Posted on 01/18/2013 8:25:21 PM PST by Vendome
Just a thought game for us.
Definitively for the individual; the Bill of Rights.
I’m going to put that in your “personnel” file. LOL
Oh my.
Umm, me and my buddies all work at the same place so we’re all “personnel” there. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
I actually considered the possibility of collective but, that wasn’t really the question for the radio host.
No one was able to articulate what might constitute a collective right but, it must start with the individual right.
Good post.
There would be NO government if not for the Bill of Rights.
Libtards like O’numbnuts doesn’t get it.
Impeach his ass. If that doesn’t work, well....
"Collective" is for communists.
good idea/method for soliciting rhetoric and hopefully truth. ok i’ll play, a little.
def: a Right is the physical or spirtual state of a free being that if abrogated violates God’s law, thus putting the violator under His judgement. so. what God creates and legislates, let no man destroy or deny, under pain of spirtual death and separation.
so what kind of laws, has God enumerated? what entity or entities are these laws formulated for?
The ignorance and naivete of liberals can be, frankly, quite embarrassing. It’s often outright painful to watch them try so hard to come up with a coherent and rational argument to support their incoherent and irrational philosophies.
One of the weakest and most childish arguments liberals can come up with in support of gun control is their “militia” obsession. Invariably, they craft arguments which do nothing but demonstrate the frightful lack of legal and historical knowledge common among progressive liberals.
The first ten amendments to the constitution were adopted in December of 1791. Five months after adopting these amendments, this bill of rights, Congress decided to grant the President authority to call forth the militia (article 1, section 8 of the constitution granted this authority to Congress).
As with any good piece of legislation, the First Militia Act defined key operative terms rather than relying on shifting dictionary or popular definitions - you see, many of the same men that drafted and voted to adopt the second amendment agreed on the legal definition of “militia” set out in the First Militia Act.
So, what did the writers of the second amendment think they meant when they wrote “militia”? What did the same men think the word “militia” meant when they delegated their constitutional authority to call said militia forth? Well, their definition is still a part of federal law. Later acts, such as the National Guard Act and the Selective Service Act merely modified and added language to the definition set down in the United States Code by the Militia Acts. You can read the legal definition of “militia” by checking Title 10 Section 311 of the U.S.C.:
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
Assuming a person would want the strictest possible interpretation of the second amendment, and conveniently ignored the phrase “...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, the language of the amendment would still recognize the right of all men of military age to keep and bear arms.
Consequently, when a liberal argues that the second amendment only applies to the “militia”, what they’re really arguing is that only male U.S. citizens between the ages of 17 and 45 have the right to keep and bear arms (and women who are part of the national guard).
As an aside, the SECOND Militia Act, passed shortly after the first such act, REQUIRED all able-bodied men of military age to acquire at their own cost and keep ready the infantry long-arm of the day and keep it, along with suitable ammunition to fight a battle, ready at all times. That is the definition of the militia, every able-bodied man in a nation keeping ready military arms - an armed body politic meant as both a check against foreign aggression and a guarantee against tyrannical government at home.
When liberals argue for a “collective” right interpretation, they’re arguing that only male citizens should have guns. We here on the conservative right also happen to respect the rights of our wives, daughters, sisters and mothers to protect themselves and participate as equal members of society, so we argue that they have the right to keep and bear arms as well.
There is no such animal. It’s a fiction the Left invokes when trying to crush individual liberty.
Well said, Sandrat...well said, indeed.
Ah, thanks. I was successful then!
You need to spend a few hours at http://www.usavsus.info/ to learn what a freeman is.
A “collective right” is what allows others to take what belongs to you, on their behalf, or behalf of others.
You can pimp your link elsewhere.
Tuh duh!!!! Another winner!
And BTW, anyone positing a Kennedy quote should be suspect, no matter their sign up date. That family is sin upon this Republic.
The right to remain silent is individual right. If someone is being questioned, the person can assert this right, and does not need to have someone else assert it on his behalf. The right to keep and bear firearms is also an individual right, and the individual need not ask others to assert that right for him. The Bill of Rights protects the people, and it is THEIR rights, and the Government is duty sworn to uphold each and every one of them. I wish to God that the Federal Courts would defend the 2nd Amendment as fiercely as they defend the 1st Amendment, and the 4th and 5th Amendments.
The government would NEVER turn their weapons on the COLLECTIVE.
Ask everyone at Kent State.
Is the right of free exercise of religion only allowed when one congregates with others in a church, or can an individual exercise that right in a solitary manner?
Is the right against abridging freedom of the press only allowed for people accredited as journalists or is it a right of the people to a free press?
Is the right of the people to peacably assemble only allowed when the collective allows it or can individuals assemble and move of their own choice?
-PJ
Before someone relieved me of 2/3 of them I used to collect WW2 training "rifles".
The US versions were merely '03 Springfield lookalikes, mostly wood, stamped sights, with about 4 inches of hollow steel out front to simulate a Barrel bl, no mehanism at all. They were light enough for me to have purchased my first as war surplus as a ten year old kid. They were good for teaching Joe Average how to march and do manual of arms. Only.
The British version was a SMLE facsimile with a pronged fork that popped out of the front and punched a hole in a framed paper target that could be hung off the front of the "rifle". It was serialized, nearly as heavy as the real thing and came in a nicely made & very official GI type wood box.
Always seemed to me that the difference between "how to march" and "how to aim and shoot" explained why we have a second amendment and the result of our cousins not having it. (Despite the amendment's having grown from an English law requiring long bows and archery practice.)
IIRC, it is also the basis for the USA sending tons of donated firearms to the Brits very early in (their) WW2.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.