The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 expressly states individuals have the right. It is nearly identical to the US Constituion.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pa08.asp
More like the “Evil gene.”
But yes.
1. Second Amendment doesn’t grant any rights at all. It says the Federales can’t infringe on them.
2. The right to life and thereby to self-defense and the means to defend oneself go all the way back to Federalist papers.
Really? Everything thing in the BOR is about individual rights and limiting government power except that one? Was the right of a state to have an army or militia ever in question? If not, why state the obvious?
ML/NJ
The bammycare law wasn’t legal until phony chief justice read it into the law.
It didn’t . . . then why didn’t they confiscate all the guns just after the Bill of Rights passed?
This is all you need to know about Chris Cuomo (he wants to show his gonads to 12yr old girls...):
https://www.dailywire.com/news/13805/cuomo-tolerance-12-year-old-girls-see-penises-robert-kraychik
Right & Duty To Keep & Bear Arms
(Read what the Founders had to say, and make up your minds on the subject.)
The militia was not given special rights. It was a statement acknowledging that the militia was NOT separated from ordinary citizens which would make it effectively, a standing army.
Oh, sure, and I guess that's why individuals have been allowed to own guns since the ratification of the constitution up until this day.
What a moron. They'll say any stupid thing to try and deny the obvious when it doesn't fit their agenda.
One more brain-trust that cannot grasp that self-preservation is the bedrock most foundational human right there is.
Without life, no human rights exist.
The Second Amendment is there to solidify our human right to exist.
While the wording may not state that, it is undeniable that is covered by the Amendment.
You have a right to defend your life.
Actually is is an individual right.
You really need to read the 1982 Senate report on the 2nd Amendment. I have a paper copy.
https://guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html
“The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.”
19th century cases
16. * Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878).
“If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the (p.17)penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”
17. * Jennings v. State, 5 Tex. Crim. App. 298, at 300-01 (1878).
“We believe that portion of the act which provides that, in case of conviction, the defendant shall forfeit to the county the weapon or weapons so found on or about his person is not within the scope of legislative authority. * * * One of his most sacred rights is that of having arms for his own defence and that of the State. This right is one of the surest safeguards of liberty and self-preservation.”
18. * Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8, at 17 (1871).
“The passage from Story (Joseph Story: Comments on the Constitution) shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights.”
19. * Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846).
“’The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.”
And the SCOTUS case that led to the Civil War..
Are Negros citizens...Dred Scott
“It would give to persons of the negro race, who are recognized as citizens in any one state of the Union, the right to enter every other state, whenever they pleased.... and it would give them full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to KEEP AND CARRY ARMS wherever they went.”
Cuomo is to constitutional law what Cap’n Crunch is to maritime law.
That's why I remember the banjo music from Deliverance when I see one. Somebody's relatives went to family reunions to meet future spouses---while in middle school.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The 2nd Amendment addresses the rights of the people and the of the states. The framers understood there was a difference between the two. The first ten amendments were mostly geared toward the rights of individual people and not the states.
Democrats either don’t know history or are willing to lie about it.
On guns - There is massive evidence of individual ownership of guns during the colonial period so that, upon the formation of this country, “the” right to keep and bear arms was already established.
As always, the Democrats have to lie and declare an emergency. They must have suspected that their lie would unravel upon close examination of the latest two cases. In one of these cases, the police failed to follow-up on a mother’s warning that her son had become a danger to society. In the other, a hard-core Antifa-type, who should have been identified by the FBI as a potential domestic terrorist instead progressed to the illogical conclusion of hatred, namely, murder.
That’s not just a little bit wrong, it is completely, totally wrong.
Many of the amendments are about individual rights by “the People” or persons.
The problem with collectivism, individual rights are subsumed by group rights. You can’t claim to care about “minorities” without recognizing the individual is the ultimate minority. Leftists gloss over this, they don’t want you to notice. Observe their verbiage - you’ll hear things like “Human Rights” though never “Individual Rights”.
To the leftist, an individual ONLY has worth when part of a group. Blacks aren’t really “black” unless and until they stay in their lane and act the part of an aggrieved victim class. Women aren’t truly women, unless they ascribe to “feminist” ideology. There is no “diversity” in thought or beliefs on a modern campus.
In this instance, firearms are only legitimately owned by an “official” group, a standing army, or perhaps the police. Of course the leftist worldview is nothing if not made up of inherently profound absurdity and contradictions at every turn, they don’t want you to notice this either, natch.
“Police are Racist tools of the heteronormative patriarchy” and
“Only Police Should Have Guns”
can be heard in the same breath by those afflicted by the leftist brain virus.
Ultimately this is why collectivists rack up such a huge body count. Millions of dead at the hands of government are just a statistic, an unfortunate consequence to remaking society. Something like 100 million murdered at the hands of government in the 20th century, and that’s not counting the Wars, amazingly enough.
Perhaps if it were still the 1950s, Americans still had trust in their institutions, and shared a common belief system and goals, but that ship sailed a long time ago. Leftists brought Tribalism to America, and now elected representatives are demonizing certain members of the public and calling for their extermination.
I’m not sure if these nutjobs realize how crazy they sound out here in the cheap seats. “We hate you, we want you to die, and we’ll nuke Nebraska if you don’t give us your guns. If you don’t vote for us, you’re racist/nazi/worse than hitler blah blah blah”.
Yeah, no... Whether they realize it or not any sane rational person who doesn’t own a firearm and ammunition at this point may be comsidering their options.
When some assclown on the TV says “you don’t need a gun” it’s a safe bet “you need a gun.”
Really sad, but as uncle Walter used to say “And that’s the way it is.”
Absolutely NOT-— Damn well NOT!!
The history of the Scotus interpretation— which was re-written to meet the needs of lefties for over 70 years— is one of the 2nd Amendment being intended for ALL of the People— and especially, since the definition of “militia” was ... all of the able bodied (MEN, then, and now includes Women) citizens who comprised the entirety of the militia.
To be called up on a moment’s notice— RATHER than having a STANDING ARMY, even one that was Continental... very important notion. So the imposition of a in country standing ARMY (especially the army- in the Founder’s view) could be used by a wayward GOVERNMENT (without consent of the governed) against the FREE citizens. This was the intent of the 2nd Amendment— to define ALL the people (inclusive of the small military) as being the militia to defend against all enemies.... Foreign AND Domestic (including an illegal general and political cronies aligned-— as the British were in the Colonies against the colonists... and as experienced by many of these colonists in their original countries- England, Ireland, Scotland, France, Holland, Germany-— the monarchist armies who “worked” for the elite ruling class of monarchs and their lackeys/servants. Even following the Reformation.. that changed... some of that.
“Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” -James Madison, Federalist Paper #46.
Is that the reason you freakin’ morons had him whacked? I thought it was to clear the way for that RAT pick of yours.