[AZRepublican]

>THAT IS A PERSONAL RIGHT.

I've yet to see any convincing evidence that the 2nd is a personal right conferred to individuals.

[Adams]

Will this suffice? :

http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/a/217543.htm

Click on "ruling".

I know it's several pages long, and well foot-noted (which may be tough for you to get through), but this court has it right.

[potlatch]

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And, we the people may BE the Militia when they start coming to take our rights away and hopefully not cower like the French.

We don't have to have machine guns in our homes

Just my personal opinion, I am not an expert on the Constitution.

[sourcery]

I've yet to see any convincing evidence that the 2nd is a personal right conferred to individuals.

Then you haven't been looking.

The Second cannot be anything other than a personal right. It has no meaning or purpose otherwise. All the other rights listed in the Bill of Rights are individual rights--why would the Second be any different?

Madison was at first opposed to having any Bill of Rights at all, reasoning (correctly, as it turns out,) that the presence of explicitly enumerated rights would cause people to think that the only individual rights were the ones enumerated in the Constititution.

Madison's understanding of the Constitution (and he was the principal author, after all) was that the governement had no power or authority other than what was explicitly granted it by the plain language of the Constiution. From that perspective, individuals need no Second Ammendment to have a personal right to bear weapons, since individuals have the Liberty right to do whatever they please, provided they avoid violating the rights of others.

In the view of Madison and Jefferson, no government ever has the power to infringe on the Natural (Liberty) rights of individuals, regardless of whether or not those rights are explicitly recognized by a Consitution. The Natural, Liberty right to bear a weapon derives from the right to property and from the right to self-defense--both of which ultimately derive from the right to life.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

"I've yet to see any convincing evidence that the 2nd is a personal right conferred to individuals."

---

You haven't looked very hard. Save yourself the effort, I KNOW it is, and I'm willing to die defending it.

[mountn man]

I've yet to see any convincing evidence that the 2nd is a personal right conferred to individuals.

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.

If the 2nd didn't confer rights to individuals but to the state it would be read thusly.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the state to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The 1st amendment reads:
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.

Is there any doubt that freedom of speech applies to the individual? Or does it apply soley to the state?

The 4th amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Are individuals implied here? Or the state?

When the amendment says state it means state. When it says people it means people.

The only time "the people" implies the state, is in a communist or socialist society. That wasn't the politics of the US in the late 1700's.

The All-American Gun In colonial times, as Cramer argues, people didn’t own guns just for hunting. Numerous laws mandated that people have guns for personal defense and defense of the community, at home, while traveling and even in church.

Heads of households, whether men or women, were required to have a gun at home and fines of up to a month’s wages were imposed on those who failed to meet this requirement.

In some states such as Maryland, fines were paid directly to inspectors so that authorities had a strong incentive to check. The only people exempt from these rules were Quakers...

[truth_seeker]

"I've yet to see any convincing evidence that the 2nd is a personal right conferred to individuals."

That is precisely what the ruling was recently by the DC court three judge panel.

Not to mention over 200 years of precedent.

The issue is: what are reasonable restrictions?

[ozzymandus]

And you'll never admit that the right to keep and bear arms is an "individual right", will you? read the Constitution, leftie.

[ellery]

FEDERALIST No. 46 -- The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared, James Madison:

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. 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. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it."

FEDERALIST No. 29 -- Concerning the Militia, Alexander Hamilton:

"This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."


http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

[indianrightwinger]

I take a different point of view......when in doubt, interpret the constitution more favorably to the citizens and ask for proof from the government to claim authority.

Otherwise, you will be in China very soon.

[Neil E. Wright]

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

REPORT
of the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
of the
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
Second Session
February 1982

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

Click here to read the report BY THE SENATE that finds an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to keep and bear arms

"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."

---

±

"The Era of Osama lasted about an hour, from the time the first plane hit the tower to the moment the General Militia of Flight 93 reported for duty."
Toward FREEDOM

[sheik yerbouty]

You're not really a Goldwater fan, are you?

[Jim Noble]

I've yet to see any convincing evidence that the 2nd is a personal right conferred to individuals.

All other uses of the term "the right of the people" in the Constitution and BOR have a personal, individual meaning.

[from occupied ga]

I've yet to see any convincing evidence that the 2nd is a personal right conferred to individuals

Then what the heck are you doing on this forum? Seriously, are you trolling? BUT, just in case you're misguided and not a troll here: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1173434606378 Not to mention that every other one of the bill of rights has been considered an individual right, and somehow this one isn't?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I've yet to see any convincing evidence that the 2nd is a personal right conferred to individuals.

You are a leftist...

[longtermmemmory]

try reading the other first nine amendments.

1,2-9 are all INDIVIDUAL rights. It defies logic to postulate otherwise.

In fact in law school professors always botch their logic up when they try and argue otherwise.

You might as well argue the first amendment is a personal right of the collective.

The fact is Rudy Guliani is a left winger in gun control.

Reasonable restrictions is code to keep fire arms away from the "wrong hands", the wrong hands are yours. Remember after 9/11 the democrats lined up saying gun control had to be MORE strict because lax gun laws made 9/11 happen easier.

RINOs are bad for america.

[dirtboy]

I've yet to see any convincing evidence that the 2nd is a personal right conferred to individuals.

I think you should go post on the Brady Center forum instead of FR, quite frankly.