Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)296. More untrue factoids from Strawman
Don't confuse the functions of a political entity, i.e. a municipality, county, or state, with the rights of the people. Your "regulate the police" example is a red herring, since it is not one of the enumerated rights of "the people."
Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776,
Declaration of Rights
III. That THE PEOPLE of this State have the SOLE, EXCLUSIVE and inherent RIGHT of governing and regulating the internal police of the same.
----------------
That's an enumerated right of "the people."
Yes. And the antecedent of every single "their" is "the people," and the "persons" to be seized are a subset of "the people," whose rights are protected. I can think of no clearer example of a right of "the people" being applied to individuals.
Didn't you understand my explanation of how right differ in their application? I even provided an example to prove it, but you've completely dismissed my explanation/example.
Oh, yes: the "Second Amendment Exceptionalism" credo.
You could say the same for the right of the people to regulate the police in my example. But it is a RIGHT that can only be exercised by the people in their collective capacity.
In every state constitution, "the people" is ALWAYS a reference to a collective body. My argument is that the U.S. Bill of Rights was written by the same men who framed those state constitutions and they used the same words to mean the same thing in the U.S. BoR. I'm not the one claiming they changed the understood meaning of "the people" just for the Second Amendment.
Since you're such a fan of speculating on the intentions of the framers,...
I provide documented evidence from the founding era. YOU guys talk a lot about "philosophers" and "theories" rather than the actual documented evidence. YOU'RE the one's who speculate on the intentions of the Framers, not me.
Why, then, doesn't the second clause of the amendment read "... the right of the people to raise and arm militias shall not be infringed"?
Because "the right of the People to keep and bear Arms" means the same thing. A natural right for all individuals to own guns for self defense would have looked NOTHING like the Second Amendment.
TopBack to the top of the page
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
ShareGet links to this post
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
324 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The cumulative count will always increase unless people start rising from the dead.
hack89
Aug 2014
#6
An unsupported claim *and* a strawman in just one sentence. Well done!
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2014
#24
Let me know when it drops below the rate of death from e-bola in the US.
notrightatall
Oct 2014
#202
And this is why I feel good about resisting the people that want me to ban you, SM
krispos42
Aug 2014
#8
You're "helping the cause" in the same way Ian Paisley used to "help" Unionism...
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2014
#17
So you think I'm being harassed for being the host of a group that bans gun nuts?
SecularMotion
Aug 2014
#26
Well the only place where opposing views to the ones presented in your echo chamber
shedevil69taz
Aug 2014
#31
A flat declaration of fact is now an "opinion", and a strawman is repeated
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2014
#39
Rates declining is not the same as the proportion of guns used to commit homicide.
acalix
Aug 2014
#50
Great Post! The 2a is racist, unnecessary, and evil. It should be repealed.
ncjustice80
Sep 2014
#58
Bogus! That mofo just keeps popping up. Such clearly debunked bullshit, and it still comes up.
NYC_SKP
Oct 2014
#81
The Dred Scott decision was passed, in part, to prevent slaves from owning guns.
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2014
#67
Hit and run cowards with hands on their keyboards are giving aid and comfort to the GOP. NT
pablo_marmol
Sep 2014
#70
I think you're right but I wouldn't blame movies and books and TV shows on the NRA.
NYC_SKP
Sep 2014
#72
Even if we accept your erroneous interpretation that would still make the 2A addressed to the people
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2014
#124
It's kind looking, from the passge you have cited, that individual liberty is the issue at hand.
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2014
#129
The passage -- which was selected by you and is not the totality of the debate -- deals with
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2014
#140
Your entire line of argument is moot, thanks to the unorganized militia...
friendly_iconoclast
Oct 2014
#191
The ageist and sexist language wouldn't stand up to legal challenge
friendly_iconoclast
Oct 2014
#208
Your claim conflicts directly with the wording of the Second Amendment itself
friendly_iconoclast
Oct 2014
#216
The 'collective' reading of the Second Amendment is what's moot...
friendly_iconoclast
Oct 2014
#238