the pistolero
Member
Yawn. Same bushwa, different day from Pravda-on-Hudson.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
Congress shall make no law infringing the right to keep and bear arms.
What they truly need, is to NEED a gun one of those days and then not have it. I'm afraid only cold brutal reality will convert one anti at a time.
My point is that reading it that way does not pose any inconsistency. The right to assemble poses no problem as a collective right - an individual right to assemble doesn't make a lot of sense. The right to assemble is clearly a right of "persons" or of "the people" - not of "a person".
The right of free speech could be construed the same way - it's the right give and hear a speech, perhaps the right of the people to hear a speech is that most important. Gathering to hear speech was a crime under colonial law.
saying that I cannot protest in front of the White House unless I have a group because my right to assemble applies only collectively, and not individually?
Not sure I agree with this. It looks to me like the 4th refers to "the people" in some collective sense, and "persons" when it means "individuals".
So an individual can assemble by himself?
If I organize a protest and no one shows up, are you telling me it would not be a violation of my first amendment rights to carry on my protest by myself simply because one person can't be an assembly?
Only a group can petition the government for a redress of grievances?
The 2A should be even more clearly seen as a natural right. The 1A just says Congress shall make no laws about religion.
Quote:
If I organize a protest and no one shows up, are you telling me it would not be a violation of my first amendment rights to carry on my protest by myself simply because one person can't be an assembly?
I am a little perplexed by the grammar here. If you show up and speak and no on listens, I don't know that the right of a assembly is involved. Are you saying that it is?
The right of assembly appears to me to be a inherently a collective right.
Mike
One thing is for sure; If it is somehow determined a collective right, there are going to be a whole bunch of militia's popping up everywhere.
Perhaps the next amicus brief will find the true intent of the amendment by pointing out that “militia” and “state” are capitalized in the original, whereas “people” is not.
Note that the Small "p" "people" are the ones who petition for redress, not an assembly which is just a legal enity , individuals must sign a petition rather than some rubber stamp with the title of an assembly.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.
Militia and State are Capitalized because they are specific legal and political enities.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.