Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
British Website
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="gerhard1" data-source="post: 3122698" data-attributes="member: 5391"><p>I am the one in black and the British gentleman is the one in red.</p><p></p><p>Good Analis, I'm trying to understand your position so an accurate response can be made.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Is this correct?</p><p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000"></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000">Yes, it is my position, as I had already stated in March...</span></strong></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>The First Amendment:</p><p>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 <strong>the right of the people</strong> peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Or how about the Fourth Amendment?</p><p></p><p>"<strong>The right of the people</strong> 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."</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>No; it is only a collective right, according to some, when the Second Amendment is concerned.</p><p></p><p>With all due respect, sir, this logic escapes me.</p><p></p><p>I believe I've done this before, but it bears repeating. Let's look at the grammatical structure of the Second Amendment.</p><p></p><p>"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"</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>No, good and noble Analis, the Second Amendment very much protects the already-existing <em><strong>individual </strong></em>right to arms. And the Vandercoy article you linked to in an earlier post very much supports this view.</p><p></p><p>The Vandercoy article:</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="gerhard1, post: 3122698, member: 5391"] 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? [B][COLOR=#ff0000] Yes, it is my position, as I had already stated in March...[/COLOR][/B] 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 [B]the right of the people[/B] peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Or how about the Fourth Amendment? "[B]The right of the people[/B] 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 [I][B]individual [/B][/I]right to arms. And the Vandercoy article you linked to in an earlier post very much supports this view. The Vandercoy article: [URL]http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
British Website
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom