Excellent! And please, @ConstitutionCowboy, or anyone else, please do not think I was talking about the rights of government in post #1 in any form or fashion; no, I was and am talking about the rights of the people...my wording was perhaps ambiguous and if so, I apologize. I agree that government does not have rights, it has power and it has responsibilities to us, the people for which it works. I'd really like to steer this discussion towards the idea and gain an understanding of who are these people?
So, I will try, in my limited way...to begin, it is interesting the way many dems and libs interpret the 2A. I noted in #1 that the BoR is all about the rights of the people. Now; look at and separate the 2A into it's two sections, or clauses; #1, the prefatory clause: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." and #2, the operative clause: ..."the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Many libs and anti's will argue that the Founders were talking about a national militia here in the prefatory clause, that only that group of people has the right to arms. But as has been pointed out, The Bill of Rights is about the RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE; Government itself does NOT have rights. Government has both responsibilities and powers, but not rights.
So put this militia argument they hold to test against the other Amendments, such as the First, which guarantees the right of freedom of religion and speech to the people. Or examine the Fourth, which says the people have a right to be secure in their home, protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures, etc.
If they are right, and the militia in 2A is a National Guard type organization, then this whole thing about keeping and bearing arms only applies to SOME PEOPLE? Huh? If that is true, then is freedom of speech or freedom of religion also only applicable to SOME PEOPLE? Are only SOME PEOPLE guaranteed the right to be secure in their home?
No! The rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights applies to all people; all of us; We The People, not just to some people, as the libs and antis would argue. In other words, it is simply not plausible to argue that the 2A is only applicable to some people, but that freedom of speech applies to all. The libs want to take our guns, and then put people in jail for burning the LTBG flag, (hate crime) they want to limit/remove the rights of gun owners but allow muslims to burn the US Flag (freedom of speech) on US soil! What is wrong with that? What the hell happened and is happening to my country?
The Bill of Rights is clearly written to apply to all of us, to we the people, to the citizens of the USA. That makes the militia argument in relation to 2A an invalid one, as we the people simply must be the ones that form the militia. You cannot say that one amendment (2A) only applies to certain people and other amendments (1A; 4A) apply to all. And as we might see in places like Virginia, from whence this very document's lineage can be traced, we the people might damn well demonstrate exactly how this militia, made up of the people, will ensure the security of the free state. I sincerely hope that the very act of flexing the muscles of the people is enough and that bloodshed is not required to ensure that this security and the freedoms guaranteed by The Bill of Rights is upheld.
So, I will try, in my limited way...to begin, it is interesting the way many dems and libs interpret the 2A. I noted in #1 that the BoR is all about the rights of the people. Now; look at and separate the 2A into it's two sections, or clauses; #1, the prefatory clause: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." and #2, the operative clause: ..."the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Many libs and anti's will argue that the Founders were talking about a national militia here in the prefatory clause, that only that group of people has the right to arms. But as has been pointed out, The Bill of Rights is about the RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE; Government itself does NOT have rights. Government has both responsibilities and powers, but not rights.
So put this militia argument they hold to test against the other Amendments, such as the First, which guarantees the right of freedom of religion and speech to the people. Or examine the Fourth, which says the people have a right to be secure in their home, protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures, etc.
If they are right, and the militia in 2A is a National Guard type organization, then this whole thing about keeping and bearing arms only applies to SOME PEOPLE? Huh? If that is true, then is freedom of speech or freedom of religion also only applicable to SOME PEOPLE? Are only SOME PEOPLE guaranteed the right to be secure in their home?
No! The rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights applies to all people; all of us; We The People, not just to some people, as the libs and antis would argue. In other words, it is simply not plausible to argue that the 2A is only applicable to some people, but that freedom of speech applies to all. The libs want to take our guns, and then put people in jail for burning the LTBG flag, (hate crime) they want to limit/remove the rights of gun owners but allow muslims to burn the US Flag (freedom of speech) on US soil! What is wrong with that? What the hell happened and is happening to my country?
The Bill of Rights is clearly written to apply to all of us, to we the people, to the citizens of the USA. That makes the militia argument in relation to 2A an invalid one, as we the people simply must be the ones that form the militia. You cannot say that one amendment (2A) only applies to certain people and other amendments (1A; 4A) apply to all. And as we might see in places like Virginia, from whence this very document's lineage can be traced, we the people might damn well demonstrate exactly how this militia, made up of the people, will ensure the security of the free state. I sincerely hope that the very act of flexing the muscles of the people is enough and that bloodshed is not required to ensure that this security and the freedoms guaranteed by The Bill of Rights is upheld.
(Truthfully, I never doubted the intended gist of your post.) And don't fret. I, like most folks, get all excided and step all over some of the more sensitive pars of my anatomy when I get on a roll!
