Individual or collective right thread

[1a2b3c]

Weve heard it all. People means the state. Or that people means the individuals in every other amendment so thats what it means in the 2nd. I just got a question. In every new bill i read they list a definitions page. PERSON.—The term ‘‘person ’’ means any
individual,corporation,company,association,firm,partnership,society,joint stock company,or any
other entity,including any governmental entity. If person means individual, why would people not mean individual? Serious question.

[Lefty48197]

1. That's certainly one to ponder

I'll get back to you when I'm done pondering. Yawn.

[MrBenchley]

2. Yeah...

Why would a plural noun meaning "humans considered as a group or in indefinite numbers; the mass of ordinary persons; and the citizens of a political unit, such as a nation or state" be collective?

Wow, one could ponder that for seconds before the answer came...

[hansberrym]

3. Oops! your letting a little truth slip out

(Quoting MrBenchley)
"Why would a PLURAL noun..." (my emphasis)
(end quote)


Your are right for once, "the people" does refer to the PLURAL form as used in the second amendment. See the below definition of collective nouns.



(quote)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

collective noun

NOUN: A noun that denotes a collection of persons or things regarded as a unit.
USAGE NOTE: In American usage, a collective noun takes a singular verb when it refers to the collection considered as a whole, as in The family was united on this question. The enemy is suing for peace. It takes a PLURAL verb when it refers to the members of the group considered as individuals, as in My family are always fighting among themselves. The enemy were showing up in groups of three or four to turn in their weapons. In British usage, however, collective nouns are more often treated as plurals: The government have not announced a new policy. The team are playing in the test matches next week. A collective noun should not be treated as both singular and plural in the same construction; thus The family is determined to press its (not their) claim. Among the common collective nouns are committee, clergy, company, enemy, group, family, flock, public, and team. See Usage Notes at government, group. (my emphasis)
(end quote)

[kbelzner]

4. "power to the people!"

Remember that old lefty slogan? But when it comes to firearms, all of a sudden so many lefties adopt an attitude that says, in essence, only the police, the Pentagon, and the intelligence agencies can be trusted with guns.

Anti-gun politics is by no means limtied to the left, but the one is struck by the irony.

[DoctorWho]

5. the People are a collective ?

So when the Bill of rights says " the People"
it refers only to collective rights ?
so there are no individual rights ?
so right to free speach ? or religion ?
thats makes no sense at all, that would mean that as an Individual
I have no right to stand on the corner and say My political
views, or to have My own religion.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II
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.


Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Funny how the COURT tries an Idividual and those rights apply
to each and everyone of Us, so suddenly in the case of the
Second Amendment, the People applies to a collective right ?
not so, Rights pertain to the individual, just as the consequences
such as jail time pertain to the individual.


.

[hansberrym]

6. yes, a collection of individuals

"The people" refers to a collection of INDIVIDUALS, as in the PLURAL form of a collective noun. See post #3 for definition.


Sometimes the anti's forget thier lines and inadvertently speak the truth, as in post#2.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

10. What a pedigree!

"Many are familiar with Rick Stanley's 2nd American Revolution Militia Mutal Defense Pact. www.stanley2002.org. The CREST will be pretty much the same in principle as his group"
Gee, Stanley would be the Colorado loony-tune last seen on these pages getting himself jugged for threatening a judge....

"A Denver gun advocate has been arrested on charges that he threatened a Thornton judge who sentenced him to jail on a dangerous weapon conviction.
Rick Stanley, 49, was being held without bond Monday at Adams County Jail on a police hold from Thornton. He faces two felony counts of attempting to influence a public official.
A Denver SWAT unit - along with officers from Denver police, the FBI, the Adams County Sheriff's Office and Thornton police - were involved in arresting Stanley at his home Saturday.
"He was armed at the time of the arrest," said Teresa Garcia, spokeswoman for Denver police. "He was arrested after a short chase. He did try to elude the officers."
Last year, Stanley ran as a Libertarian Party candidate for the U.S. Senate. His main platform was support for the right to bear arms.
He was arrested at least twice on weapons charges during his campaign and had his weapons confiscated."

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_2363922,00.html

Before that he was threatening to ride into Michigan to help the McLoony family shoot the building inspector over their trailer...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=9332

Jinkies, the RKBA crowd has just the nicest playmates, don't they?

[MrBenchley]

9. Too frigging funny...

"when it comes to firearms, all of a sudden so many lefties adopt an attitude that says"
That it is disgraceful to let the corrupt gun industry set public policy.

[MrBenchley]

8. Jeeze, hans...

Try to get a little more desperate.....

[4farmgun]

11. Interesting to say the least

but we keep coming back to the same argument. Take the bill of rights as a whole. The intent is without question. The writing of the constitution was not an amibicle meeting of like minded individuals, each of these men carried with them their own set of prejudices and agendas. The bill of rights was crafted as somewhat of a compromise to those men who sought a somewhat more athoritative Gov't that had more power and less input from the citizens. The bill of rights outlined those things that were determined to to protect the citezens from the Gov't. A thank you to Mrbenchley for pointing to federlist #29 to paraphrase one paragraph 'If standing armies are a threat to the conferdercy who better to protect the citizens from a standing army than an armed militia. Again the Bill of Rights are there to protect me from the Govt.

[MrBenchley]

12. Too funny...

"we keep coming back to the same argument"
Mostly because reality doesn't coincide with gun nut fantasies....

[4farmgun]

13. very indepth

It will take some time to digest your pithy and cogent thoughts

[MrBenchley]

14. What more is needed?

It's hilarious that this rubbish is breaking out the same week that the Ninth Circuit Court's decision on the collective itnerpretation (which is line with Miller) was allowed to stand.

Even the Rehnquist Court couldn't bring itself to go that far off the deep end...but cheer up, maybe Chimpy McDipstick will put another scumbag like Scalia on the court, and the gun lobby will get its wish.

[4farmgun]

15. the 9th circuit

I think there is a circuit court that is overturned more, which one, hmmm, no guess not that would be the most overturned court in the land. I am sure that you must be a supporter of Judge Borjk, his record in front of the SCOTUS Is much better than the 9th circuit

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hansberrym]

25. If you say its PLURAL, then its PLURAL !!! Be BOLD!!

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

collective noun

NOUN: A noun that denotes a collection of persons or things regarded as a unit.
USAGE NOTE: In American usage, a collective noun takes a singular verb when it refers to the collection considered as a whole, as in The family was united on this question. The enemy is suing for peace. It takes a PLURAL verb when it refers to the members of the group considered as individuals, as in My family are always fighting among themselves. The enemy were showing up in groups of three or four to turn in their weapons. In British usage, however, collective nouns are more often treated as plurals: The government have not announced a new policy. The team are playing in the test matches next week. A collective noun should not be treated as both singular and plural in the same construction; thus The family is determined to press its (not their) claim. Among the common collective nouns are committee, clergy, company, enemy, group, family, flock, public, and team. See Usage Notes at government, group.

[MrBenchley]

29. It's collective, hans

give it a rest...

[hansberrym]

32. What exactly is collective? If your saying that collective nouns are

collective, well.....duhh!!!

I have posted the definition of "Collective noun" repeatedly hoping that you would read it. But all you want to do is point to the word "Collective" and then assert by sleight of hand that the Bill of Rights must refer to collective rights since "the people" is a collective noun.


What matters is whether "the people" is used in the singular or PLURAL sense. When used in the plural, a collective noun refers to the members of the group considered as individuals. See definition of Collective noun below.


Since we agree that "the people" is used as a PLURAL, then the BoR refers to the rights of the people as individuals.





The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

collective noun

NOUN: A noun that denotes a collection of persons or things regarded as a unit.
USAGE NOTE: In American usage, a collective noun takes a singular verb when it refers to the collection considered as a whole, as in The family was united on this question. The enemy is suing for peace. It takes a plural verb when it refers to the members of the group considered as individuals, as in My family are always fighting among themselves. The enemy were showing up in groups of three or four to turn in their weapons. In British usage, however, collective nouns are more often treated as plurals: The government have not announced a new policy. The team are playing in the test matches next week. A collective noun should not be treated as both singular and plural in the same construction; thus The family is determined to press its (not their) claim. Among the common collective nouns are committee, clergy, company, enemy, group, family, flock, public, and team.
(end quote)

[MrBenchley]

33. Hans....

This is especially funny considering that not even the Rehnquist court wants to pretend the Second Amendment refers to individual rights...

But hey, maybe this unelected drunk can cram another crooked asswipe like Scalia on the court, and the gun lobby will get its wish.

[hansberrym]

35. Bench..... stop dodging...

and start defending your own assertions, if you can.



YOU said "the people" is PLURAL in the Second amendment.

On that we agree.

However the use of the PLURAL form means that "the people" refers to the individuals that make up that group, therefor the PLURAGE usage supports an individual rights interpretation.


You have tripped yourself up by letting too much truth into your arguments.

[MrBenchley]

37. I said "people" is a collective noun

and "people at large" is a collective noun...and the Second Amendment refers only to thecollective right of we the people to have a well regulated state militia...as the courts have ruled again and again...

Spin yourself into a tizzy, anbd you still won't change the facts...

[hansberrym]

39. You also said PLURAL noun

(quoting Post#2)
Why would a PLURAL noun meaning "humans considered as a group or in indefinite numbers; the mass of ordinary persons; and the citizens of a political unit, such as a nation or state" be collective? (my emphasis)
(end quote)

That is why I chided you for letting a little truth into your argument. As you are well aware, a collective noun used in the PLURAL refers to the individuals who make up the group, when used in the SINGULAR a collective noun refers to the group as a whole.


(quoting MrB)
"and the Second Amendment refers only to the collective right of we the people to have a well regulated state militia" (my emphasis
(end quote)


FACT: the actual language is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

You are the one who is spinning and you can only support your "argument" by resort to half-truths and sleight of hand.

[MrBenchley]

42. Peddle it to someone

dumb enough to buy it, hans.

[hansberrym]

58. Your not Raygunning out on us are you Bench?

Do you really need to convinced that YOU claimed that the people is used as a PLURAL in the second amendment?

Or was that a different MrBenchley?

[MrBenchley]

59. Hans...

Who the hell are you trying to kid, really?

[hansberrym]

66. "Ronald", don't you remmember posting #2 ?

[MrBenchley]

71. Peddle it to someone dumb enough to buy it

12/01/2003 Washington(Reuters)- "HIGH COURT WON'T REVIEW BAN ON ASSAULT WEAPONS"
"The U.S. Supreme Supreme Court declined on Monday to review a ruling that upheld California's ban on assault weapons and declared there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun.
The appeals court said the Second Amendment protected the gun rights of militias, not individuals. The Second Amendment states: "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://news.findlaw.com/politics/s/20031201/courtgunsdc.html

Cheer up, though, maybe this unelected drunk will cram some crooked fucktard like "Cross-burning" Pickering or Scalia on the Court, and the racist gun rights crowd will get its wish.

[hansberrym]

92. Did you Post #2 or did someone else?

[1a2b3c]

26. Yeah but

according to the dictionary person also refers to a corperation or partnership. People is plural, but its also used as plural in all the other amendments too. Why is the 2nd any different? Im no history of english major but they probably used the word 'people' because there are more than one 'person' in the US. People meaning all people, minus the indians and slaves and woman who werent considered 'people' during the original writing of the constitution.

[MrBenchley]

31. Spare us

no matter how you try to spin it, people is a collective term...

Even the Rehnquist court wouldn't go off the deep end and pretend otherwise...but cheer up, maybe this unelected drunk will appoint some crooked piece of shit like "Cross-burning" Pickering and the gun lobby will get its wish..

[BullDozer]

34. Look in the mirror

maybe this unelected drunk will appoint some crooked piece of shit like "Cross-burning" Pickering and the gun lobby will get its wish..

and it will be your side of this arguements fault for inventing this collective rights lie.

Even the bradybunch aren't dishonest enough to try and sell the collective rights lie.

[MrBenchley]

38. Yeah, and when I look in that mirror

I wonn't see anybody wishing for a crooked piece of shit like cross-burning Pickering...I'll see an honest person who knows what the Second Amendment really says and knows that history and the courts both back it up.

[hansberrym]

40. History backs it up? Fine, show us some evidence from

the founding era showing that ONLY A COLLECTIVE RIGHT was intended for the Second Amendment.


Or is "history... back(s) it up" another naked assertion?

[MrBenchley]

43. Your pig still doesn't fly, hans...

Who the hell are you trying to kid?

Even in the Revolution, the militia used collective arms...and it has ever since. The Federalist Papers all discuss STATE militas only.

Like everything else about the idiotic RKBA movement, the image of enraged patriots taking down their trusty squirrel guns from over the mantle and heading off on their own to fight Hitler or King George is horseshit from stem to stern.

[BullDozer]

46. Go on....

Even in the Revolution, the militia used collective arms...and it has ever since.

Then explain why the Militia Act of 1792, required everyone to supply their own gear including firearms?
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

"...shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock.."

[1a2b3c]

47. Ddddddoooohhhhhhh

That one should probably get a strawman thrown about.

[1a2b3c]

52. I was wrong just a typical dodge. nt

[MrBenchley]

50. The pig still doesn't fly...

but it's good to see this RKBA rubbish remains evergreen....

Got your bearskin holster and espontoon?

[BullDozer]

55. Deal with it

Now show use something to back up your ridiculous claim that "Even in the Revolution, the militia used collective arms...and it has ever since.
"


Also please reconcile your claim in light of the FACT that the Militia Act of 1792, required everyone to supply their own gear including firearms?

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

"...shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock.."

Got your bearskin holster and espontoon?

Are you accessing the internet with a quill pen and a jar of ink?

[MrBenchley]

61. Gee, dozer....

What happened in the Suprreme Courrt this week?

Oh yeah, the Supreme Court didn't even bother to hear an attempt to assert that "individual right" horseshit. Even the crooked Rehnnquist court wasn't so far off the deep end that they thought an obscure and forgotten law no longer in force trumped the ACTUAL Second Amendment...

Cheer up, dozer, maybe this unelected drunk will cram somebody like "Crossburning Pickering" or Scalia on the Court, and the racist gun rights crowd will get its wish.

[BullDozer]

83. Can't answer can you?

thought an obscure and forgotten law no longer in force trumped the ACTUAL Second Amendment...

Nice spin too bad that act of 1792 is being used to show that your claim is 100% wrong and it does it very nicely.

In fact nicely enough that you since you can't deal with the total trashing of your claim so you switch topics.

Even then the 9th as a whole wasn't happy with the panels decision Judge Harry Pregerson disagreed with the Reinhardt panel’s insistence that the Second Amendment was designed only to protect state-regulated militias. “The panel misses the mark by interpreting the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as a collective right, rather than as an individual right,”.

The 9th Circuit’s decision not to hear the case en banc (as a whole) came over the dissent of six judges, several of whom vigorously noted the explicit conflict between the panel’s collective rights view and the individual rights.

Four of the dissenters, led by Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, argued that the case should be reheard in order to rectify the conflict. “Where the Constitution establishes a right of the people, no organ of the government, including the courts, can legitimately take that right away from the people,” Judge Kleinfeld wrote.

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legal_issues/legal_updates/other_noteworthy_cases/reinhardt_2nd_amendment.htm


The 9ths decision also flies in the face of the 5ths decision so now there are two circuits with opposing decisions

From Emerson
"The district court held that the Second Amendment recognizes the right of individual citizens to own and possess firearms..."

The supreme court also declined to hear that case thus by your logic it means that the Supremes think that the Emerson decision is 100% correct.

You can't have it both ways bunkly.

[MrBenchley]

85. Too too funny...

A right wing think tank? And what a sterling bunch they are, too...

""All we're going to do is change the name on the door. We're going to continue to do what we've always done." Walker Merryman, Tobacco Institute Vice President in "Tobacco Institute workers confident of reincarnation," Los Angeles Times,June 24, 1997.

In January 2001, ANR reported that the Philip Morris-funded National Smokers Alliance (NSA) was dissolving and donating an unspecified amount of their assets to the Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF). We knew then that both the NSA and the CIF were housed in the same building in Alexandria, VA, but the link between the two just became clearer.

According to tax records for the Center for Individual Freedom for November 1998 - September 1999, three NSA employees were also officers for the CFIF: William Thomas Humber was President, David Eric Schippers was Secretary, and David M. Nummy was Treasurer. During the same time period, Humber was the President and CEO, Schippers was Vice President, and Nummy was "Director as needed" for the NSA.

Despite the NSA claims that they were going out of business, you can be sure that the activities of the CFIF will mirror those of the NSA and other tobacco industry front groups. The CFIF has a history of filing amicus briefs on behalf of their causes, so it is likely they will continue to oppose clean indoor air campaigns using legal threats and challenges. Much like the quote from Walker Merryman noted above, Philip Morris has done nothing more than change the name on the door. "

http://www.no-smoke.org/nsa_intro.html

and just look at the gang they're lined up with here...

http://www.cpac.org/cpaccontents/sponsors/index2003.shtml

[BullDozer]

89. I win the bet

How predictable you are.

Is the information presented correct or incorrect?

That's what you are supposed to deal with.

[beevul]

102. The gun

Grabbers are losing it folks......

Individual right or collective right?


Umm...TOBACCO!!!!



Chuckle.

[hansberrym]

56. Which "state militia" was it that had "near half a million citizens with

arms in their hands" (Federalist 46)





(Hamilton, Federalist 29)

"The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding ITS services in times of insurrections and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the confederacy." (my emphasis)

1) Note that Hamilton refers to a single militia (commanding ITS services) and not many "state militias". This usage supports the Supreme Court's definition of "militia" in Miller (Body of men capable of bearing arms), rather than the "State militia" hooey that the 9th Circuit imagines.

2) Note that Hamilton knows how to use the SINGULAR form ("its") so
your "Colloquial English: argument is BS.

3) I found more than 10 mentions of "militia" in Federalist 28, 29,
46, but not one of "state militia". Do you have any references to
"state militia" in the Federalist Papers or are you blowing smoke.

[MrBenchley]

60. Gee, hans

"I found more than 10 mentions of "militia" in Federalist 28, 29,
46"
Tell us, hans, how many instances of "individual right to own guns" did you find?

[hansberrym]

65. Gee Dodger , are you abandoning your "state militia" claim so soon?

Could it be that you couldn't find even a single mention of
"state militias" in the Federalist papers to support your post?

(Quoting MrBenchley)
"Even in the Revolution, the militia used collective arms...and it has ever since. The Federalist Papers all discuss STATE militas only."
(end quote)



Regarding the other half truth in your above statement:
The militia also used the privately owned arms in the revolution
and continues to do so afterwards.

[MrBenchley]

72. Guess you're admitting there's no mention

of "inndividuals right to own guns"...

12/01/2003 Washington(Reuters)- "HIGH COURT WON'T REVIEW BAN ON ASSAULT WEAPONS"
"The U.S. Supreme Supreme Court declined on Monday to review a ruling that upheld California's ban on assault weapons and declared there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun.
The appeals court said the Second Amendment protected the gun rights of militias, not individuals. The Second Amendment states: "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://news.findlaw.com/politics/s/20031201/courtgunsdc.html

Cheer up, though, maybe this unelected drunk will cram some crooked fucktard like "Cross-burning" Pickering or Scalia on the Court, and the racist gun rights crowd will get its wish.

[hansberrym]

76. When Hamilton wrote about "citizens...defending THEIR own rights"...

he was referring to individual rights.


While Hamilton did not provide a list of what those rights were in Federalist #29, we do know he was referring to individual rights and not the rights of the STATE nor COLLECTIVE rights.


Hamilton also said that the people at large should be armed and it would be necessary to assemble THEM (meaning individuals).

Furthermore Hamilton refers to the "Militia" often. Sometimes in the singular and sometimes in the plural sense. But he always defends the notion that the militia should be under the direction of the federal government.

There is no support for your claim that Federalist 29 is mentions
"only state militias"

[MrBenchley]

77. Peddle it to someone dumb enough to buy it...

"he was referring to individual rights."
Not even close to true.

"While Hamilton did not provide a list of what those rights were in Federalist #29, we do know he was referring to individual rights"
How....a ouija board? He said what he meant...and he was talking about well regulated state militas.

"Hamilton also said that the people at large should be armed and it would be necessary to assemble THEM"
Which doesn't make the term "people at large" any less collective...except in the desperate fantasies of those trying to avoid reality.

[hansberrym]

81. In reality ( not in the dialectic or double speak world) Collective nouns

refer to individuals in a group when used in the PLURAL sense, and collective nouns refer to the group as a whole when used in the SINGULAR.



Half truths are ALL that you have.





The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

collective noun

NOUN: A noun that denotes a collection of persons or things regarded as a unit.
USAGE NOTE: In American usage, a collective noun takes a singular verb when it refers to the collection considered as a whole, as in The family was united on this question. The enemy is suing for peace. It takes a plural verb when it refers to the members of the group considered as individuals, as in My family are always fighting among themselves. The enemy were showing up in groups of three or four to turn in their weapons. In British usage, however, collective nouns are more often treated as plurals: The government have not announced a new policy. The team are playing in the test matches next week. A collective noun should not be treated as both singular and plural in the same construction; thus The family is determined to press its (not their) claim. Among the common collective nouns are committee, clergy, company, enemy, group, family, flock, public, and team.

[kbelzner]

74. he's got ya nailed, Mr.B

(Quoting MrBenchley)
"Even in the Revolution, the militia used collective arms...and it has ever since. The Federalist Papers all discuss STATE militas only."
(end quote)


LOL! Looks like Hans has once again exposed Mr.Benchley for a loud-mouthed manure-peddler who just makes it up as he goes along.

[MrBenchley]

75. Not even close to true.....

Here's the beginning of the actual paragraph from 46 hans is desperately flapping his gums about:

"Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."

Do you REALLY want to pretend those aren't state militias Madison is speaking of?

[hansberrym]

78. Governments = militias?

Still no "state militias" just one militia.


Which State could have raised a militia with near half a million
citizens? (you dodged my question because you know the answer and
it doesn't help your argument)


Who is "bearing Arms"? (answer: not the states)
"...or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms..."
But maybe you think Madison was referring to the number of statesable to bear arms?


What are these "citizens" fighting for? "their common
liberties" (notice they are not fighting for the STATE, they are
fighting for themselves and the state aids the people by organizing.

What does Madison say happens to the States id the people are not
on their(the states') side?

[MrBenchley]

80. No matter how hard you spin, hans

you'll never get that pig airborne...

[hansberrym]

82. Dodger, are "goverments" and "militias" the same things?

Only in you land of double-speak.

[MrBenchley]

88. No matter how hard you spin

your pig stays earthbound....

"Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."

Do you REALLY want to pretend those aren't state militias Madison is speaking of?

[hansberrym]

91. I'll take your non-reponse as evidence that you have no answers.

All you got is Half-truths and naked assertions.

[MrBenchley]

93. Quick who is surprised

considering the mindless pap you ALREADY accept as evidence...

[hansberrym]

94. Please explain and be specific. Was it the citing of a Dictionary's...

definition of "collective noun" that was "mindless".


Or was it a Verbatim quoting of the same sources you cited?

[MrBenchley]

95. I'd say it was the resolute

posting of English usage rules for the year 2000 as an attempt to explain what somebody meant 212 years previous...

Although the struggle to yank just two words out of an entire paragraphs and claim that I had equated them ranks there...

And let's not forget the repeated claims that the term "people at large" was not a collective term...

[hansberrym]

99. Do you have any evidence to suggest that "them" and "it" were used

differently 200 years ago? You Brought up the collective noun argument! So YOU must have assumed that "the people" was a collective noun in English Usage 200 years ago, as well as today, or you would not have made the argument.


(quoting MrB)
"Although the struggle to yank just two words out of an entire paragraphs and claim that I had equated them ranks there..."
(end quote)

YOU placed those words in Boldface, and it was your "argument"
that All refernces were to STATE Militias only. Furthermore there is not a single reference to "state militias" in your citation. Only the
words "state governments" in Boldface.


(quoting MrB)
"And let's not forget the repeated claims that the term "people at large" was not a collective term..."
(end quote)

Ah yeah, Bench, that is why I REPEATEDLY pointed out your half-truth and posted the definition of Collective noun, and showed why the usage matters. If used in the PLURAL, a collective noun refers to the individual members of the group. You only want to discuss half of the truth regarding collective nouns. I say it is collective AND PLURAL. You say "it is collective" -but that is only half of the truth, but then that is all you got.

That is why I made that portion of the definition of collective noun in boldface - so that you could more easily "Yank them out of an entire paragraph". That is usually why one places a particular passage in boldface afterall.

[1a2b3c]

36. It is collective

As are all of the other BOR's. People refers to a group: Americans. We are all 'the people' that make up the united states so i guess we are all a group, who all share the same rights granted under the US constitution, correct?

[Liberal Classic]

16. Bill of Rights = Individual Rights

Consider the 1st amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

and consider the 4th amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

or the 10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Are we to say that the first amendment describes a collective right? Only the collective, as a distinct entity from its membership, has the right to free speech? Only a collective has the right to peacable assembly and to petition the government for a redress of greivances?

Are we to consider than the fourth amendment describes a collective right? Only the collective, as a distinct entity from its membership, has the right to be secure in it houses and papers? The collective has the right to be free from unreasonable search and seziure? What does "The right of the people to be secure in their persons" mean if 'people' means 'collective?' The collective has the right to be secure in its persons? This is nonsense.

Now consider the tenth amendment. The powers not delegated by the people to the United States are reserved to the several States or to the people. Does this mean powers not delegated to the federal government or state government are reserved for the collective as distinct from its members? Do people have no rights at all apart from that which the collective has?

No, of course not. The Bill of Rights describes the rights of the people, all of us, as a group of individuals. If we interpret the rights described in the bill of rights as collective rights not given to individuals we destroy the meaning of the amendments themselves. If the right of the people to keep and bear arms does not mean that you and I have a right to bear arms, then the right to free speech means only the collective has the right to free speech, or only the collective has the right to be free from unreasonable search and seziure. Collective rights apply to you and I individually, because only the most narrow definition of the word 'collective' excludes the membership from the collective itself. In all other definitions of people, or group, or collective things that apply to the collective apply to the membership of the collective or group. Collective rights are individual rights, or put another way, rights that we all have!

We all have the right to free speech, and we all have the right to be secure in our persons and effects. Likewise we have a right to bear arms. You and I have a right to own a firearm or a knife to employ for lawful purposes, just as we can use our voice or public literature for lawful purposes. Just as slander and libel are against the law, so is assault with a deadly weapon.

[MrBenchley]

18. Too frigging funny...

Especially considering that the National Rifle Association is currently in court with Ken Starr trying to overturn campaign finance reform on the grounds that its COLLECTIVE freedom of speech is being abridged if it can't hand out blood money to Republicans.

[4farmgun]

19. Money is speech

you are so in love SCOTUS decissions, there have been several SCOTUS rulings delaring such. What campaign finance reform does in one aspect is to deny me the right (constitutionaly gaureented) to take out and ad(speech) to support, or question, a candidates position on a subject, within 60 days of an election. This is something you take lightly?? The legislative branch of the Gov't controlling speech concerning the election of our representatives? I can now better understand your position on the 2cnd ammendment and how you dont care about a few 'rules'. I just don't know which of the other rights I have now you are willing to cede to the Gov't

[MrBenchley]

20. Yeah, and bullshit walks.....

You and Mitch McConnnell can bitch about this to your hearts' content.

[Liberal Classic]

21. Being in favor of campaign finance reform I don't disagree

but it doesn't prove me wrong. Does make hypocrites of the NRA, but that is nothing new, either.

[4farmgun]

22. dont like the

Bill of Rights? This distain for our constitution is confusing. Do you belive in these principles or not? I am perfectly willing to live my life and use the constitution as a guidline. For what ever reason you seem to be objecting to some or all of it.

[MrBenchley]

23. Too frigging funny...

"you seem to be objecting to some or all of it"
Nope, only to some people's twisted attempts to distort what is said there.

[4farmgun]

24. federlist # 29

Was used as reference several days ago but for some reason that particular source has fallen out of favor to use to buttress the silly claim that #29 somehow denied a citizens right to carry a gun. When in fact Hamilton states plainly that who is going to stop a standing army attempting to take over the confederacy, but an armed militia.

[1a2b3c]

27. and the militia

refers to every able bodied male age 17-45 so i guess i still got 20 years of gun owning left in me. :-)

[MrBenchley]

30. Gee, too bad

it's the well regulated militia Hamilton was talking about...

[hansberrym]

41. Half-truth alert !

Hamilton also wrote of "the people at large", and "they" were to be armed; "they" meaning the individuals who make up the people at large.

[MrBenchley]

49. Hans, anytime you post there's a half-truth alert

Hamilton also wrote of "the people at large"...and no matter how you spin it, "the people at large" is a collective term.

Or do you want to pretend that the words "persons" and "individuals" didn't exist in 1788?

[hansberrym]

57. "the People at large" works fine for me...

since Hamilton wrote that it "would be necessary to assemble THEM...", we know that he was referring to the individuals in that group. See definition of COllective noun below.


Collective and PLURAL; you are only telling half of the truth.



The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

collective noun

NOUN: A noun that denotes a collection of persons or things regarded as a unit.
USAGE NOTE: In American usage, a collective noun takes a singular verb when it refers to the collection considered as a whole, as in The family was united on this question. The enemy is suing for peace. It takes a plural verb when it refers to the members of the group considered as individuals, as in My family are always fighting among themselves. The enemy were showing up in groups of three or four to turn in their weapons. In British usage, however, collective nouns are more often treated as plurals: The government have not announced a new policy. The team are playing in the test matches next week. A collective noun should not be treated as both singular and plural in the same construction; thus The family is determined to press its (not their) claim. Among the common collective nouns are committee, clergy, company, enemy, group, family, flock, public, and team.

[MrBenchley]

62. Even for you, this is pathetic, hans...

Your pig is still safely earthbound....

[hansberrym]

68. Is pathetic yet another word that means its opposite?

Is it pathetic to use a dictionary?

Is it pathetic to quote a source verbatim?


Maybe in the Dialectic method of "reasoning", but to each his own.


"Pathetic" to the rest of us would be denying the definition of a term
such a collective noun.


"Pathetic" to the rest of us is making assertions and then claiming that those assertions are their own proofs. (See Logic 101, circular arguments)

[MrBenchley]

69. No, "pathetic" fits your desperate flailing

to a "T," Hans...

and your pig is still earthbound....

[hansberrym]

70. Pathetic is your continual dodging and inability to post any ...

evidence in support for your "arguments".

[MrBenchley]

73. Here's evidence, hanns

12/01/2003 Washington(Reuters)- "HIGH COURT WON'T REVIEW BAN ON ASSAULT WEAPONS"
"The U.S. Supreme Supreme Court declined on Monday to review a ruling that upheld California's ban on assault weapons and declared there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun.
The appeals court said the Second Amendment protected the gun rights of militias, not individuals. The Second Amendment states: "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://news.findlaw.com/politics/s/20031201/courtgunsdc.html

Cheer up, though, maybe this unelected drunk will cram some crooked fucktard like "Cross-burning" Pickering or Scalia on the Court, and the racist gun rights crowd will get its wish.

[hansberrym]

79. I thought you were going to supply us with some HISTORICAL evidence?

Maybe there isn't any?

[BullDozer]

84. Boohoo for you grabber

"The district court held that the Second Amendment recognizes the right of individual citizens to own and possess firearms..."

[MrBenchley]

90. Nope...

Just goes to show what a corrupt bunch of right wing judges are willing to lie about...

[BullDozer]

96. circus

Just goes to show what a corrupt bunch of right wing judges are willing to lie about...

Yeah like the 9th circuit.

[MrBenchley]

97. Not even close to true, dozer...

But it's always instructive to see part of the RKBA crowd sticking up for crooked right wing pieces of shit

[BullDozer]

98. Learn a new trick sometime

because your attempts at guilt by association don't fool anyone.

Stand up and call people here rightwingers if you want to and quit hiding your labels in couched terms.

[beevul]

103. Are you cheering?

"Cheer up, though, maybe this unelected drunk will cram some crooked fucktard like "Cross-burning" Pickering or Scalia on the Court, and the racist gun rights crowd will get its wish."-MrBenchley

Are you cheering now for the freedom hater crowd, which consists of gun grabbers, anti-abortionists, racists, and anti-freespeech folks and the like?

Or:

Are you just speaking about against freedom haters, EXCEPT the gun grabbing faction of the freedom haters like usual?

[MrSandman]

53. Well regulated meaning

"well ordered." I think some read the Second Amendment as saying "select" militia.

[MrBenchley]

63. Yeah, surrrrrrrrrre....

"I think some read the Second Amendment"
Yeah, and look at what scummy, racist dishonest politicians lead that "some": DeLay, AshKKKroft, Trent Lott, Imhofe, Craig, Hatch, etc.....

[MrSandman]

86. Dishonest politicians like Richard Henry Lee

"A militia when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in great measure unnecessary....the constitution ought to...guard aganst a select militia, by providing the militia shall alway be kept well organized..."

"...to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always posess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."

From "An RepAdditional Number of Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican," Letter XVIII at 168-70.*
*Reprinted 1962


Or Thomas Jefferson:

"On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time whe the Constitution was adopted..."
From Letter to William Johnston," June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson 322 (1957).

edited for typo...sand

[MrSandman]

100. I guess not so dishonest

[MrBenchley]

28. Federlist?

Nuff said.

[Fescue4u]

44. That whole "collective right" argument

Has got to rank near the top of dishonest arguments.

The entire premise of the Bill of rights is the rights listed are inherent and endowed by our creator.

Then to infer that an all powerful creator would endow governments with the inherent right to own arms is just getting silly.

Now for those of you who don't believe in a creator, this argument still stands, as it clear that the framers DID believe in a creator, and its ludicrous to believe that the framers believed God placed more trust in government, than people.

But hey, anti gunnies, keep spewing it because it just alienates your ridiculous position even more!

[MrBenchley]

45. Too frigging funny, fescue

"to infer that an all powerful creator would endow governments with the inherent right to own arms is just getting silly"
Why? Because you don't like it?

"it clear that the framers DID believe in a creator"
Yeah, just look at all the discussion of God in the Constitution...oh, wait, there isn't any.

"it just alienates your ridiculous position even more"
Alienates from who? Not from reality, as this week's events show....

[Fescue4u]

48. ok...

Just who do the framers refer to when they say "creator"?

And yes reality. you anti-civil rights people are getting nuttier and nuttier.

[MrBenchley]

51. Too frigging funny...

Where does it say "creator" in the Constitution?

[Fescue4u]

54. Obviously

Its in the Declaration of Independence..

So I guess that means that you are right and your fascist fantasys are going to come true?

[MrBenchley]

64. Too frigging funny...

"your fascist fantasys"
Who the hell are you trying to kid? Every neoNazi group around is peddling this bogus gun rights crap...as are pieces of shit like AshKKKroft, Cheney and the Bu$h crime family...

[beevul]

104. Yeah, but they're only part of the.............

"Every neoNazi group around is peddling this bogus gun rights crap...as are pieces of shit like AshKKKroft, Cheney and the Bu$h crime family..."


Yeah, but they're only part of the Freedom hater crowd. You forgot to add anti-abortionists, anti-genderists, anti-free-sheechists, and gun grabbers.


chuckle.

[Superfly]

67. Doesn't matter what the Constitution says

It is an individual right to defend one's self, loved ones, and belongings with whatever means that individual deems necessary.

Constitution or no, I will continue to view the right to KBA as an individual one, that I will preserve.

[MrSandman]

87. Because the BoR

were written to prevent the federal government(amended by 14th to states) from infringing on Natural Rights.

[hansberrym]

101. The anti's only have half-truths and deception, consider ...

"Honest Abe" Reinhardt in Silveira:

47The Pennsylvania minority, so frequently cited by the proponents of
the individual rights view, also used language markedly different from that of the Second Amendment. Its proposal for a federal constitutional amendment, which was rejected in favor of the Second Amendment, would have unambiguously established a personal right to possess arms for personal purposes: “o law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals . . . .” The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of the State of Pennsylvania to Their Constituents, at 623-
24 (quoted in Finkelman, supra, at 208).
(end quote)


The Judge admits that the proposed amendment would have "unambiguosly
established a personal right" but he argues that this proposal is worded very differently than the Second Amendment. The deception is apparent on viewing the full text of that proposed amendment. That same proposed amendment that the judge cites begins:

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the united states, or for the purpose of killing game;... (it continues with the portion cited by the Judge)


Just how does the Judge explain that the words "the people have a right to bear arms" are in a proposed amendment that is supposedly worded very differently than the Second Amendment, and which by the judges own estimation unambiguously refers to an individual right.


He doesn't.

He only quotes half of the proposed amendment, and the part cited in his opinion does not even include the actual right which is being recognized.


There is a line between putting ones argument in the best light possible, and outright lying by ommission. The judge is way over that line.