Reply #79: Can you read?

[beevul]

The other rights that have the words "the people" in them, all refer to an individual right of the people.

Your ability to beg the question.

In other words, you can not, or choose not to, refute what I said.

Earlier, you said that if the Second Amendment were written today, it would have only one comma and a preposition, such as:

Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear shall not be infringed.

I did indeed:

"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."

http://billofrights.org/

The original bill of rights, signed by the states, had only a single comma, and read as above.

If I wanted to confer this as an individual right, I would simply write:

The right of the people to keep and bear shall not be infringed.

If it were a flat-out right, such as freedom of speech or religion, no reason need be given.

As to "A person in possession of a firearm in Washington, DC, or any other close urban environment, is a public nuisance"...well thats just more nonsense.

Oh, really? How so? You're begging the question again.

Yeah, and if you wanted to to make sure that right explicitly was not protected you'd say so too, would you not?

Or you'd say the right of the people enrolled in the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", would you not?

Those little exercises of the written word work both ways, you see.

And now You say I'm begging the question again...well your right.

You made the claim that "A person in possession of a firearm in Washington, DC, or any other close urban environment, is a public nuisance", and Now I need to ask - Will you support that rather bizarre claim?


And by the way...Compare the free-press clause of the 1842 Rhode Island Constitution:

“The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments of any subject.”

That language — not unlike the Second Amendment’s — of course does not mean that the right to publish one’s sentiments protects only the press. It protects “any person,” and one reason among others that it does so is that a free press is essential to a free society.

Would it mean something completely different if it was written like below?

"“The liberty of the press, being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish, his sentiments of any subject.”



What trickery of the written word or crafty contrived interpretation will it take to reconcile this?

Look. The second amendment is a restriction on governmental power. It is NOT a restriction on the people, or the rights of the people.

This is more question-begging. Rather than argue your thesis, you assert it as a fact.

Your damned right I am asserting it as a fact. It SAYS SO in the preamble of the bill of rights:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution"

www.billofrights.org

Now, those aren't my words, I did not compose them. The framers did. IF you can torture some meaning out of them, contrary to what I say they mean, by all means, let hear it. Thats what people do when they attempt to refute what someone else says, you know? Are you intrested in doing that at all?

The Second Amendment is a restriction on the federal government. If a state government wants to pass a law to the effect that possession of firearms is for authorized personnel only, it may do so. Montana's constitution would prohibit any local ordinances restricting firearms.

States are sovereign from the federal government.

Thats nice and all, but thats not the discussion were having. Furthermore, DC is a federal jurisdiction, not a state, so whether true or not, it is NOT applicable to this discussion, nor is it applicable to any discussion of DC RE: the second amendment.

Please don't assert Montana's "right" to secede when such a proposition is in dispute, at least from this quarter.

I have NOT asserted Montana's right to do anything. Montana has.