgallery/original/lol-cartoon-ag1.gif

There is overwhelming evidence that the men who made the Second Amendment believed that words in a legal instrument should be interpreted by applying the well established common law rules of construction. There is no evidence whatsoever that they believed the meaning of the Constitution was supposed to be ascertained by applying the principles of language scholarship.

Where? By all means, provide the link to this, so that we may be educated.

[DragonStryk72]

My theory is that it was written by scum bag politicians trying to deceive the people. But it doesn't matter, because, regardless of the reason for the ambiguity, the Second Amendment's meaning should be ascertained by applying the well established common law rules of construction prevailing at the time it was made.

So basically, instead of our forefathers taking the simple route of just working within the already existing system of English laws to grab power, they decided that it would be much easier to overthrow the most powerful empire on the face of the earth, with a group of militias, and only basically trained regulars?

[DragonStryk72]

Well look! NO mention of militia, no mention free state.

Even better:

A nation

Those who compose a community

The vulgar

The commonalty; not the primes or nobles

Persons of a particular class

Men, or persons in general

He actually included part of the definition that go completely against the argument he's making. Of course, he skipped putting in the most basic definition of people, which is the plural form of persons.

[DragonStryk72]

Also, you need to look at the idea that the initial government model was a Libertarian model. The government was to handle things at the lowest level possible, allowing for quick resolution of whatever problems came up. Yes, they asserted a right for states to put together militias, but as well, they asserted for people to own and carry their own arms.

Why? Because it is a hell of a lot easier to let individuals attend to their own needs for security than it was to push it off on the government.

[Missileman]

As has been pointed out in a few posts, and totally ignored by J&J, the 2nd does not establish a right to bear arms. It very clearly recognizes the pre-existence of the right to bear arms and establishes a prohibition on the government in regards to gun ownership.

[Joe Steel]

I disagree, there is no evidence whatsoever that the framers intended the word "people" to mean "collective sovereign."

The posted citations clearly indicate otherwise.



However, there is overwhelming evidence that they meant for the word "people" to be interpreted by applying the common law rules of construction.

What evidence?

[Joe Steel]

As has been pointed out in a few posts, and totally ignored by J&J, the 2nd does not establish a right to bear arms. It very clearly recognizes the pre-existence of the right to bear arms and establishes a prohibition on the government in regards to gun ownership.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with personal gun ownership and outside of a few very fundamental rights, no right exists without explicit declaration.

The Second Amendment is statement of political philosophy which also declares for the People, the collective sovereign, the right to control the military.

[manu1959]

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with personal gun ownership and outside of a few very fundamental rights, no right exists without explicit declaration.

The Second Amendment is statement of political philosophy which also declares for the People, the collective sovereign, the right to control the military.

can you link to the law which says i can not own a gun......

[Missileman]

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with personal gun ownership and outside of a few very fundamental rights, no right exists without explicit declaration.

The Second Amendment is statement of political philosophy which also declares for the People, the collective sovereign, the right to control the military.

"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS"

Declarations don't get any more explicit than that!

[manu1959]

"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS"

Declarations don't get any more explicit than that!

he argues "people" does not mean individuals it means the collective....

[Missileman]

he argues "people" does not mean individuals it means the collective....

He's wrong.

[manu1959]

He's wrong.

i agree.....because if he was right.....there would be no individual rights granted by the constitution or any of the amendments....

[Missileman]

i agree.....because if he was right.....there would be no individual rights granted by the constitution or any of the amendments....

AND, the 2nd would read, "The right of the state to keep and bear arms".

[Mr. P]

Where ever did you get the silly notion that the lawmakers made the Second Amendment to be squared with those statements...

Historical research of documents and records, statements by the founders, etc. revealing the intent. It's easy, you should give it a try, historical facts are yer friend.

Did you know the second is the ONLY amendment with a "prefatory" clause? Check THAT construction.

prefatory:

1. Before or in preparation for the main matter, action, or business: inductive, introductory, preliminary, preparatory, prolegomenous. See start/end.
2. Serving to introduce a subject or person, for example: introductory, preliminary,

You and JS have been pummeled with proof that both of your claims are incorrect, but so far, neither you nor JS have offered any "proof" to the contrary.

You both can twist an turn every which way you can, but the second is very clear in intent and meaning, both literally and historically.

I know this anti-gun ownership argument with the second amendment "twist" of meaning by you and JS won't go away, it's been around for a long time.

My suggestion for both of you is: Take it to court, cuz yer just spinning yer wheels here..my guess is you'll be out more time with your baseless arguments and the filing fee though. Have fun.