• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Philosophy 101: Is the 2A an "absolute" or "fundamental" right?

Alexcabbie

Alexcabbie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
2,288
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
imported post

Not only this, but "the right of the People" means individuals. If it does not, then only the State Legislature is proteccted against unreasonable/warrantless search and siezure, "the right of the People to peaceably assemble" means the State legislature may meet, and "to the States, or to the People" is redundant.

Saying "the People" means "The State" in the 2A and NOWHERE ELSE in the Constitution is like saying that for everone else a car is a car, but your car is a motorboat. However, if you drive it into the drink it will fill with water and go down like a stone (Just ask Ted Kennedy, but do it before his brain is dam -- oh, yeah it has been for years) IMO ANY judge who interprets "the People" to mean any other thing is prima facie incompetent to rule on ANY legal issue and should be removed forthwith.
 
Washintonian_For_Liberty

Washintonian_For_Liberty

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
922
Location
Mercer Island, Washington, USA
imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:
Not only this, but "the right of the People" means individuals. If it does not, then only the State Legislature is proteccted against unreasonable/warrantless search and siezure, "the right of the People to peaceably assemble" means the State legislature may meet, and "to the States, or to the People" is redundant.

Saying "the People" means "The State" in the 2A and NOWHERE ELSE in the Constitution is like saying that for everone else a car is a car, but your car is a motorboat. However, if you drive it into the drink it will fill with water and go down like a stone (Just ask Ted Kennedy, but do it before his brain is dam -- oh, yeah it has been for years) IMO ANY judge who interprets "the People" to mean any other thing is prima facie incompetent to rule on ANY legal issue and should be removed forthwith.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more... not to mention, our 9th Amendment rights are constantly being squashed because they have more guns than we do. Just because a right is not enumerated in the Constitution does not mean they can make a law to take that right away. This is why most laws (Other than those in agreement and not in Conflict with the Constitution) are not legal.
 
J

jerg_064

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
126
Location
Warner Robins, Georgia, USA
imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
Alexcabbie wrote:
Not only this, but "the right of the People" means individuals. If it does not, then only the State Legislature is proteccted against unreasonable/warrantless search and siezure, "the right of the People to peaceably assemble" means the State legislature may meet, and "to the States, or to the People" is redundant.

Saying "the People" means "The State" in the 2A and NOWHERE ELSE in the Constitution is like saying that for everone else a car is a car, but your car is a motorboat. However, if you drive it into the drink it will fill with water and go down like a stone (Just ask Ted Kennedy, but do it before his brain is dam -- oh, yeah it has been for years) IMO ANY judge who interprets "the People" to mean any other thing is prima facie incompetent to rule on ANY legal issue and should be removed forthwith.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more... not to mention, our 9th Amendment rights are constantly being squashed because they have more guns than we do. Just because a right is not enumerated in the Constitution does not mean they can make a law to take that right away. This is why most laws (Other than those in agreement and not in Conflict with the Constitution) are not legal.
Click to expand...
I highly doubt that, they just got a few bigger ones. We just don't have enough people in this country(or state) ready to do what needs to be done to stop these criminals now. You realize the military only makes up less than 1% of the population, where as "registered" gun owners make up nearly 1/3.
 
Alexcabbie

Alexcabbie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
2,288
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
imported post

Yup and more than that if you count us folks in states like Virginia where "registration" is what you do with a car - and even then only if you drive it on the public byways - and not a firearm.:exclaim:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top