I m amazed that Liberals and Democrats find the Bill of Rights so pliable. And what is sad is the amount of idiots that do not understand you cannot afford to say “The Right of the People” as stated in the Second Amendment is a collective right and thus subject to the whims of the government in any day and not risk the same application of collective interpretation to free speech, to be secure in their houses and be subjected to illegal search and seizures for example. They always think an exemption will be carved out for them because they are not the ignorant troglodytes who own guns.
That the only place carved out would be a space in the American Gulag does not cross their little minds.
4 thoughts on “The magical transition of The Right of the People.”
Here are the four questions that matter.
If “the people” in the Second Amendment aren’t the general population, who are “the people” in the 1st, 4th, and 9th amendments?
If “arms” in the Second Amendment doesn’t protect a right to arms particularly suitable for military/militia use, what kind of arms does it protect a right to?
If “keep” doesn’t mean to own or possess, what does it mean?
If “bear” doesn’t mean to carry on your person, what does it mean?
The argument that I’ve been using lately goes something like this:
Let’s look at the 2nd amendment. What is the right we are discussing?
“The right to keep and bear arms”. How do we know that?
“It says it right there, the right to keep and bear arms”
And what is the government forbidden from doing?
“infringing” we know that because it says “shall not be infringed”.
So the right is the right to keep and bear arms and the government shall not infringe on that right.
Who does the right belong to? “The militia! Ha got you”.
But doesn’t it say “The right of the people? How did “the people” turn into “the militia?”
“Uh, uh. ”
Ok, so we know the right belongs to the people because it says so right there, “the right of the people.”
So why is this right important?
“for the security of a free state” is what the amendment says.
And how will the security of a free state be insured “By a well regulated militia”
So the right is the right to keep and bear arms, it belongs to the people, because it is necessary for the security of a free state, which is defended by a well regulated militia.
So far it has worked 100% of the time. They just shut down or the start babbling.
One of the best explanations I’ve heard, Therefore!
Of course this is coming from the junior Connecticut state senator who’s state constitution reads: “SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” Funny, that he wants to restrict every other state’s rights but their own.
Login or register to comment.