British Website

[deerwhacker444]

I need my guns to keep the King of England outta my yard.!

 

[dennishoddy]

I need my guns to keep the King of England outta my yard.!

Liberals worship the concept of the EU even though it has brought those countries into near destruction as they were once known.
The King of England isn't coming to your yard. He knows better.
Hitler knew better.
Toto knew better.

 

[druryj]

Liberals worship the concept of the EU even though it has brought those countries into near destruction as they were once known.
The King of England isn't coming to your yard. He knows better.
Hitler knew better.
Toto knew better.

"...behind every blade of grass..."

But I am not so sure about Mohammed and Omar... a very real and credible threat to our way of life still exists, and on our own soil, to at least some degree.

 

[druryj]

I need my guns to keep the King of England outta my yard.!

LOL!

 

[OKNewshawk]

The King of England isn't coming to your yard. He knows better.
Hitler knew better.
Toto knew better.

And yet, Toto keeps sneaking into my yard, digging up my flowers, peeing on my fence and chasing my cat. No wonder Miss Gulch stuck him in her basket!
Or were you referring to the other Toto?

I think you meant "Tojo."

 

[deerwhacker444]

And yet, Toto keeps sneaking into my yard, digging up my flowers, peeing on my fence and chasing my cat. No wonder Miss Gulch stuck him in her basket!
Or were you referring to the other Toto?

I think you meant "Tojo."

Probably a typo, I'm sure he meant Hoho..

 

[OKNewshawk]

Probably a typo, I'm sure he meant Hoho..

I'm not originally from around here. I grew up around Philly, where we had Happy the Clown:

 

[dennishoddy]

I think you meant "Tojo."

You may be correct, and I could have been under the influence.
Toto and Dorthy aren’t coming for your guns either. [emoji12]

 

[D. Hargrove]

Toto and Dorthy aren’t coming for your guns either.

Nope, but if the 'ol wicked witch had won the election..............

 

[C_Hallbert]

I am the one in black and the British gentleman is the one in red.

Good Analis, I'm trying to understand your position so an accurate response can be made.

Your position is that the phrase 'right of the people' as used in the Second Amendment (2A) is evidence that the 2A only protects a collective rather than an individual right.

Is this correct?

Yes, it is my position, as I had already stated in March...


If that is indeed your position, I find it somewhat puzzling then, that when the phrase is used elsewhere in our Bill pof Rights, it refers, if I am not mistaken, to an individual right.

The First Amendment:
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.



Or how about the Fourth 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."

If we follow the logic that you appear to use, there is no protection from searches and seizures here because the right does not apply to individuals but only the collective as a whole. Thus the Fourth Amendment is rendered meaningless.

No; it is only a collective right, according to some, when the Second Amendment is concerned.

With all due respect, sir, this logic escapes me.

I believe I've done this before, but it bears repeating. Let's look at the grammatical structure of the Second Amendment.

"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"

Let us break it down by clauses. We have two, the main clause and the militia clause. The militia Clause (A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a Free State) is merely a preamble, one reason for the protection of the right. It does not restrict the main clause in any way, and it is not even a complete sentence. The main clause is the operative clause, and it is a complete sentence. 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The collective rights advocates hang their hats on the militia clause and treat the main clause as though it is not there. This is illogical in a purely grammatical sense as the first clause is not, like I said before, even a complete sentence, and it does not restrict the main clause in any way. It merely states one reason for the existence of the Amendment.

No, good and noble Analis, the Second Amendment very much protects the already-existing individual right to arms. And the Vandercoy article you linked to in an earlier post very much supports this view.

The Vandercoy article:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf

When the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were created, the Socialistic/Communistic Concept of the Collective was not a recognized form for a society or a government. At least I have not seen it so described .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk