NYT: No Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Status
Not open for further replies.
Roswell, it would be a good argument today, where there are standards for capitalization. My only point is that in the late 1700s, capitalization was not standardized. They capitalized willy nilly, so the argument breaks down. I'd rather rest our case on something more substantialy than random capitalization.
 
I think the writers at NYT could use a copy of the Federalist Papers, unless of course they aren't interested in truth, but are rather only interested in their own little twisted version of reality.
 
Man I love the business ethic of my home state, but I swear it is these crazy ideas that will drive me out of it.....
 
It doesn't matter *at this point*. SCOTUS decided that the Federal BoR does NOT apply to STATE action, only FEDERAL action. (ARGH! So much for "the law of the land"). The Fourteenth Amendment seems to be intended to bind the states through either "due process" or "privileges and immunities".

At this point, RKBA has NOT been incorporated under either clause. This is why there is stupid strict gun control in DC, NY, and IL, but not in Wyoming and other states. The upcoming Heller case will be interesting because they may incorporate the RKBA...or...they may not.

It's all about silly arguments to get around the Constitution. See the monster we've created?
 
See the monster we've created?
Click to expand...

Actually, FDR and those who voted for him did.

The "living document" philosophy (aka "silly arguments to get around the Constitution") was invented in order to make the Constitution allow socialism.
 
Roswell, it would be a good argument today, where there are standards for capitalization
Click to expand...
It doesn't rest only on capitalization , its the logical word usage based on accepted word usage to be found in our dictionaries.

The People in the collective sense is a Marxist Communist ideal of the People as an entity. In Anthropology and historical terms "A People" denotes a unique collective sense.
If the Constitution meant the collective sense it would read "The right of A People to keep and bear arms can not be infringed". Alternatively "The right of our People" if seperating the US Citizenry from other Peoples as a Unique collective People.
Its obvious from the word usage that People was meant in the plural as an indeterminant number of individual persons.

Thus
1plural : human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest
2plural : human beings, persons —often used in compounds instead of persons<salespeople> —often used attributively <people skills>
3plural : the members of a family or kinship
Click to expand...

Rather than
4plural : the mass of a community as distinguished from a special class <disputes between the people and the nobles> —often used by Communists to distinguish Communists from other people
5plural peoples : a body of persons that are united by a common culture, tradition, or sense of kinship, that typically have common language, institutions, and beliefs, and that often constitute a politically organized group
Click to expand...

In this last definition
7: the body of enfranchised citizens of a state
Click to expand...
It remains a plural of Citizens, citizens being a number of Individuals, as opposed to the homogenous mass of the Communist Peoples.

Enfranchised
1: to set free (as from slavery)
2: to endow with a franchise: as a: to admit to the privileges of a citizen and especially to the right of suffrage b: to admit (a municipality) to political privileges or rights
Click to expand...
Citizens are enfrancised on the individual level in a democracy just as your rights are yours to use or lose according to your own actions.
If you commit a felony you lose some of your rights as a citizen, but the rights of your fellow citizens remain intact.
In a Democracy rights are individual rights to be used or abused on an individual basis. The state exists to serve you rather than vice versa.
Any service you perform for your fellow citizens, beyond your legal obligations as a unique individual member of society, is voluntary.
Obligations are also individual according to your circumstances and abilities. If you fail to meet your legal responsibilities you'll be judged as an individual not as some gestalt Joe Public.
 
I know the black helicopter folks will whine on about the federalization of the National Guard meaning it's not the militia, but I don't see the SCOTUS buying that line of argument.
Click to expand...

A similar argument as it applies to DC specifically is not trivial, though.

DC is not a state. Therefore, it can't have a state militia. But it does have at least one NG unit.

This can be used to shoot down the assertion that the NG is equivalent to the state militia, and that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states.
 
Roswell, good points. Unfortunately, logic doesn't always enter into the liberal midset. If it did, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. I see your point and agree with your analysis.
 
I know the black helicopter folks will whine on about the federalization of the National Guard meaning it's not the militia, but I don't see the SCOTUS buying that line of argument.
Click to expand...

IANAL, but I think they already bought it; see Perpich v. Department of Defense (1990).
 
Second Amendment

A really instructive thread - lots of differing viewpoints. As regards the NG and militia: The 2A says specifically; "keep and bear arms". The NG cannot "keep" arms - they are invariably kept in a locked armory, to be issued as duty requires. The 2A and the NG are incompatible in that sense. The point of a militia is the general public bringing their own arms to a conflict situation. One poster stated that the first battle of the Revolution was to protect weapons and powder stores (paraphrasing), actually the first three battles (if I remember my hazy history:confused:) were to oppose "gun control" in the sense of the British wanting to seize weapons and powder stores. My personal take on the 2A: 1 - "if you want to live in a state of freedom (not a geographical state), 2 - the public needs to be armed, so they may form a militia (not a standing army), 3 - therefore, the government shall not infringe the right of the people/public to keep and bear arms". My 2 cents. Keep the ideas and controversy coming - this is what a debate should be!:)
sailortoo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top