Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)281. Straw and red-herrings answer
I asked: "Where does that provision say anything about a right for individuals to own and carry guns?"
Its simple constitutional theory.
All rights belong to the people Glenn. All of them. Every last one.
Rights aren't granted by the constitution or the bill of rights, Glenn, and they're not granted by government.
Specific rights are PROTECTED by the bill of rights, not CREATED by it.
1. You have a "theory" that an individual acting alone can exercise that right? Your "theory" is wrong because an individual acting alone cannot exercise that right. The people in their collective capacity can exercise that right.
2. Obviously, the rights belong to people and not brick walls. The question is whether those rights were intended to be exercised collectively or by individuals acting alone.
3. The rights we're talking about came from the people who framed those constitutions.
4. I haven't said that the U.S. Bill of Rights created rights, and my argument doesn't depend on the U.S. Bill of Rights creating rights.
You avoided the question with this diversionary waffle full of unproven assertions, straw and red-herrings.
In the case of amendment 2, government is forbidden from infringing on those rights, with no specificity or qualifiers denoting that it only applies in the collective sense.
For your interpretation to be true, there has to be qualifiers denoting that individuals may exercise the right by themselves.
The Bouvier Law Dictionary:
PEOPLE: A state; as, the people of the state of New York; a nation in its COLLECTIVE and political capacity.
STATE: This word is used in various senses. In its most enlarged sense, it signifies a self-sufficient BODY of persons united together in one community for the defence of their rights, and to do right and justice to foreigners. In this sense, the state means the whole people united into ONE BODY POLITIC; and the state, and the people of the state, are EQUIVALENT EXPRESSIONS .
BODY POLITIC: " ..As to the persons who compose the body politic, they take COLLECTIVELY the name, of PEOPLE, or nation; and INDIVIDUALLY they are CITIZENS..."
-----------------------
Blacks Law Dictionary
PEOPLE: A state; as the people of the state of New York. A nation in its collective and political capacity. The aggregate or mass of the individuals who constitute the state. In a more restricted sense, and as generally used in constitutional law, the entire BODY of those citizens of a state or nation who are invested with political power for political purposes.
SOVEREIGN PEOPLE: The political body, consisting of the entire number of citizens and qualified electors, who, in their COLLECTIVE capacity, possess the powers of sovereignty and exercise them through their chosen representatives.
------------------------
Sketches of American Policy By Noah Webster.
"This association of all the individuals of a community is called the body politic or State... The members, spoken of COLLECTIVELY, are called PEOPLE, spoken of SEVERALLY, they may be called CITIZENS."
----------------------------
TopBack to the top of the page
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
ShareGet links to this post
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
324 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The cumulative count will always increase unless people start rising from the dead.
hack89
Aug 2014
#6
An unsupported claim *and* a strawman in just one sentence. Well done!
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2014
#24
Let me know when it drops below the rate of death from e-bola in the US.
notrightatall
Oct 2014
#202
And this is why I feel good about resisting the people that want me to ban you, SM
krispos42
Aug 2014
#8
You're "helping the cause" in the same way Ian Paisley used to "help" Unionism...
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2014
#17
So you think I'm being harassed for being the host of a group that bans gun nuts?
SecularMotion
Aug 2014
#26
Well the only place where opposing views to the ones presented in your echo chamber
shedevil69taz
Aug 2014
#31
A flat declaration of fact is now an "opinion", and a strawman is repeated
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2014
#39
Rates declining is not the same as the proportion of guns used to commit homicide.
acalix
Aug 2014
#50
Great Post! The 2a is racist, unnecessary, and evil. It should be repealed.
ncjustice80
Sep 2014
#58
Bogus! That mofo just keeps popping up. Such clearly debunked bullshit, and it still comes up.
NYC_SKP
Oct 2014
#81
The Dred Scott decision was passed, in part, to prevent slaves from owning guns.
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2014
#67
Hit and run cowards with hands on their keyboards are giving aid and comfort to the GOP. NT
pablo_marmol
Sep 2014
#70
I think you're right but I wouldn't blame movies and books and TV shows on the NRA.
NYC_SKP
Sep 2014
#72
Even if we accept your erroneous interpretation that would still make the 2A addressed to the people
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2014
#124
It's kind looking, from the passge you have cited, that individual liberty is the issue at hand.
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2014
#129
The passage -- which was selected by you and is not the totality of the debate -- deals with
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2014
#140
Your entire line of argument is moot, thanks to the unorganized militia...
friendly_iconoclast
Oct 2014
#191
The ageist and sexist language wouldn't stand up to legal challenge
friendly_iconoclast
Oct 2014
#208
Your claim conflicts directly with the wording of the Second Amendment itself
friendly_iconoclast
Oct 2014
#216
The 'collective' reading of the Second Amendment is what's moot...
friendly_iconoclast
Oct 2014
#238