To help, others, understand the 2nd Amendment.

Tawnos said:

One essentially says, and the other actually upholds.

You fail, but we already knew that.

Click to expand...

Being a "fail" in the eyes of some folks is a high compliment. Thank you! :lol:

Just fodder for discussion, regarding aliens and their rights.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned...one year...ten years...for life...or may be sentenced to death.

KBCraig said:

Just fodder for discussion, regarding aliens and their rights.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned...one year...ten years...for life...or may be sentenced to death.

Click to expand...

As I read it, the above quote applies to the punishments for individuals, or associations of individuals. It seems to have quite a bit of interpretation... but then, it is a university (and universities are notorious for their "port list"). I find it difficult to believe that the U.S. Code says

...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned...one year...ten years...for life...or may be sentenced to death.

Click to expand...

The law doesn't seem to have that much fondness for ellipses, and the specification of punishments seems to be a bit vague. What happened to fifteen years, twenty years, etc? (Besides, not even the U.S. Code trumps the Constitution.) .

Now that I have reviewed your cite, I see there was some selective editing/redaction done. To be a quotation the statement must contain the exact wording of the original, which reads:

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;

Click to expand...

The full quote then goes on to prescribe separate, more extensive punishments for violations resulting in injury and death Pax...
Pax..

The Constitution really doesn't say anything concrete; it is more of a set of guidelines that are treated as if they are some sort of Affirmation, or Fundamental Nature of Man's existence.

Beretta92FSLady said:

The Constitution really doesn't say anything concrete; it is more of a set of guidelines that are treated as if they are some sort of Affirmation, or Fundamental Nature of Man's existence.

Click to expand...

I agree that the Constitution is the Founding Father's "affirmation" of our basic rights as citizens. The Constitution doesn't "grant" anything to citizens, it is a declaration of the government's recognition and acceptance of those rights.

I think the words "The People" mean a lot in the phrase " The right of (The People) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". After all, the very first words of the Preamble are "We (the People)"of the United States". If "The People" means the citizens of the U.S., to protect the First Amendment ( freedom of speech ), the right to protect us from illegal search and seizure,(4th) and the right to remain silent,(5th) etc. How can "The People" mean something else for The Right of (the People) to Keep and Bear Arms?

hjmoosejaw said:

I think the words "The People" mean a lot in the phrase " The right of (The People) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". After all, the very first words of the Preamble are "We (the People)"of the United States". If "The People" means the citizens of the U.S., to protect the First Amendment ( freedom of speech ), the right to protect us from illegal search and seizure,(4th) and the right to remain silent,(5th) etc. How can "The People" mean something else for The Right of (the People) to Keep and Bear Arms?

Click to expand...

I am with you on that.

hjmoosejaw said:

I think the words "The People" mean a lot in the phrase " The right of (The People) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". After all, the very first words of the Preamble are "We (the People)"of the United States". If "The People" means the citizens of the U.S., to protect the First Amendment ( freedom of speech ), the right to protect us from illegal search and seizure,(4th) and the right to remain silent,(5th) etc. How can "The People" mean something else for The Right of (the People) to Keep and Bear Arms?

Click to expand...

I'm on-board with that, too, hj! Pax...

Freedom1Man said:

I am with you on that.

Click to expand...

Exactly. What if the First Amendment said...."A well regulated media being necessary to the information of a free state, the right of the people to start a newspaper, write a book, or preach to a congregation shall not be infringed"? What would the antis or liberals say about that? We could tell them that the way it reads, doesn't mean they can speak freely. The word media doesn't apply to them. Our founding fathers meant something totally different.

hjmoosejaw said:

Exactly. What if the First Amendment said...."A well regulated media being necessary to the information of a free state, the right of the people to start a newspaper, write a book, or preach to a congregation shall not be infringed"? What would the antis or liberals say about that? We could tell them that the way it reads, doesn't mean they can speak freely. The word media doesn't apply to them. Our founding fathers meant something totally different.

Click to expand...

This was not to help us understand it. I have had this discussion before with people who think it's okay to license gun ownership even. They claim that the 2A is different. No matter how much I point out, what you just pointed out, that it is about the right of the people that shall NOT be infringed. I've even shown them the word infringed in the dictionary. This thread was for those who might have better luck than I have had.

A well regulated library, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

I agree! They think they can make the argument that "militia" doesn't mean the citizens, when it is clear that the second amendment was written for "The People". I was hoping that writing the first amendment in a way that the 2nd is written, they would see my point. But they are going to argue against the 2nd no matter what, I guess. They would see that writing a book is what was meant when "Media" was written. But they can't see that the words "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" or "The People" have anything to do with the word "Militia". I wrote this part: " We could tell them that the way it reads, doesn't mean they can speak freely. The word media doesn't apply to them. Our founding fathers meant something totally different." to point out that those are the types of things they say when arguing against the 2nd Amendment. When dealing with the antis, they refuse to reason. All we can do is try. I would be totally blown away to ever hear an anti say, " Wow, you're right. I've never looked at it that way. If I support the 1st amendment, I'd have to support the 2nd as well."

If people supported the second amendment they way they support the first amendment, we would all have machine guns, fighter jets, battleships, APCs, etc at the local pawn shop.

A group of people could buy a battleship together and sell our anti-pirate services around the world.

We would have machine gun ranges in every town and city, community fighter launch strips, and tank training.

No country would want to invade for fear of being ground to dust.