"Collective right" theory repudiated

[LongPurple]

States have "powers". Only "people" have "rights".

It is clearly the “right of the people” which is recognized and guaranteed, not that of the militia. If that were the case, we would have a situation tantamount to the BOR saying “an army has the right to bear arms”. That arms-bearing of an army would be implicit, and not require any explicit statement. The only “army” I know that does not “bear arms” is the Salvation Army. (Lousy Infantry, but they have a great brass section)

[woodenmajor]

yes ben ..but obama wasnt born here and thus dosnt respect this birthright ,except for mexican narco terrorists of course .

[shananagans5]

Questions of a comma aside, the goal of the founders was to prevent overbearing gov. They wanted the people to be as free as possible to go after the life they wanted. They also wanted the people to be able to replace the gov if it was not functioning as intended. The US was founded to maximize individual liberties. Do you really think they only wanted guns in the hands of the federal gov or other gov sanctioned orginization?That would be 100% inconsistant with the other intents of the founders

[siradon2000]

The Bill of rights was meant to ensure the rights of individuals. With that in mind, all people have the right to bear arms according to the second Article of the Bill of Rights. Note I wrote ARTICLE an amendment has not yet been passed an Article has. Arms is a broad term encompassing all weapons. So technically any statute written to constrict or limit this LAW or any other in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, or Bill of Rights would be unlawful,and therefor is treason or sedition

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 but it also says: "in a small militia", right under the 2nd amendment, so technically you guys can only have weapons as long as your in a small group, plus that amendment was only put in, so that the rebels could shoot british Redcoats without consequences, so just bear in mind that when you let of a couple of rounds, the right was based on 235 year old bigoted statement, just sayin mate.

[siradon2000]

@maccamacca87 Yeah, I don't know what document you're reading, but its not the Bill of Rights mate. Actually the reason the second article of the original bill of rights was put in was to make sure that the people remained armed. So that should an oppressive government come to be again the people would have a fighting chance. Article 2 "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."

[siradon2000]

Understand that these people were waging a war against what they perceived as a threat to their Freedom and Liberty, and they wanted to make sure that it was never taken again. They wanted to make sure that we had a fighting chance, which is why the Militia was to be the united States ARMY.

[siradon2000]

@maccamacca87 Also the 2nd article of the bill of rights is in a bill that specifically outlines personal individual rights. The number of people is irrelevant, especially considering the Militia was supposed to be our main Army. You seem to have little knowledge on the subject.

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 so you guys feel that it is neccesary to own a gun, and should any state pass a bill to limit the "law" ( e.g no one is allowed automatic firearms and bullets over 5.56mm ) , the bill should be repealed, even though it could help stop gun crime signifigantly, and yes the law was indeed passed to the rebels could use firearms to repel the brits,

plus i'm only using this from general knowledge and an encyclopedia on american politics.

[LongPurple]

@maccamacca87

" . . . the law [2A.] was indeed passed to the rebels could use firearms to repel the brits, . . . " WHAT???

Cornwallis surrenders --1781

Treaty of Paris --- 1783

U S Constitution ratified by states --- 1788

BOR proposed in Congress --- 1789

BOR ratified (including 2 A.) --- 1791

So you say 6 years after the war was formally over, or up to 10 years later, the people were "allowed" by the new Gov't to have guns so they could "repel the brits".

[LongPurple]

@LongPurple

Pal, we didn't need any such Gov't "permission" right from the get-go at Lexington and Concord. We tossed out the Crown and took our place as an independent Republic. The need for weapons to “repel the brits” was long over when the BOR came to be. They were all back in London on R&R.

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 Plus how is it that most other western/European countries can get along fine without "laws" letting them have guns, but in many states, when a state government passes a law constricting firearm use, people go litteraly up in arms about it, is a peace of wasted steel and wood really worth that much to you?

[siradon2000]

@maccamacca87 Yes actually it is worth that much. You should also understand that Britain was trying to take away all 50 caliber muskets at the time. Which was also the main tool for hunting food. They wanted to insure that the people had the ability to fight back against the government should the Government become oppressive. The laws in place today are too much for law enforcement to actually enforce as it is. In what way does restricting law abiding people from having firearms do good?

[siradon2000]

@siradon2000 I know what it did for Australia violent crimes skyrocketed, rapes, murder, and robbery spiked higher than ever the following 2 years, and then leveled back off to about the same as before they enacted their ridiculous laws in the 90's. Same thing happened in the UK. Odd how that happens, criminals still commit criminal acts. Yet people can no longer defend themselves with those arms. You know those illegal restricted ones the criminals use.

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 But that was over 235 years ago, times have changed, those were times when factory farming/en mass breeding of cattle, where virtuallly non-existant, so they had to survive on Muskets and various weaponry, and also, they only had flintlock Muskets, they had no idea what the fuck a M16 or an AK-47 was, they had no idea that in the future we would have massive repeating weapons with bullets the size of artillery shells...

[siradon2000]

@maccamacca87 The evolution of weaponry is irrelevant. They were also using cannons at the time, please don't try that path its repugnant. When you understand what the entire purpose of the 2nd article or the bill of rights was. It was to protect the people from the government. The people were meant to have the military power, period. Do you see the Swiss running around and killing people in the streets? No, but the people are the military, they can literally own anything RPG's included.

[siradon2000]

@maccamacca87 Please do tell all of those soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan how that steel was wasted, I'm sure they'd love that.

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 ahem, your goverment and many others makes lots of new firearms each year right, to replace the new ones they made last year, they build litterally billions of bullets, for the soldiers to shoot terrorists in a now pointless and illegal war in a coincidentally Oil rich region, tonnes of firearms are made in the US, with stockpiles of weapons no one uses or needs, the steel, brass and sometimes wood are wasted instead of going to something more productive.

[siradon2000]

@maccamacca87 Ahem and your government too, what an odd thing isn't it? The same can be said of cars, tv's, and many other items the world makes. Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. Kind of like food storage, I may never need it, but if I do I'd rather have it.

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 yes, but my government only uses firearms in the Armed forces, they are almost banned from civillians, and whos to say a Prius is wasted metal, and theres a diffrence between FOOD strorage and Firearm storage, food is what humans consume to survive, Firearms however, fire lead ( also wasted ) projectiles that can FUCKING kill you, food helps survive and guns help kill, don't you get it, we don't need firearms in a modern society.

[siradon2000]

@maccamacca87 And if you need food storage, who's to say you don't need something to kill more food? Maybe you don't get it, when government has all the arms, it only takes one wrong person to come to power for another Holocaust to happen.

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 you can use more than guns to kill you know, some people today still hunt without guns, and i do get it, plus, that may be the case in shitty middle eatern countries that are ruled by sharia law, but do you really think that the US government will ruin whas left of it's reputation genociding, and everyone else has learned from history, the US is no exeption, and this is the free world, shite like Genociding hasen't happened since the second world war.

[siradon2000]

@maccamacca87 Actually in Iraq, Saddam Hussein had over 300,000 people killed and buried in mass graves. Over 1 million Iraqi's have been killed in this Illegal non declared war. Try again.

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 that just means that after you guys got him, you should have got the fuck out of the middle east, not stay there for ten years.

[siradon2000]

@maccamacca87 We should never have been there in the first place. We went in on the premise of WMD's, and that was based on pipes the U.N. found and Iraq blocking U.N. people from viewing certain areas of specific facilities. Quite frankly I think they gambled on whether Iraq was actually doing something or not.

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 Finally, someone who has the same opinion, dosen't your country find it embarrasing that they went in to iraq for WMD's, and yet they found nothing ( atleast they think they didn't ), plus they could just be there for Oil you know, thats still a possibility.

[siradon2000]

@maccamacca87 There's no doubt it was for corporations to seize the oil, or at least control it. I still don't understand why we're depending on 70 percent of foreign oil. That's a ridiculous ratio of import/export. Its a trade deficit, which is another big problem we have. A lot more coming in than going out.

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 what's even worse, when a small company makes an efficient Electic car, the Oil corporations, will most likely buy out that company, and lock away the plans for the electric car, in fear that it will make Oil obsolite, so in practise, it's their fault technology hasen't as much as it should have, am i right?

[siradon2000]

@maccamacca87 Actually there is a flying car that is fuel efficient that was locked away. The man who created is the only man who has a working version of it. Combustion Engines can also be made to be fuel efficient to run 1000 miles per gallon, its sad really. Unfortunately people with good ideas sell them and the world never sees them. It is their fault.

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 I heared about that, but i thought Richard Hammond smashed it beyond repair in series 14 of TopGear UK, what happened was he was testing it on a british circuit, but smashed it into a crop field nearby, the BBC left it there and looters found it, i also heared, ( quite humorously ) that you can find the parts of it on Ebay.

[siradon2000]

@maccamacca87 I can kill with my bare hands, that's kind of the point. Its easier with a rifle. Which is part of why it was added to the bill of rights. I always thought this quote from Ghandi was interesting "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." Odd thing coming from a pacifist, no?

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 Yes it is easier with a rifle, but thats a rifle, you don't need a 50 caliber, rapid-fire, tool of distruction to hunt deer, do you, as for the Ghandi, i think he was reffering to India, guns weren't banned in the UK until around the turn of the century, before that you by a 5.56mm rifle from a town market!

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 but does it really have to be second, out of all rights, the right to own firearms is second on the list, and when one state changes that just a little bit, people come to what is it, speeches, they come with guns strapt to their belts.

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 And what if the US government prohibited guns, would you start a revolution, protest or just get on with your life watching gun crime, fall to an all time low.

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 and if that person came to power, it would be your fault you dumbasses, because most of your people would have voted for him in the first place, and it's not like that going to happen anytime soon, and if the government has all the guns, tell them to get rid of them, if your that paranoid that a western government will try to genocide one of it's ethnic groups.

[siradon2000]

@maccamacca87 You do realize that less than half of the people in the Holocaust were Jewish right? In the fact the last 400,000 people killed were all Caucasian. Just because Jews accounted for about a 3rd you call it genocide on an ethnic group. You're devoid of historical knowledge, perhaps you should pick up a book and read instead of watching Schindler's list. If everyone disarms in the world you would then have to check, the paranoia that another would attack when you disarm would be there

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 yes i do realise that, and i am not devoid of historical knowledge, i just on't study 20th century event, i study events that happened from 1699-1899, and what he fuck is Schindler's list, and having a country that have civillians disarmed is a fuck of alot better of than a country were a majority are gun-toting losers that have nothing else to do but shoot a gun.

[siradon2000]

Firearms are a technology already out of the bag, and one you can't put back in. Like Nuclear Devices, they're here and we keep them to be sure we can retaliate if necessary. Actually it seems the people have little power in the matter. Congress has voted themselves more power, and increased the size of government exponentially. The only way The "Patriot Act", the "Bailouts", and the "Stimulus" passed is because congress was told that Martial Law would be put in place otherwise.

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 the only reason no one uses nuclear weapons is because they that it would effect the rest of the world as well ( nuclear winter ), you know, it was thought that setting of an atomic bomb would ignite the atmosphere, yet they still tested it, that enough history for ya?

[siradon2000]

@maccamacca87 Actually they just dismantled some 70's tech that was a 9 megaton bomb. Although the largest bomb was made by Russia. Theoretically the largest they believe can be built is a 200 megaton bomb. They never made it though in fear it might blow the earth off its axis.

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 FYI, the largest WMD made by the Soviet Union was the Tsar Bomba, a 50 megaton bomb, which was tested, it was suppossed to be a 100 megaton, which became 50 because 100 was simply impossible to even exist, let alone build.

[siradon2000]

@maccamacca87 Another reason I like Ron Paul is because he understands what the paper money has done to us. I'm not sure he knows the full history of the Federal Reserve, but it was created for the purpose of getting rid of the "Money Trust" of the early 1900's. Unfortunately it was created by the big bankers in the "Money Trust" in secret. It was basically created to take the wealth of the people. If people had been aware of it at the time the wouldn't have accepted it.

[siradon2000]

We need something tangible to back our money so they can't interfere in the way that they have for the past century. They are the reason the Depression happened, they printed too much money, when that happened the government made a law to take people's gold and silver to pay off the national debt, and made it illegal for the people to have it.

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 But what would happen if the tangible object ( let's say diomond for example ) that backed the currency ran out, and we could not replace it?

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 but thats better than using gold and silver right, and is still a fuck of alot better than credit cards, right?

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 Ooooh yes that is very odd isn't it, my government uses those materials to arm it's troops and manufacture what it needs, and not arm it's civillians, seems that my government is more liberal dosen't it, at least we don't have a massively bloated defence budget, and instead have a simple but effective HC system, you must really not no that other people, even in your country, don't want a gun culture.

[siradon2000]

@maccamacca87 I'm not sure you understand what the term liberal actually means. It has to do with Civil rights, look it up mate. Actually what it makes your government is more a statist, and opens up the ability for a totalitarian oppressive government. Actually I know that other people in my country don't want a "gun culture", that's fine, just don't try to FORCE me to be in a Gun Free culture. We saw how that worked in the Gun Free zone at Fort Hood, and Columbine huh?

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 plus there also a shit tonne of diffrence between cars, tv's, buildings ect ect, and guns, and electric chairs now that i think about it...

[siradon2000]

@maccamacca87 Oh, you mean every year they improve on each respective item, duh. Which would explain why so many new items are created each year huh? I'm not aware of any new electric chairs. I think the last one in the States was dismantled in Texas quite a while ago.

[maccamacca87]

@maccamacca87 yes, but my government is not in two illegal wars now isn't it, greetings from kelowna, canada.

[siradon2000]

@maccamacca87 Ahhh, yes the land of the socialized medicine lines, and the place ejecting people on state health care by the thousands. You must think I support the wars going on right now (although they never actually declared war, in fact we haven't been in a legal war since Korea). Yes I know all about your registered bullets and all of the ridiculous legislation y'all have there. Not to mention the wonderful tax rate..

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 Coming from the land of corporate greed and retarded rednecks, but finally someone who admits there another reason your country there in the first place, and maybe we like to have gun control.

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 but hey, atleast we have a sustainable tax rate, the US have virtually the lowest in the world, and yet you guys wnat it lowered even more, right after a massive recession.

[siradon2000]

@maccamacca87 Yeah, we also don't have socialized medicine yet. Thats partly why the rest the world is so high in taxes. Yet we have the 2nd highest Corporate Tax rate in the world. Odd isn't it? Of course it helps that our inflation has risen exponentially due to the bailouts here and around the rest of the world. Yes I want it lower, but I also want to cut several parts of our government. Fact of the matter is the rest of the country is doing with less, so should the government.

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 in sense of irony, although they are considered high in your country, in my county, they are actually considered quite low, and what parts of your government would you like to cuts exactly?

*cough*ronpaulfanboy*cough*

[siradon2000]

I am a fan of Ron Paul, because he is saying what I have been saying for years. He never supported the wars for various reasons, economically and ethically. First I'd start by transferring a lot of the power from the Federal Government to the State level. The State can better determine what it needs and the cost can be transferred to state taxes rather than federal. There are so many places you can cut its ridiculous. The 1st obvious thing would be to withdraw from these illegal wars.

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 Well waddya know, a RP fan, like finding a stripper in Essex, you know there there, just a matter of finding them, anyway, if you were to lets states make there own rules, wouldn't that give them an advantage over others, and wouldn't most states just try to get independence, if that scenario were to manifest itself.

[siradon2000]

@maccamacca87 FYI this is still a recession. Going from %9.1 unemployment to %9.0 unemployment does not make it a gain when retail stores are hiring in mass for the holiday season. We're projected to be in double digit unemployment again this coming year. That's why Obama wants to introduce this "Jobs Bill" (stimulus 2.0). So it will create some temporary jobs so he can get reelected. Government Bailouts and Stimulus are always bad in the end though, as you may know.

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 FYI, i know that, because the corporations have spend wildly, the governments have had to bail them out, the consequence is that it fucked the world even worse than before, and my homeland had suffered for it.

[siradon2000]

@maccamacca87 No one has to bail anyone out. That's the biggest problem we have right now. Every time in history it has been done it has prolonged recessions. When the united States did it back in the early 30's the economy was already recovering, when the "New Deal" was introduced unemployment rose and stayed in double digits for 8 years. 3 years after the crash Europe was back where they were economically, and they had no bailouts. 

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 but this time, the banks were lending rediculous amounts, more than they were taking in, so the US, and many others, spent trillions bailing them out, theres a reason we are outside wall street you know, not just capitalism.

[siradon2000]

@maccamacca87 That's the thing, this isn't capitalism. Its basically welfare for the rich. Capitalism is a true free market, in which business' that fail go bankrupt. Which allows new technology and innovations to flourish.

A common misconception. Thing is once you limit the currency with the gold/silver you don't run out because it is being used as currency. Its always getting passed around. You wouldn't necessarily have to use gold and silver, just have it to back your currency.

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 With the way things are going, with the police in wall street and all, America's soon going to downfall into a Police state.

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 Is it just me, or is it that everythings just started going downhill since 9/11, think about it, apart from a few small wars here and there, everything was perfectly fine, technology was catching back up from the years it lost in the dark ages, world peace was just around the corner, and if the government censored something, people fought back, then BOOM, 9/11, and now it's all gone tits up hasen't it.

[siradon2000]

I know its difficult for you to understand. So let me put in these terms. If all of the people during the holocaust were armed, do you think they would have ended up the way they did? If all of the people in Russia had been armed during Stalin's era do you think they would have all accepted being arrested over not reciting the numbers and letters right from their state ID? Does this make sense to you? Its what our founding Fathers referred to as out Liberty Teeth.

[maccamacca87]

@siradon2000 Again that is history, and the founding fathers lived Centuries before those historical events, and that was an unstable era, you don't seem to say much about the ganster era, with criminals robbing, murdering ect ect, with guns they got from a store down the street, and whos to say they didn't fight back, and if Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold couldn't get guns, do you think they would have commited the Columbine high School massacre, there are holes in you argument, friend.

[siradon2000]

@maccamacca87 Alright lets talk the "gangster era" and how the Fed took away the right for people to own automatic weapons (actually you still can provided you get a special license) in the 1960's. Let's talk about how the Gangs in LA, and New York still manage to get their hands on fully automatic weaponry. All the laws did was take away from law abiding people, and insure that only criminals would have them.

[siradon2000]

Alright Columbine. The two kids STOLE firearms from a LOCKED CASE, in a LOCKED SHED, from a family member by using an axe to get to HUNTING RIFLES. If the Police Officer had been armed on school grounds would those 2 have killed so many? There are no holes in my argument, you're ignoring the facts. They didn't kill those people with arms they bought, they obtained them illegally, and they were hunting rifles at that.

[crazy2333]

they will never take my ak47.

[SgtZellmer]

Um, its very simple English Language understanding. Read the actual 2nd amendment. There's a comma. A comma separates subjects and or ideas in a sentence. (Something we ALL should know at age 12) It is called "Two Piece Legislation" It first talks about the right of the States to raise and equip a militia, an at home army of sorts. Then there is a comma (,) to separate the subjects being covered. From there it goes on to ensure the "people"s right to not just own but to actually "bear" arms.....

[Fockersnextdoor]

could one of these speakers please give Obama an education on the 2nd please?

[PTTurboe]

Good job! just ordered the DVD...

[ben5017]

It's a birthright to own a gun as an America via the founders ...

[crackahcrackah]

It's a right not because of the Masonic shitheads who imposed government upon the masses but just because we are ALIVE and that is enough reason to have a gun for procuring food and safety. Stop thinking that rights come from government it makes you sound like a peasant.

[Buckoux]

The terms "Rights" and "Powers" are not used interchangeably, or casually, in the U.S. Constitution. Only "person", "persons" or "the people" have "Rights", and only federal and state governments have "Powers". There are state and federal powers, but there no state or federal "Rights". The "Collective rights" theory is a Nixonian corruption that is meant to encroach upon the peoples rights with governmental powers.

[Buckoux]

Had the Founding Fathers intended the ability to "arm" to be in a "collective" sense, then the last phrase of the 2nd. Amendment would have been written as: "The POWER of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Of course this phrase would violate the grammatical use of the term, "power", as it is used in the Constitution. The authors of the Constitution did not play fast and loose with the grammar and text of this document.