Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Zon
"So "the people" in the 1st Amendment is an individual right but in the 2nd Amendment "the people" is a collective right."

Given the prefatory clause of the second amendment (which is missing from the first amendment, thereby making a comparison between the two amendments ludicrous), "the people" in the second amendment is an individual right applied collectively.

According to the gun grabbing courts.

Why isn't concealed carry legal in every state if the second amendment protects that right?

21 posted on 03/20/2007 4:47:49 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: robertpaulsen
Given the prefatory clause of the second amendment (which is missing from the first amendment, thereby making a comparison between the two amendments ludicrous), "the people" in the second amendment is an individual right applied collectively.

If you read Alexander Hamilton's writing in the Federalist (compiled by me and posted on this FR topic) on his interpretation of the militia and the people and the right to bear arms, you see that he envisioned the militia as something that might meet once or twice a year, and only for the purpose of regulating (minimal training to act as a unit).

Therefore, I'm saying that the original intent of "well regulated" was to have minimal training to act as a unit, and "militia" was the population-at-large. It's a stretch to say that it's a collective right applied individually when the collective would only meet once or twice a year, and the people "keep" their own arms instead of them being stored in some collective armory only to be gotten and used when the militia is called out.

-PJ

23 posted on 03/20/2007 4:57:34 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen

It seems that many if not most state's constitutions go into much more detail as to the "individual" right to keep and bear arms. So with that in mind then how can the Federal Government be MORE restrictive if the 2nd Ammendment to the Constitution is to express the STATE right to individual arms? It would seem any firearms laws passed by congress EVER would then be unconstitutional?


24 posted on 03/20/2007 5:03:16 PM PDT by Wildbill22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen
Why isn't concealed carry legal in every state if the second amendment protects that right?

Because liberals don't care what the constitution says and are out to ban guns...as evidenced by their move in DC to ban them in homes.
32 posted on 03/20/2007 5:13:35 PM PDT by Old_Mil (Duncan Hunter in 2008! A Veteran, A Patriot, A Reagan Republican... http://www.gohunter08.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen

Given the prefatory clause of the second amendment (which is missing from the first amendment, thereby making a comparison between the two amendments ludicrous), "the people" in the second amendment is an individual right applied collectively.

LOL!! Your double-think is fooling only you. The first amendment has a prefatory (2: located in front) of "the people". Your argument is sooo lame, and completely irrelevant.

You'd have readers of your post believe that the 2nd amendment was necessary to ensure that men going into battle (the militia) would have guns because without the second amendment they would have gone into battle without guns. 

Why isn't concealed carry legal in every state if the second amendment protects that right?

Because, just like you, many politicians and bureaucrats disregard the original meaning of the constitution. In violation of the 2nd amendment they made it illegal to conceal carry. Your question presupposes that State and federal politicians and bureaucrats wouldn't and don't violate individual rights and create unconstitutional laws.

The fourteenth amendment was for the most part specifically to allow blacks to keep and bear arms to protect themselves, in self-defense. From the article:

 "The statement of February 28, 1866 by Nevada Senator James Nye was fairly typical: "As citizens of the United States they [black persons] have equal right to protection, and to keep and bear arms for self-defense."" 

"The understanding that the Second Amendment applied to individual citizens was reiterated during the 1866 Congressional debates over the Freedmen's Bureau Bill and the proposed Fourteenth Amendment.

"The Radical Republicans wanted to apply all the Bill of Rights protections to the recently freed former slaves in the South, America's newest citizens. The "freedmen," as they were called, needed the right to bear arms in particular in order to defend themselves against the white night-riders who were terrorizing the black population.

"The statement of February 28, 1866 by Nevada Senator James Nye was fairly typical: "As citizens of the United States they have equal right to protection, and to keep and bear arms for self-defense.""

36 posted on 03/20/2007 5:32:29 PM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen

In the following statement, who is allowed to read books?

A well-educated citizenry being necessary to the advancement of a modern state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

Is it just the well educated, or is it only citizens or is it all the people?



76 posted on 03/20/2007 6:47:45 PM PDT by Betty Jane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen

Because that right is being infringed.
Lawmakers don't like an armed populace.


163 posted on 03/21/2007 6:39:05 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson