Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
"[T]he right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Max Boot
May 11, 2013, 6:27:45 PM5/11/13
to
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment
is clearly within the scope of the amendment. Mr. Justice Scalia in the
Heller decision:
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.
[...]
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
*not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[emphasis added]
You may think the right *ought* to be unlimited, but as a matter of
text, history and interpretation, it is not. That is simply a fact, and
crazed far-right gun crackpots are going to have to accommodate
themselves to that fact.
is clearly within the scope of the amendment. Mr. Justice Scalia in the
Heller decision:
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.
[...]
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
*not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[emphasis added]
You may think the right *ought* to be unlimited, but as a matter of
text, history and interpretation, it is not. That is simply a fact, and
crazed far-right gun crackpots are going to have to accommodate
themselves to that fact.
Scout
May 11, 2013, 7:11:04 PM5/11/13
to
"Max Boot" <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in message
news:b9516$518ec58c$414e828e$13...@EVERESTKC.NET...
> Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment is
> clearly within the scope of the amendment. Mr. Justice Scalia in the
> Heller decision:
>
> There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
> history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
> to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
> just as the First Amendment �s right of free speech was not, see,
> clearly within the scope of the amendment. Mr. Justice Scalia in the
> Heller decision:
>
> There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
> history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
> to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
> e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
> do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
> to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
> read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
> speak for any purpose.
> [...]
> Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
> *not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
> commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
> not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
> manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
> [emphasis added]
>
>
> You may think the right *ought* to be unlimited, but as a matter of text,
> history and interpretation, it is not. That is simply a fact, and crazed
> far-right gun crackpots are going to have to accommodate themselves to
> that fact.
<yawn>
> do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
> to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
> read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
> speak for any purpose.
> [...]
> Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
> *not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
> commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
> not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
> manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
> [emphasis added]
>
>
> You may think the right *ought* to be unlimited, but as a matter of text,
> history and interpretation, it is not. That is simply a fact, and crazed
> far-right gun crackpots are going to have to accommodate themselves to
> that fact.
Who exactly has said otherwise?
Seems to me you're simply arguing with yourself and your delusions.
George Plimpton
May 11, 2013, 8:09:27 PM5/11/13
to
On 5/11/2013 4:11 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Max Boot" <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in message
> news:b9516$518ec58c$414e828e$13...@EVERESTKC.NET...
>> Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment
>> is clearly within the scope of the amendment. Mr. Justice Scalia in
>> the Heller decision:
>>
>> There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
>> history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
>> to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
>> just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
>
>
> "Max Boot" <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in message
> news:b9516$518ec58c$414e828e$13...@EVERESTKC.NET...
>> Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment
>> is clearly within the scope of the amendment. Mr. Justice Scalia in
>> the Heller decision:
>>
>> There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
>> history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
>> to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
>> e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
>> do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
>> to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
>> read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
>> speak for any purpose.
>> [...]
>> Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
>> *not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
>> commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
>> not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
>> manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
>> [emphasis added]
>>
>>
>> You may think the right *ought* to be unlimited, but as a matter of
>> text, history and interpretation, it is not. That is simply a fact,
>> and crazed far-right gun crackpots are going to have to accommodate
>> themselves to that fact.
>
> <yawn>
>
> Who exactly has said otherwise?
You do by implication.
>> do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
>> to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
>> read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
>> speak for any purpose.
>> [...]
>> Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
>> *not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
>> commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
>> not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
>> manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
>> [emphasis added]
>>
>>
>> You may think the right *ought* to be unlimited, but as a matter of
>> text, history and interpretation, it is not. That is simply a fact,
>> and crazed far-right gun crackpots are going to have to accommodate
>> themselves to that fact.
>
> <yawn>
>
> Who exactly has said otherwise?
Gunner Asch
May 11, 2013, 9:09:29 PM5/11/13
to
On Sat, 11 May 2013 15:27:45 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
wrote:
>Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.readnews.com!transit3.readnews.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!69.16.185.16.MISMATCH!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!EVERESTKC.NET-a2kHrUvQQWlmc!not-for-mail
>Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 15:27:45 -0700
>From: Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
>User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Newsgroups: misc.survivalism,rec.crafts.metalworking,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics,alt.california
>Subject: "[T]he right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>Message-ID: <b9516$518ec58c$414e828e$13...@EVERESTKC.NET>
>X-Complaints-To: ab...@usenetserver.com
>Organization: UseNetServer.com
>Lines: 26
>X-Trace: b9516518ec58ce4eb272b13523
>X-Received-Bytes: 2239
>Bytes: 2365
>Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.california:1245313 alt.politics:6416489 talk.politics.guns:3430559 rec.crafts.metalworking:1433301 misc.survivalism:1649738
--
"You guess the truth hurts?
Really?
"Hurt" aint the word.
For Liberals, the truth is like salt to a slug.
Sunlight to a vampire.
Raid® to a cockroach.
Sheriff Brody to a shark
Bush to a Liberal
The truth doesn't just hurt. It's painful, like a red hot poker shoved
up their ass. Like sliding down a hundred foot razor blade using their
dick as a brake.
They HATE the truth."
wrote:
>Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.readnews.com!transit3.readnews.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!69.16.185.16.MISMATCH!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!EVERESTKC.NET-a2kHrUvQQWlmc!not-for-mail
>Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 15:27:45 -0700
>From: Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
>User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Newsgroups: misc.survivalism,rec.crafts.metalworking,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics,alt.california
>Subject: "[T]he right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>Message-ID: <b9516$518ec58c$414e828e$13...@EVERESTKC.NET>
>X-Complaints-To: ab...@usenetserver.com
>Organization: UseNetServer.com
>Lines: 26
>X-Trace: b9516518ec58ce4eb272b13523
>X-Received-Bytes: 2239
>Bytes: 2365
>Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.california:1245313 alt.politics:6416489 talk.politics.guns:3430559 rec.crafts.metalworking:1433301 misc.survivalism:1649738
"You guess the truth hurts?
Really?
"Hurt" aint the word.
For Liberals, the truth is like salt to a slug.
Sunlight to a vampire.
Raid® to a cockroach.
Sheriff Brody to a shark
Bush to a Liberal
The truth doesn't just hurt. It's painful, like a red hot poker shoved
up their ass. Like sliding down a hundred foot razor blade using their
dick as a brake.
They HATE the truth."
Message has been deleted
Max Boot
May 12, 2013, 2:35:36 AM5/12/13
to
On 5/11/2013 6:09 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 15:27:45 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.readnews.com!transit3.readnews.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!69.16.185.16.MISMATCH!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!EVERESTKC.NET-a2kHrUvQQWlmc!not-for-mail
>> Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 15:27:45 -0700
>> From: Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>> Newsgroups: misc.survivalism,rec.crafts.metalworking,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics,alt.california
Yes? And? Did you have some point in posting some message headers?
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 15:27:45 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.readnews.com!transit3.readnews.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!69.16.185.16.MISMATCH!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!EVERESTKC.NET-a2kHrUvQQWlmc!not-for-mail
>> Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 15:27:45 -0700
>> From: Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>> Newsgroups: misc.survivalism,rec.crafts.metalworking,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics,alt.california
Right - I didn't think you had any point.
Gunner Asch
May 12, 2013, 5:40:37 AM5/12/13
to
On Sat, 11 May 2013 23:35:36 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
Some message headers? Nope..singular. Just one.
Yours.
Gunner
Yours.
Gunner
Gray Guest
May 12, 2013, 12:08:55 PM5/12/13
to
Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in news:b9516$518ec58c$414e828e
$13...@EVERESTKC.NET:
Well Max, I think your rights are not unlimited, too. For instance you
shouldn't have any problem with the coppers randomly searching your home
for contraband, without a waarnt, just becuase somethings are a danger to
the peace and security of the public? Right?
The 2A refers to the militia and the individual citizen. It provides a
context as to what is expected of the armed citizen, it establishes the
sphere of responsibility for the militia and by incorporation the
individual as opposed to a national armed force.
Ok, so what is the militia's role. Clearly it is not as an expeditionary
force.
Article 2 Section 8 says: "calling forth the militia to
1) execute the laws of the union,
2) suppress insurrections and
3) repel invasions.;
The Attorney General of the United States ruled in 1912 that the militia
could not be compelled to serve outside the United States except in the
most narrow of cases (hot pursuit of, or a "spoiling attack" upon,
invaders). "These three occasions, representing necessities of a strictly
domestic character, plainly indicate that the services of the militia can
be rendered only on the soil of the United States and it's territories".
Feb 17, 1912. Source 55 Congressional Record 3851 52.
Now, envision a military force, either regulars or volunteers, which would
be constituted to perform such tasks. Can you imagine such a force needing
nukes for these tasks? Absolutely not. I can imagine no scenario where one
would use nuclear weapons on home soil. Therefore no, nukes are not militia
weapons and are not protected under the 2A.
OTOH the variety of weapons that could be used in the militia mission and
therefore covered by the 2A and prohibited from regulation would give any
liberal permanent diarrhea.
Helicopter gunships, tanks, artillery, armored vehicles, automatic weapons,
RPGs, etc all meet the criteria of the militia mission.
Have a nice day.
--
Refusenik #1
Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.
Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama
$13...@EVERESTKC.NET:
shouldn't have any problem with the coppers randomly searching your home
for contraband, without a waarnt, just becuase somethings are a danger to
the peace and security of the public? Right?
The 2A refers to the militia and the individual citizen. It provides a
context as to what is expected of the armed citizen, it establishes the
sphere of responsibility for the militia and by incorporation the
individual as opposed to a national armed force.
Ok, so what is the militia's role. Clearly it is not as an expeditionary
force.
Article 2 Section 8 says: "calling forth the militia to
1) execute the laws of the union,
2) suppress insurrections and
3) repel invasions.;
The Attorney General of the United States ruled in 1912 that the militia
could not be compelled to serve outside the United States except in the
most narrow of cases (hot pursuit of, or a "spoiling attack" upon,
invaders). "These three occasions, representing necessities of a strictly
domestic character, plainly indicate that the services of the militia can
be rendered only on the soil of the United States and it's territories".
Feb 17, 1912. Source 55 Congressional Record 3851 52.
Now, envision a military force, either regulars or volunteers, which would
be constituted to perform such tasks. Can you imagine such a force needing
nukes for these tasks? Absolutely not. I can imagine no scenario where one
would use nuclear weapons on home soil. Therefore no, nukes are not militia
weapons and are not protected under the 2A.
OTOH the variety of weapons that could be used in the militia mission and
therefore covered by the 2A and prohibited from regulation would give any
liberal permanent diarrhea.
Helicopter gunships, tanks, artillery, armored vehicles, automatic weapons,
RPGs, etc all meet the criteria of the militia mission.
Have a nice day.
--
Refusenik #1
Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.
Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama
Gray Guest
May 12, 2013, 12:09:28 PM5/12/13
to
Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
797763.182...@news.eternal-september.org:
> In article <6uqto8tl9uot7fk3n...@4ax.com>,
> Tell us about it, gun nut.
Ok
797763.182...@news.eternal-september.org:
> In article <6uqto8tl9uot7fk3n...@4ax.com>,
> Tell us about it, gun nut.
Ok
Message has been deleted
Max Boot
May 12, 2013, 12:37:56 PM5/12/13
to
On 5/12/2013 2:40 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 23:35:36 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/11/2013 6:09 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 May 2013 15:27:45 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.readnews.com!transit3.readnews.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!69.16.185.16.MISMATCH!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!EVERESTKC.NET-a2kHrUvQQWlmc!not-for-mail
>>>> Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 15:27:45 -0700
>>>> From: Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
>>>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
>>>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>>>> Newsgroups: misc.survivalism,rec.crafts.metalworking,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics,alt.california
>>
>> Yes? And? Did you have some point in posting some message headers?
>> Right - I didn't think you had any point.
>
> Some message headers? Nope..singular. Just one.
<chortle> Did you have a point in posting *them*, gummer, or was it
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 23:35:36 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/11/2013 6:09 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 May 2013 15:27:45 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.readnews.com!transit3.readnews.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!69.16.185.16.MISMATCH!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!EVERESTKC.NET-a2kHrUvQQWlmc!not-for-mail
>>>> Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 15:27:45 -0700
>>>> From: Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
>>>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
>>>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>>>> Newsgroups: misc.survivalism,rec.crafts.metalworking,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics,alt.california
>>
>> Yes? And? Did you have some point in posting some message headers?
>> Right - I didn't think you had any point.
>
> Some message headers? Nope..singular. Just one.
just more wastage of zero-value time by an egregious dole-scrounger?
Fact: no consequence from the headers being posted. None.
Gray Guest
May 12, 2013, 12:49:34 PM5/12/13
to
Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:chine.bleu-9A301...@news.eternal-september.org:
> In article <XnsA1BE7C3A8ED14We...@78.46.70.116>,
> Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Well Max, I think your rights are not unlimited, too. For instance you
>> shouldn't have any problem with the coppers randomly searching your
>> home for contraband, without a waarnt, just becuase somethings are a
>> danger to the peace and security of the public? Right?
>
> Ummm....hey, guy, the police already have the power to search a house
>
>> Well Max, I think your rights are not unlimited, too. For instance you
>> shouldn't have any problem with the coppers randomly searching your
>> home for contraband, without a waarnt, just becuase somethings are a
>> danger to the peace and security of the public? Right?
>
> without a warrant.
Not in America they don't.
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.
Any person trying to enter my home witout a warrant and a damn good reason
is subject to termination.
I don't know what things are like in your third world shithole, but that's
how it is here.
Max Boot
May 12, 2013, 12:53:47 PM5/12/13
to
> The 2A refers to the militia and the individual citizen. It provides a
> context as to what is expected of the armed citizen,
talking about.
> it establishes the sphere of responsibility for the militia
about what the amendment is and what it does.
> and by incorporation the
> individual as opposed to a national armed force.
>
> Ok, so what is the militia's role. Clearly it is not as an expeditionary
> force.
>
None of that has any bearing on what the actual right *secured* - not
defined, created or conferred - by the second amendment is.
Max Boot
May 12, 2013, 12:55:27 PM5/12/13
to
On 5/12/2013 9:09 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
> 797763.182...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> In article <6uqto8tl9uot7fk3n...@4ax.com>,
>> Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "You guess the truth hurts?
>>
>> Tell us about it, gun nut.
>
> Ok
>
> The 2A refers to the militia and the individual citizen.
No, it makes no mention of the individual citizen. It refers to "the
> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
> 797763.182...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> In article <6uqto8tl9uot7fk3n...@4ax.com>,
>> Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "You guess the truth hurts?
>>
>> Tell us about it, gun nut.
>
> Ok
>
> The 2A refers to the militia and the individual citizen.
people."
> It provides a
> context as to what is expected of the armed citizen, [remaining foam washed away]
No, it does not. *NO* recognition of a right ever does. If it is truly
a right, there is *no* corresponding responsibility.
Jeff M
May 12, 2013, 1:13:44 PM5/12/13
to
On 5/12/2013 11:49 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:chine.bleu-9A301...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> In article <XnsA1BE7C3A8ED14We...@78.46.70.116>,
>> Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Well Max, I think your rights are not unlimited, too. For instance you
>>> shouldn't have any problem with the coppers randomly searching your
>>> home for contraband, without a waarnt, just becuase somethings are a
>>> danger to the peace and security of the public? Right?
>>
>> Ummm....hey, guy, the police already have the power to search a house
>> without a warrant.
>
> Not in America they don't.
>
> 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.
>
> Any person trying to enter my home witout a warrant and a damn good reason
> is subject to termination.
>
> I don't know what things are like in your third world shithole, but that's
> how it is here.
There are, of course, several exceptions to the general rule described
> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:chine.bleu-9A301...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> In article <XnsA1BE7C3A8ED14We...@78.46.70.116>,
>> Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Well Max, I think your rights are not unlimited, too. For instance you
>>> shouldn't have any problem with the coppers randomly searching your
>>> home for contraband, without a waarnt, just becuase somethings are a
>>> danger to the peace and security of the public? Right?
>>
>> Ummm....hey, guy, the police already have the power to search a house
>> without a warrant.
>
> Not in America they don't.
>
> 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.
>
> Any person trying to enter my home witout a warrant and a damn good reason
> is subject to termination.
>
> I don't know what things are like in your third world shithole, but that's
> how it is here.
in the 4th Amendment. These include "Exigent Circumstances" and "Fresh
Pursuit." There are also non-law enforcement exceptions, as for
firefighters and for child/elder/disabled welfare workers, and these
entries can be enforced by law enforcement officers.
Gray Guest
May 12, 2013, 2:02:51 PM5/12/13
to
Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in news:6c2f5$518fc93d$414e828e
$17...@EVERESTKC.NET:
Nope Max, it's because I feel it. Just like the libs.
>
>
>> The 2A refers to the militia and the individual citizen. It provides a
>> context as to what is expected of the armed citizen,
>
> No, the amendment provides no such thing. You don't know what you're
> talking about.
Hmm, well you are invited to post your proof after which i will dissamle
it.
>
>> it establishes the sphere of responsibility for the militia
>
> No, it doesn't do that, either. You really are appallingly ignorant
> about what the amendment is and what it does.
"The security of a free state". Are you illiterate or just stupid?
>
>> and by incorporation the
>> individual as opposed to a national armed force.
>>
>> Ok, so what is the militia's role. Clearly it is not as an expeditionary
>> force.
>>
>> Article 2 Section 8 says: "calling forth the militia to[blah blah
blabber]
>
> None of that has any bearing on what the actual right *secured* - not
> defined, created or conferred - by the second amendment is.
What is your imterpetation then Sparky?
Is ti the right to hunt?
Is it the right to be allowed to own the guns that are poltical masters
think we should own?
$17...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>
>
>> The 2A refers to the militia and the individual citizen. It provides a
>> context as to what is expected of the armed citizen,
>
> No, the amendment provides no such thing. You don't know what you're
> talking about.
it.
>
>> it establishes the sphere of responsibility for the militia
>
> No, it doesn't do that, either. You really are appallingly ignorant
> about what the amendment is and what it does.
>
>> and by incorporation the
>> individual as opposed to a national armed force.
>>
>> Ok, so what is the militia's role. Clearly it is not as an expeditionary
>> force.
>>
>> Article 2 Section 8 says: "calling forth the militia to[blah blah
blabber]
>
> None of that has any bearing on what the actual right *secured* - not
> defined, created or conferred - by the second amendment is.
Is ti the right to hunt?
Is it the right to be allowed to own the guns that are poltical masters
think we should own?
Gray Guest
May 12, 2013, 2:03:47 PM5/12/13
to
Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in
news:1c59$518fc9a1$414e828e$17...@EVERESTKC.NET:
> On 5/12/2013 9:09 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
>> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
>> 797763.182...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> In article <6uqto8tl9uot7fk3n...@4ax.com>,
>>> Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "You guess the truth hurts?
>>>
>>> Tell us about it, gun nut.
>>
>> Ok
>>
>> The 2A refers to the militia and the individual citizen.
>
> No, it makes no mention of the individual citizen. It refers to "the
> people."
>
>> It provides a
>> context as to what is expected of the armed citizen, [remaining foam
>> washed away]
>
> No, it does not. *NO* recognition of a right ever does. If it is truly
> a right, there is *no* corresponding responsibility.
Max Boot
May 12, 2013, 2:41:20 PM5/12/13
to
the libs [sic]."
The basic fact that you just can't seem to comprehend is that the right
secured by the second amendment *never* included a whole host of
features you imagine - wrongly, of course - that it does and should.
By contrast, the right secured by the fourth amendment very much
excludes the kinds of things you're incorrectly saying are permitted.
It's not that the right against unreasonable search and seizure is
unlimited - *no* right is unlimited - rather, it is that certain things
very clearly *within* the scope of the right are not permitted.
>>> The 2A refers to the militia and the individual citizen. It provides a
>>> context as to what is expected of the armed citizen,
>>
>> No, the amendment provides no such thing. You don't know what you're
>> talking about.
>
> Hmm, well you are invited to post your proof after which i will dissamle
> it.
that the *amendment* provides some "context" [sic] as to what is
expected of the armed citizen. Feel free to try. So far, you haven't
even attempted it, and it's a certainty you can't do it. But go ahead -
have a go at it.
>>> it establishes the sphere of responsibility for the militia
>>
>> No, it doesn't do that, either. You really are appallingly ignorant
>> about what the amendment is and what it does.
>
> "The security of a free state". Are you illiterate or just stupid?
responsibility" for the militia, dummy. It is stating the primary
reason why society wishes to have a militia.
>>
>>> and by incorporation the
>>> individual as opposed to a national armed force.
>>>
>>> Ok, so what is the militia's role. Clearly it is not as an expeditionary
>>> force.
>>>
>>> Article 2 Section 8 says: "calling forth the militia to[blah blah
> blabber]
>>
>> None of that has any bearing on what the actual right *secured* - not
>> defined, created or conferred - by the second amendment is.
>
> What is your imterpetation then Sparky?
>
> Is ti the right to hunt?
> Is it the right to be allowed to own the guns that are poltical masters
> think we should own?
Max Boot
May 12, 2013, 2:52:29 PM5/12/13
to
On 5/12/2013 11:03 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
> Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in
> news:1c59$518fc9a1$414e828e$17...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>
>> On 5/12/2013 9:09 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
>>> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
>>> 797763.182...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>
>>>> In article <6uqto8tl9uot7fk3n...@4ax.com>,
>>>> Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "You guess the truth hurts?
>>>>
>>>> Tell us about it, gun nut.
>>>
>>> Ok
>>>
>>> The 2A refers to the militia and the individual citizen.
>>
>> No, it makes no mention of the individual citizen. It refers to "the
>> people."
>
> And who are the people, Sparky?
You know, you demean yourself when you toss out lame, stale Usenet
> Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in
> news:1c59$518fc9a1$414e828e$17...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>
>> On 5/12/2013 9:09 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
>>> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
>>> 797763.182...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>
>>>> In article <6uqto8tl9uot7fk3n...@4ax.com>,
>>>> Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "You guess the truth hurts?
>>>>
>>>> Tell us about it, gun nut.
>>>
>>> Ok
>>>
>>> The 2A refers to the militia and the individual citizen.
>>
>> No, it makes no mention of the individual citizen. It refers to "the
>> people."
>
> And who are the people, Sparky?
insults like calling your (intellectually superior) interlocutor
"Sparky." Maybe you didn't know that. It's a fact, whether you are
aware of it or not.
To answer your question, it's hard to say. Stop to think that not
everyone supported the adoption of the Constitution; yet, the preamble
starts "We the People of the United States..." Does that mean *all* the
people, including those citizens who opposed the adoption of the
Constitution?
In fact, most but not all references to "the people" in the Constitution
and the Bill of Rights refer to the people as a collective body. I'm
sure you're quite unaware that the expression "the people" occurs only
twice in the Constitution outside the Bill of Rights: in the Preamble,
and in Article I Section 2. In the Bill of Rights, it appears in five
of the 10 amendments: the first, second, fourth, ninth and tenth. In
all but the fourth, it clearly is referring to the people as a
collective. Only in the fourth does the context only permit it to be
referring to people as individual persons.
In any case, the expression is not limited only to citizens, as non
citizens are clearly covered in many of the provisions.
Gunner Asch
May 12, 2013, 3:50:44 PM5/12/13
to
--
"You guess the truth hurts?
Gunner Asch
May 12, 2013, 3:52:55 PM5/12/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:55:27 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
wrote:
>On 5/12/2013 9:09 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
>> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
>> 797763.182...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> In article <6uqto8tl9uot7fk3n...@4ax.com>,
>>> Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "You guess the truth hurts?
>>>
>>> Tell us about it, gun nut.
>>
>> Ok
>>
>> The 2A refers to the militia and the individual citizen.
>
>No, it makes no mention of the individual citizen. It refers to "the
>people."
So the "people" mentioned in the rest of the Constitution..is somehow
different than the "people" mentioned in the 2nd Ammendment?
Rights?
Evidently not.
--
wrote:
>On 5/12/2013 9:09 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
>> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
>> 797763.182...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> In article <6uqto8tl9uot7fk3n...@4ax.com>,
>>> Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "You guess the truth hurts?
>>>
>>> Tell us about it, gun nut.
>>
>> Ok
>>
>> The 2A refers to the militia and the individual citizen.
>
>No, it makes no mention of the individual citizen. It refers to "the
>people."
different than the "people" mentioned in the 2nd Ammendment?
>
>
>> It provides a
>> context as to what is expected of the armed citizen, [remaining foam washed away]
>
>No, it does not. *NO* recognition of a right ever does. If it is truly
>a right, there is *no* corresponding responsibility.
Sure there is. Have you never read the Constitution and the Bill of
>
>> It provides a
>> context as to what is expected of the armed citizen, [remaining foam washed away]
>
>No, it does not. *NO* recognition of a right ever does. If it is truly
>a right, there is *no* corresponding responsibility.
Rights?
Evidently not.
--
"You guess the truth hurts?
Gunner Asch
May 12, 2013, 3:53:26 PM5/12/13
to
Gunner Asch
May 12, 2013, 3:54:56 PM5/12/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013 11:41:20 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
wrote:
>
Lets start with cites from the Founders..shall we?
wrote:
>
>The basic fact that you just can't seem to comprehend is that the right
>secured by the second amendment *never* included a whole host of
>features you imagine - wrongly, of course - that it does and should.
Cites?
>secured by the second amendment *never* included a whole host of
>features you imagine - wrongly, of course - that it does and should.
Lets start with cites from the Founders..shall we?
Max Boot
May 12, 2013, 4:00:00 PM5/12/13
to
On 5/12/2013 12:52 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:55:27 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/12/2013 9:09 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
>>> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
>>> 797763.182...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>
>>>> In article <6uqto8tl9uot7fk3n...@4ax.com>,
>>>> Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "You guess the truth hurts?
>>>>
>>>> Tell us about it, gun nut.
>>>
>>> Ok
>>>
>>> The 2A refers to the militia and the individual citizen.
>>
>> No, it makes no mention of the individual citizen. It refers to "the
>> people."
>
> So the "people" mentioned in the rest of the Constitution..is somehow
> different than the "people" mentioned in the 2nd Ammendment?
Define "the people." Provide several citations to support your
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:55:27 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/12/2013 9:09 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
>>> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
>>> 797763.182...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>
>>>> In article <6uqto8tl9uot7fk3n...@4ax.com>,
>>>> Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "You guess the truth hurts?
>>>>
>>>> Tell us about it, gun nut.
>>>
>>> Ok
>>>
>>> The 2A refers to the militia and the individual citizen.
>>
>> No, it makes no mention of the individual citizen. It refers to "the
>> people."
>
> So the "people" mentioned in the rest of the Constitution..is somehow
> different than the "people" mentioned in the 2nd Ammendment?
definition. Don't lollygag - get to it now.
>>
>>> It provides a
>>> context as to what is expected of the armed citizen, [remaining foam washed away]
>>
>> No, it does not. *NO* recognition of a right ever does. If it is truly
>> a right, there is *no* corresponding responsibility.
>
> Sure there is. Have you never read the Constitution and the Bill of
> Rights?
You haven't read them.
Max Boot
May 12, 2013, 4:00:31 PM5/12/13
to
On 5/12/2013 12:53 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:37:56 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/12/2013 2:40 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 May 2013 23:35:36 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/11/2013 6:09 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 11 May 2013 15:27:45 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.readnews.com!transit3.readnews.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!69.16.185.16.MISMATCH!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!EVERESTKC.NET-a2kHrUvQQWlmc!not-for-mail
>>>>>> Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 15:27:45 -0700
>>>>>> From: Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
>>>>>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
>>>>>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>>>>>> Newsgroups: misc.survivalism,rec.crafts.metalworking,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics,alt.california
>>>>
>>>> Yes? And? Did you have some point in posting some message headers?
>>>> Right - I didn't think you had any point.
>>>
>>> Some message headers? Nope..singular. Just one.
>>
>> <chortle> Did you have a point in posting *them*, gummer, or was it
>> just more wastage of zero-value time by an egregious dole-scrounger?
>>
>> Fact: no consequence from the headers being posted. None.
>
>
> Not so far.
Not ever. You know there won't be.
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:37:56 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/12/2013 2:40 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 May 2013 23:35:36 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/11/2013 6:09 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 11 May 2013 15:27:45 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.readnews.com!transit3.readnews.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!69.16.185.16.MISMATCH!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!EVERESTKC.NET-a2kHrUvQQWlmc!not-for-mail
>>>>>> Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 15:27:45 -0700
>>>>>> From: Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
>>>>>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
>>>>>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>>>>>> Newsgroups: misc.survivalism,rec.crafts.metalworking,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics,alt.california
>>>>
>>>> Yes? And? Did you have some point in posting some message headers?
>>>> Right - I didn't think you had any point.
>>>
>>> Some message headers? Nope..singular. Just one.
>>
>> <chortle> Did you have a point in posting *them*, gummer, or was it
>> just more wastage of zero-value time by an egregious dole-scrounger?
>>
>> Fact: no consequence from the headers being posted. None.
>
>
> Not so far.
George Plimpton
May 12, 2013, 4:01:22 PM5/12/13
to
On 5/12/2013 12:54 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 11:41:20 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> The basic fact that you just can't seem to comprehend is that the right
>> secured by the second amendment *never* included a whole host of
>> features you imagine - wrongly, of course - that it does and should.
>
> Cites?
Read Mr. Scalia's opinion.
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 11:41:20 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> The basic fact that you just can't seem to comprehend is that the right
>> secured by the second amendment *never* included a whole host of
>> features you imagine - wrongly, of course - that it does and should.
>
> Cites?
Gunner Asch
May 12, 2013, 4:38:46 PM5/12/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013 11:52:29 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
wrote:
>On 5/12/2013 11:03 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
>> Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in
>> news:1c59$518fc9a1$414e828e$17...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>
>>> On 5/12/2013 9:09 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
>>>> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
>>>> 797763.182...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <6uqto8tl9uot7fk3n...@4ax.com>,
>>>>> Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "You guess the truth hurts?
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell us about it, gun nut.
>>>>
>>>> Ok
>>>>
>>>> The 2A refers to the militia and the individual citizen.
>>>
>>> No, it makes no mention of the individual citizen. It refers to "the
>>> people."
>>
>> And who are the people, Sparky?
>
>You know, you demean yourself when you toss out lame, stale Usenet
>insults like calling your (intellectually superior) interlocutor
>"Sparky." Maybe you didn't know that. It's a fact, whether you are
>aware of it or not.
>
>To answer your question, it's hard to say. Stop to think that not
>everyone supported the adoption of the Constitution; yet, the preamble
>starts "We the People of the United States..." Does that mean *all* the
>people, including those citizens who opposed the adoption of the
>Constitution?
Yes it did.
>
>In fact, most but not all references to "the people" in the Constitution
>and the Bill of Rights refer to the people as a collective body. I'm
>sure you're quite unaware that the expression "the people" occurs only
>twice in the Constitution outside the Bill of Rights: in the Preamble,
>and in Article I Section 2. In the Bill of Rights, it appears in five
>of the 10 amendments: the first, second, fourth, ninth and tenth. In
>all but the fourth, it clearly is referring to the people as a
>collective. Only in the fourth does the context only permit it to be
>referring to people as individual persons.
And the Second of course.
>
--
wrote:
>On 5/12/2013 11:03 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
>> Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in
>> news:1c59$518fc9a1$414e828e$17...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>
>>> On 5/12/2013 9:09 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
>>>> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
>>>> 797763.182...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <6uqto8tl9uot7fk3n...@4ax.com>,
>>>>> Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "You guess the truth hurts?
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell us about it, gun nut.
>>>>
>>>> Ok
>>>>
>>>> The 2A refers to the militia and the individual citizen.
>>>
>>> No, it makes no mention of the individual citizen. It refers to "the
>>> people."
>>
>> And who are the people, Sparky?
>
>You know, you demean yourself when you toss out lame, stale Usenet
>insults like calling your (intellectually superior) interlocutor
>"Sparky." Maybe you didn't know that. It's a fact, whether you are
>aware of it or not.
>
>To answer your question, it's hard to say. Stop to think that not
>everyone supported the adoption of the Constitution; yet, the preamble
>starts "We the People of the United States..." Does that mean *all* the
>people, including those citizens who opposed the adoption of the
>Constitution?
>
>In fact, most but not all references to "the people" in the Constitution
>and the Bill of Rights refer to the people as a collective body. I'm
>sure you're quite unaware that the expression "the people" occurs only
>twice in the Constitution outside the Bill of Rights: in the Preamble,
>and in Article I Section 2. In the Bill of Rights, it appears in five
>of the 10 amendments: the first, second, fourth, ninth and tenth. In
>all but the fourth, it clearly is referring to the people as a
>collective. Only in the fourth does the context only permit it to be
>referring to people as individual persons.
>
>In any case, the expression is not limited only to citizens, as non
>citizens are clearly covered in many of the provisions.
Yes it does. And?
>In any case, the expression is not limited only to citizens, as non
>citizens are clearly covered in many of the provisions.
>
--
"You guess the truth hurts?
Gunner Asch
May 12, 2013, 4:46:10 PM5/12/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013 13:00:00 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
wrote:
>>
As ample evidence illustrates below, the people, as referred to in the
Constitution at the time it was written, was synonymous with citizens.
Also shown below, some scholars mistakenly assume that when the
Constitution refers to "the people," a collective right or entity is
referenced. However, that notion is incorrect. When the term "the
people" is used, it could be referring to a right that is exercised
individually, collectively, or both, depending on context. Of course,
the meaning of the term "the people" is the same regardless.
Why wasn't "person" or "persons" used instead of "the people" when
enumerating certain individual rights? "Persons," as referred to in
the Constitution, signified a wider class of people than citizens.
Persons included slaves. For example, Article 2, clause 3 of the
Constitution refers to slaves as persons, but they were never
considered as citizens or a part of the people: "Representatives and
direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may
be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers,
which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free
Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and
excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." (U.S.
Constitution)
The Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights begins:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated..."
"The people" in the Fourth Amendment obviously refers to an individual
right. (The phrase "in their persons" means people themselves [their
bodies] cannot be unreasonably seized or searched. Compare the 14th
Amendment from Virginia's proposed declaration of rights to the
Constitution [also written by James Madison] to the 4th Amendment:
"That every freeman has a right to be secure from all unreasonable
searches and seizures of his person, his papers..." "Persons" in the
4th Amendment is used to match the plural "people.")
One of James Madison's proposed amendments:
"The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to
speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of
the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be
inviolable."
Would anybody in their right mind suggest Madison proposed a
collective right to speak, write, or publish their thoughts?
Looking at other declarations of rights from the time clearly shows
"the people," being used in conjunction with the enumeration of
indvidual rights.
For example, Article XIII of Pennsylvania's 1776 Declaration of Rights
states:
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of
themselves and the state..."
Article XII from the same declaration says:
"That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of
writing, and publishing their sentiments; therefore the freedom of the
press ought not to be restrained."
In both of the above examples, "the people" means each citizen. Would
anyone seriously suggest that Article XII protects only a "collective
right," or that the people's freedom of speech and writing is limited
to those who posses a printing press or to works appearing in the news
media?
Yet, there are those claiming "it is far from obvious that the meaning
of the phrase 'defense of themselves' should be interpreted as a
statement of individual rights.'" (Saul Cornell, "Don't Know Much
About History" at p. 674. See also pp. 675-77.)
Cornell states, "One of the most serious problems with individual
rights theory is that it makes it impossible to understand why some
states embraced a new formulation of the right to bear arms in the
nineteenth century. Rather than assert a right to 'bear arms for the
defense of themselves and the state,' the new Jacksonian
constitutional formulation of this right asserted that 'each person
has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.' Indeed,
the shift in language between the Founding Era and the Jacksonian
period itself provides one of the best arguments against reading the
earlier languague as advancing an individual right. There would have
been little need to adopt the new formulation if the old one were
widely understood to protect an individual right." (Cornell, St.
George Tucker and the Second Amendment at pp. 1140-41)
Unfortunately for anti-individual rights advocates the historical
record refutes "one of the best arguments:"
Pennsylvania kept that same clause in a 1790 revision as follows:
"That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves
and the state shall not be questioned." James Wilson, president of the
convention which adopted that provision, a leading Federalist, and
later Supreme Court Justice, explained it in a discussion of homicide
"when it is necessary for the defence of one's person or house." He
continued:
it is the great natural law of self preservation, which, as we
have seen, cannot be repealed, or superseded, or suspended by any
human institution. This law, however, is expressly recognised in the
constitution of Pennsylvania. "The right of the citizens to bear arms
in the defence of themselves shall not be questioned." This is one of
our many renewals of the Saxon regulations. "They were bound," says
Mr. Selden, "to keep arms for the preservation of the kingdom, and of
their own persons." [Web source of Wilson quote]
(Stephen Halbrook, St. George Tucker's Second Amendment at p. 18)
For further refutation of the notion that "in defense of themselves"
was referring to a collective right or one that was entirely military
see Randy Barnett, Was the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Conditioned on
Service in an Organized Militia? at pp. 22-3.
Again looking at Virginia's proposed declaration of rights, from the
preamble:
"That there be a Declaration or Bill of Rights asserting and
securing from encroachment the essential and unalienable Rights of the
People in some such manner as the following;"
Article Sixteen:
"That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing
and publishing their Sentiments; but the freedom of the press is one
of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and ought not to be violated."
Article Sixteen enumerates rights that clearly can be exercised
indvidually.
Roger Sherman's draft bill of rights clearly refers to individual
rights when referring to the rights of the people (article 2 [at
983]), (Sherman was a Founder, Senator, and lawyer):
"The people have certain natural rights which are retained by them
when they enter into Society, such are the rights of Conscience in
matters of religion; of acquiring property and of pursuing happiness &
Safety; of Speaking, writing and publishing their Sentiments with
decency and freedom; of peaceably assembling to consult their common
good, and of applying Government by petition or remonstrance for
redress of grievances. Of these rights therefore they Shall not be
deprived by the Government of the united states."
From the Articles of Confederation:
"The people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and
from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of
trade and commerce..."
Hopefully the reader does not interpret the above as referring to a
collective right to travel.
Yet, Yale law professor Akhil Amar claims, "when the Constitution
speaks of 'the people' rather than 'persons,' the collective
connotation is primary" (Second Thoughts: What the right to bear arms
really means). Amar's theory unravels when looking at all of the
evidence. He tries to reconcile a portion of it writing, "The Fourth
Amendment is trickier... And these words obviously focus on the
private domain, protecting individuals in their private homes more
than in the public square. Why, then, did the Fourth use the words
'the people' at all? Probably to highlight the role that
jurors--acting collectively and representing the electorate--would
play in deciding which searches were reasonable and how much to punish
government officials who searched or seized improperly."
Amar's reasoning might sound plausible in today's context, however he
fails to provide an appropriate example. In 1789 jurors did not issue
warrants or determine whether a search was reasonable and they could
not "punish government officials who searched or seized improperly."
There was no method of suing the government in 1789 for damages
resulting from the violation of civil rights. Also Amar fails to
explain Madison's draft amendment protecting the people's right to
speak and write, mentioned above.
Regardless of what the duties and responsibilities of juries were in
1789, Amar apparently does not realize that in the Constitution,
person, without further qualification, refers to a wider class of
individuals than the people.
Some individual rights were protected for collective purposes, the
Second Amendment being one of them. However this doesn't transform the
individual right into a collective right belonging to the states or
the militia. Keeping arms was a right that could be exercised
individually or collectively.
Compare Amar's opinion with that of Harvard law professor Laurence
Tribe's:
[The Second Amendment's] central purpose is to arm "We the People"
so that ordinary citizens can participate in the collective defense of
their community and their state. But it does so not through directly
protecting a right on the part of states or other collectivities,
assertable by them against the federal government, to arm the populace
as they see fit. Rather the amendment achieves its central purpose by
assuring that the federal government may not disarm individual
citizens without some unusually strong justification consistent with
the authority of the states to organize their own militias. That
assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right (admittedly
of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use
firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes--not a right to
hunt for game, quite clearly, and certainly not a right to employ
firearms to commit aggressive acts against other persons--a right that
directly limits action by Congress or by the Executive Branch and may
well, in addition, be among the privileges or immunities of United
States citizens protected by ? 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment against
state or local government action.
(Laurence H. Tribe, 1 American Constitutional Law 902 n.221 [3d
ed. 2000] [emphasis added]. [Online references here and here.])
Even this anti-individual right law journal article finds, "As to the
broader context of usage within the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights, those documents use "the people" in both senses: sometimes
collectively, sometimes individually." (Also see note 5 for further
discussion, concluding, "In short, contrary to claims often made on
both sides of the debate, the Second Amendment's reference to 'the
people' does not, simply as a textual matter, commit us to either an
individual or a collective right interpretation of the Amendment.")
Lastly, even the Supreme Court agrees on the meaning of "the people"
as used in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
"The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are
synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the
political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the
sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through
their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign
people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent
member of this sovereignty. The question before us is, whether the
class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion
of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We
think they are not, and that they are not included..." (Dred Scott v.
Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 [1856])
And the dissent agrees:
"If we look into the Constitutions and State papers of that
period, we find the inhabitants or people of these colonies, or the
inhabitants of this State, or Commonwealth, employed to designate
those whom we should now denominate citizens."
In Adamson v. California, 1947) the Supreme Court refers to the Bill
of Rights as protecting individual rights:
"The reasoning that leads to those conclusions starts with the
unquestioned premise that the Bill of Rights, when adopted, was for
the protection of the individual against the federal government..."
And again the dissent agrees:
"The first 10 amendments were proposed and adopted largely because
of fear that Government might unduly interfere with prized individual
liberties."
More recently the Supreme Court comments on what "the people" may mean
today and its distinction from "person:"
'[T]he people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select
parts of the Constitution... While this textual exegesis is by no
means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the
Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom
rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments,
refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or
who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country
to be considered part of that community... (Excludable alien is not
entitled to First Amendment rights, because "[h]e does not become one
of the people to whom these things are secured by our Constitution by
an attempt to enter forbidden by law"). The language of these
Amendments contrasts with the words 'person' and 'accused' used in the
Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating procedure in criminal cases."
(U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 [1990])
>
>
>>>
>>>> It provides a
>>>> context as to what is expected of the armed citizen, [remaining foam washed away]
>>>
>>> No, it does not. *NO* recognition of a right ever does. If it is truly
>>> a right, there is *no* corresponding responsibility.
>>
>> Sure there is. Have you never read the Constitution and the Bill of
>> Rights?
>
>No mention of any responsibilities of any rights holder in either one.
>
>You haven't read them.
You mean law abiding isnt a responsibility?
Which means..what exactly? I dont have a clue as what you are trying
to do with that "responsiblity " thingy.
So tell us all what "responsiblity" is required with the 1st
Amendment?
We will all be waiting with amused interest.
Gunner, pondering McDonald et al "individual right" visa vis the
Supreme Courts recent findings....
--
wrote:
>>
>> So the "people" mentioned in the rest of the Constitution..is somehow
>> different than the "people" mentioned in the 2nd Ammendment?
>
>Define "the people." Provide several citations to support your
>definition. Don't lollygag - get to it now.
The People
>> different than the "people" mentioned in the 2nd Ammendment?
>
>Define "the people." Provide several citations to support your
>definition. Don't lollygag - get to it now.
As ample evidence illustrates below, the people, as referred to in the
Constitution at the time it was written, was synonymous with citizens.
Also shown below, some scholars mistakenly assume that when the
Constitution refers to "the people," a collective right or entity is
referenced. However, that notion is incorrect. When the term "the
people" is used, it could be referring to a right that is exercised
individually, collectively, or both, depending on context. Of course,
the meaning of the term "the people" is the same regardless.
Why wasn't "person" or "persons" used instead of "the people" when
enumerating certain individual rights? "Persons," as referred to in
the Constitution, signified a wider class of people than citizens.
Persons included slaves. For example, Article 2, clause 3 of the
Constitution refers to slaves as persons, but they were never
considered as citizens or a part of the people: "Representatives and
direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may
be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers,
which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free
Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and
excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." (U.S.
Constitution)
The Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights begins:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
"The people" in the Fourth Amendment obviously refers to an individual
right. (The phrase "in their persons" means people themselves [their
bodies] cannot be unreasonably seized or searched. Compare the 14th
Amendment from Virginia's proposed declaration of rights to the
Constitution [also written by James Madison] to the 4th Amendment:
"That every freeman has a right to be secure from all unreasonable
searches and seizures of his person, his papers..." "Persons" in the
4th Amendment is used to match the plural "people.")
One of James Madison's proposed amendments:
"The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to
speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of
the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be
inviolable."
Would anybody in their right mind suggest Madison proposed a
collective right to speak, write, or publish their thoughts?
Looking at other declarations of rights from the time clearly shows
"the people," being used in conjunction with the enumeration of
indvidual rights.
For example, Article XIII of Pennsylvania's 1776 Declaration of Rights
states:
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of
themselves and the state..."
Article XII from the same declaration says:
"That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of
writing, and publishing their sentiments; therefore the freedom of the
press ought not to be restrained."
In both of the above examples, "the people" means each citizen. Would
anyone seriously suggest that Article XII protects only a "collective
right," or that the people's freedom of speech and writing is limited
to those who posses a printing press or to works appearing in the news
media?
Yet, there are those claiming "it is far from obvious that the meaning
of the phrase 'defense of themselves' should be interpreted as a
statement of individual rights.'" (Saul Cornell, "Don't Know Much
About History" at p. 674. See also pp. 675-77.)
Cornell states, "One of the most serious problems with individual
rights theory is that it makes it impossible to understand why some
states embraced a new formulation of the right to bear arms in the
nineteenth century. Rather than assert a right to 'bear arms for the
defense of themselves and the state,' the new Jacksonian
constitutional formulation of this right asserted that 'each person
has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.' Indeed,
the shift in language between the Founding Era and the Jacksonian
period itself provides one of the best arguments against reading the
earlier languague as advancing an individual right. There would have
been little need to adopt the new formulation if the old one were
widely understood to protect an individual right." (Cornell, St.
George Tucker and the Second Amendment at pp. 1140-41)
Unfortunately for anti-individual rights advocates the historical
record refutes "one of the best arguments:"
Pennsylvania kept that same clause in a 1790 revision as follows:
"That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves
and the state shall not be questioned." James Wilson, president of the
convention which adopted that provision, a leading Federalist, and
later Supreme Court Justice, explained it in a discussion of homicide
"when it is necessary for the defence of one's person or house." He
continued:
it is the great natural law of self preservation, which, as we
have seen, cannot be repealed, or superseded, or suspended by any
human institution. This law, however, is expressly recognised in the
constitution of Pennsylvania. "The right of the citizens to bear arms
in the defence of themselves shall not be questioned." This is one of
our many renewals of the Saxon regulations. "They were bound," says
Mr. Selden, "to keep arms for the preservation of the kingdom, and of
their own persons." [Web source of Wilson quote]
(Stephen Halbrook, St. George Tucker's Second Amendment at p. 18)
For further refutation of the notion that "in defense of themselves"
was referring to a collective right or one that was entirely military
see Randy Barnett, Was the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Conditioned on
Service in an Organized Militia? at pp. 22-3.
Again looking at Virginia's proposed declaration of rights, from the
preamble:
"That there be a Declaration or Bill of Rights asserting and
securing from encroachment the essential and unalienable Rights of the
People in some such manner as the following;"
Article Sixteen:
"That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing
and publishing their Sentiments; but the freedom of the press is one
of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and ought not to be violated."
Article Sixteen enumerates rights that clearly can be exercised
indvidually.
Roger Sherman's draft bill of rights clearly refers to individual
rights when referring to the rights of the people (article 2 [at
983]), (Sherman was a Founder, Senator, and lawyer):
"The people have certain natural rights which are retained by them
when they enter into Society, such are the rights of Conscience in
matters of religion; of acquiring property and of pursuing happiness &
Safety; of Speaking, writing and publishing their Sentiments with
decency and freedom; of peaceably assembling to consult their common
good, and of applying Government by petition or remonstrance for
redress of grievances. Of these rights therefore they Shall not be
deprived by the Government of the united states."
From the Articles of Confederation:
"The people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and
from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of
trade and commerce..."
Hopefully the reader does not interpret the above as referring to a
collective right to travel.
Yet, Yale law professor Akhil Amar claims, "when the Constitution
speaks of 'the people' rather than 'persons,' the collective
connotation is primary" (Second Thoughts: What the right to bear arms
really means). Amar's theory unravels when looking at all of the
evidence. He tries to reconcile a portion of it writing, "The Fourth
Amendment is trickier... And these words obviously focus on the
private domain, protecting individuals in their private homes more
than in the public square. Why, then, did the Fourth use the words
'the people' at all? Probably to highlight the role that
jurors--acting collectively and representing the electorate--would
play in deciding which searches were reasonable and how much to punish
government officials who searched or seized improperly."
Amar's reasoning might sound plausible in today's context, however he
fails to provide an appropriate example. In 1789 jurors did not issue
warrants or determine whether a search was reasonable and they could
not "punish government officials who searched or seized improperly."
There was no method of suing the government in 1789 for damages
resulting from the violation of civil rights. Also Amar fails to
explain Madison's draft amendment protecting the people's right to
speak and write, mentioned above.
Regardless of what the duties and responsibilities of juries were in
1789, Amar apparently does not realize that in the Constitution,
person, without further qualification, refers to a wider class of
individuals than the people.
Some individual rights were protected for collective purposes, the
Second Amendment being one of them. However this doesn't transform the
individual right into a collective right belonging to the states or
the militia. Keeping arms was a right that could be exercised
individually or collectively.
Compare Amar's opinion with that of Harvard law professor Laurence
Tribe's:
[The Second Amendment's] central purpose is to arm "We the People"
so that ordinary citizens can participate in the collective defense of
their community and their state. But it does so not through directly
protecting a right on the part of states or other collectivities,
assertable by them against the federal government, to arm the populace
as they see fit. Rather the amendment achieves its central purpose by
assuring that the federal government may not disarm individual
citizens without some unusually strong justification consistent with
the authority of the states to organize their own militias. That
assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right (admittedly
of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use
firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes--not a right to
hunt for game, quite clearly, and certainly not a right to employ
firearms to commit aggressive acts against other persons--a right that
directly limits action by Congress or by the Executive Branch and may
well, in addition, be among the privileges or immunities of United
States citizens protected by ? 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment against
state or local government action.
(Laurence H. Tribe, 1 American Constitutional Law 902 n.221 [3d
ed. 2000] [emphasis added]. [Online references here and here.])
Even this anti-individual right law journal article finds, "As to the
broader context of usage within the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights, those documents use "the people" in both senses: sometimes
collectively, sometimes individually." (Also see note 5 for further
discussion, concluding, "In short, contrary to claims often made on
both sides of the debate, the Second Amendment's reference to 'the
people' does not, simply as a textual matter, commit us to either an
individual or a collective right interpretation of the Amendment.")
Lastly, even the Supreme Court agrees on the meaning of "the people"
as used in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
"The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are
synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the
political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the
sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through
their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign
people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent
member of this sovereignty. The question before us is, whether the
class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion
of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We
think they are not, and that they are not included..." (Dred Scott v.
Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 [1856])
And the dissent agrees:
"If we look into the Constitutions and State papers of that
period, we find the inhabitants or people of these colonies, or the
inhabitants of this State, or Commonwealth, employed to designate
those whom we should now denominate citizens."
In Adamson v. California, 1947) the Supreme Court refers to the Bill
of Rights as protecting individual rights:
"The reasoning that leads to those conclusions starts with the
unquestioned premise that the Bill of Rights, when adopted, was for
the protection of the individual against the federal government..."
And again the dissent agrees:
"The first 10 amendments were proposed and adopted largely because
of fear that Government might unduly interfere with prized individual
liberties."
More recently the Supreme Court comments on what "the people" may mean
today and its distinction from "person:"
'[T]he people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select
parts of the Constitution... While this textual exegesis is by no
means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the
Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom
rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments,
refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or
who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country
to be considered part of that community... (Excludable alien is not
entitled to First Amendment rights, because "[h]e does not become one
of the people to whom these things are secured by our Constitution by
an attempt to enter forbidden by law"). The language of these
Amendments contrasts with the words 'person' and 'accused' used in the
Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating procedure in criminal cases."
(U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 [1990])
>
>
>>>
>>>> It provides a
>>>> context as to what is expected of the armed citizen, [remaining foam washed away]
>>>
>>> No, it does not. *NO* recognition of a right ever does. If it is truly
>>> a right, there is *no* corresponding responsibility.
>>
>> Sure there is. Have you never read the Constitution and the Bill of
>> Rights?
>
>No mention of any responsibilities of any rights holder in either one.
>
>You haven't read them.
Which means..what exactly? I dont have a clue as what you are trying
to do with that "responsiblity " thingy.
So tell us all what "responsiblity" is required with the 1st
Amendment?
We will all be waiting with amused interest.
Gunner, pondering McDonald et al "individual right" visa vis the
Supreme Courts recent findings....
--
"You guess the truth hurts?
Gunner Asch
May 12, 2013, 4:48:01 PM5/12/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013 13:00:31 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
<VBG>
Enjoy your surprise..for the moments after it happens.. you can savor
it.
Everyone else certainly will.
Enjoy your surprise..for the moments after it happens.. you can savor
it.
Everyone else certainly will.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Max Boot
May 12, 2013, 9:27:38 PM5/12/13
to
and are charged with a crime, you enjoy the right to an attorney and not
to incriminate yourself, even though you are a law breaker.
No responsibility attaches to the right to free speech and free exercise
of religion. No responsibility attaches to *any* right.
> Which means..what exactly?
Ask your buddy. He's the one who brought it up.
> So tell us all what "responsiblity" is required with the 1st
> Amendment?
Max Boot
May 12, 2013, 9:28:14 PM5/12/13
to
Max Boot
May 12, 2013, 9:29:32 PM5/12/13
to
>>
>> In fact, most but not all references to "the people" in the Constitution
>> and the Bill of Rights refer to the people as a collective body. I'm
>> sure you're quite unaware that the expression "the people" occurs only
>> twice in the Constitution outside the Bill of Rights: in the Preamble,
>> and in Article I Section 2. In the Bill of Rights, it appears in five
>> of the 10 amendments: the first, second, fourth, ninth and tenth. In
>> all but the fourth, it clearly is referring to the people as a
>> collective. Only in the fourth does the context only permit it to be
>> referring to people as individual persons.
>
> And the Second of course.
>> In any case, the expression is not limited only to citizens, as non
>> citizens are clearly covered in many of the provisions.
>
> Yes it does.
Gunner Asch
May 12, 2013, 11:54:15 PM5/12/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013 18:27:38 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
Really? Cites!!
enough.
We will be waiting
Gunner
>
>
>
>> Which means..what exactly?
>
>Ask your buddy. He's the one who brought it up.
>
>
>> So tell us all what "responsiblity" is required with the 1st
>> Amendment?
>
>None.
Define "responsiblity" if you would be so .....well..if you are smart
>
>
>> Which means..what exactly?
>
>Ask your buddy. He's the one who brought it up.
>
>
>> So tell us all what "responsiblity" is required with the 1st
>> Amendment?
>
>None.
enough.
We will be waiting
Gunner
Gunner Asch
May 12, 2013, 11:54:37 PM5/12/13
to
Gunner Asch
May 12, 2013, 11:55:17 PM5/12/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013 18:29:32 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
Cites!!
--
>
>
>
>>>
>>> In fact, most but not all references to "the people" in the Constitution
>>> and the Bill of Rights refer to the people as a collective body. I'm
>>> sure you're quite unaware that the expression "the people" occurs only
>>> twice in the Constitution outside the Bill of Rights: in the Preamble,
>>> and in Article I Section 2. In the Bill of Rights, it appears in five
>>> of the 10 amendments: the first, second, fourth, ninth and tenth. In
>>> all but the fourth, it clearly is referring to the people as a
>>> collective. Only in the fourth does the context only permit it to be
>>> referring to people as individual persons.
>>
>> And the Second of course.
>
>Likely, but not obviously from the wording of the amendment.
Cites!!
>
>
>>>
>>> In fact, most but not all references to "the people" in the Constitution
>>> and the Bill of Rights refer to the people as a collective body. I'm
>>> sure you're quite unaware that the expression "the people" occurs only
>>> twice in the Constitution outside the Bill of Rights: in the Preamble,
>>> and in Article I Section 2. In the Bill of Rights, it appears in five
>>> of the 10 amendments: the first, second, fourth, ninth and tenth. In
>>> all but the fourth, it clearly is referring to the people as a
>>> collective. Only in the fourth does the context only permit it to be
>>> referring to people as individual persons.
>>
>> And the Second of course.
>
>Likely, but not obviously from the wording of the amendment.
>
>
>>> In any case, the expression is not limited only to citizens, as non
>>> citizens are clearly covered in many of the provisions.
>>
>> Yes it does.
>
>No, it does not.
Cites!!
>
>>> In any case, the expression is not limited only to citizens, as non
>>> citizens are clearly covered in many of the provisions.
>>
>> Yes it does.
>
>No, it does not.
--
"You guess the truth hurts?
Max Boot
May 13, 2013, 10:35:58 AM5/13/13
to
On 5/12/2013 8:54 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 18:27:38 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/12/2013 1:46 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 13:00:00 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So the "people" mentioned in the rest of the Constitution..is somehow
>>>>> different than the "people" mentioned in the 2nd Ammendment?
>>>>
>>>> Define "the people." Provide several citations to support your
>>>> definition. Don't lollygag - get to it now.
>>>
>>> The People
>>>
[snip massive copypasta of stuff gummer has never read]
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 18:27:38 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/12/2013 1:46 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 13:00:00 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So the "people" mentioned in the rest of the Constitution..is somehow
>>>>> different than the "people" mentioned in the 2nd Ammendment?
>>>>
>>>> Define "the people." Provide several citations to support your
>>>> definition. Don't lollygag - get to it now.
>>>
>>> The People
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It provides a
>>>>>>> context as to what is expected of the armed citizen, [remaining foam washed away]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it does not. *NO* recognition of a right ever does. If it is truly
>>>>>> a right, there is *no* corresponding responsibility.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure there is. Have you never read the Constitution and the Bill of
>>>>> Rights?
>>>>
>>>> No mention of any responsibilities of any rights holder in either one.
>>>>
>>>> You haven't read them.
>>>
>>> You mean law abiding isnt a responsibility?
>>
>> It's not connected with the holding of rights. When you break the law
>> and are charged with a crime, you enjoy the right to an attorney and not
>> to incriminate yourself, even though you are a law breaker.
>>
>> No responsibility attaches to the right to free speech and free exercise
>> of religion. No responsibility attaches to *any* right.
>
> Really?
meet some condition, then it's not a right - it's a privilege or a contract.
>>
>>
>>> Which means..what exactly?
>>
>> Ask your buddy. He's the one who brought it up.
>>
>>
>>> So tell us all what "responsiblity" is required with the 1st
>>> Amendment?
>>
>> None.
>
> Define "responsiblity" if you would be so
entail responsibilities.
Max Boot
May 13, 2013, 10:38:34 AM5/13/13
to
are needed or even have any meaning.
No, there will be no unpleasant "surprise" for me as a result of having
abused you and your fellow right-wing terrorists here - none at all.
Neither you nor anyone you know has the means to inflict such a
"surprise". And no "cites" are needed for that - it's basic facts and
logic.
Max Boot
May 13, 2013, 10:39:26 AM5/13/13
to
>>>>
>>>> In fact, most but not all references to "the people" in the Constitution
>>>> and the Bill of Rights refer to the people as a collective body. I'm
>>>> sure you're quite unaware that the expression "the people" occurs only
>>>> twice in the Constitution outside the Bill of Rights: in the Preamble,
>>>> and in Article I Section 2. In the Bill of Rights, it appears in five
>>>> of the 10 amendments: the first, second, fourth, ninth and tenth. In
>>>> all but the fourth, it clearly is referring to the people as a
>>>> collective. Only in the fourth does the context only permit it to be
>>>> referring to people as individual persons.
>>>
>>> And the Second of course.
>>
>> Likely, but not obviously from the wording of the amendment.
>
> Cites!!
>>
>>>> In any case, the expression is not limited only to citizens, as non
>>>> citizens are clearly covered in many of the provisions.
>>>
>>> Yes it does.
>>
>> No, it does not.
>
>
> Cites!!
Ed Huntress
May 13, 2013, 12:32:10 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 07:35:58 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
FWIW, we've wrongly consecrated the word "right" in a way that neither
the Founders nor anyone else at the time ever intended.
It means, simply, "that which is morally correct or justifiable." It
doesn't say what makes it morally correct or justifiable, and even
those terms were not absolutes, either. The Founders had some ideas of
"rights" that would make us do backflips.
What you're referring to is based on the "Natural Rights" that Locke
proposed as a logical set of conditions inherent in the life and
purposes of man, and the "civil rights" necessary for governance with
liberty. He included a right to property among the Natural Rights.
Jefferson rejected a right to property, which he changed to "the
pursuit of happiness." They were what Jefferson often called
"inherent" rights; sometimes "unalienable" rights -- the Natural
Rights of the Enlightenment. But the list was very short: life,
liberty, and that third one, take your pick.
In logical terms, they were just an argument from authority
(argumentum ad auctoritatem) -- from Nature, or Nature's God, or God's
Nature, or man's Creator -- a logical fallacy, but one which had the
effect of shutting down further arguments, as argument from authority
is always intended to do.
Where we get into arguments is, first, in sanctifying the word
"rights" itself. Doing that is a kind of word magic.
Second, we confuse civil rights, which are rights necessary to
function in a civil society, such as equal treatment under the law and
a right to vote, if the society is based on representative democracy
as ours is.
Third -- and this is the big one -- we argue about the derivative
"rights" necessary to fulfill the Natural Rights. Our Second Amendment
is one of those. So is the First, and almost all of the rest of the
Bill of Rights. Again, these are NOT the "Natural Rights." They are
derivative rights. Reasonable people can disagree about many of these
because they sometimes involve an infringement of one person's right
by another. The same is true, of course, of some of the civil rights.
If one were to make a list of the things to be careful about when
arguing about "rights," my list would be these things:
1) Rights are just the "right" half of "right and wrong": the most
basic idea of what is moral.
2) "Natural rights" are a philosophical idea that derives from the
Enlightenment, and scarcely existed before that time.
3) Civil rights are those rights necessary to the functioning of a
civil, liberal society -- a society based on the Natual Rights of man.
4) No rights, not even the "Natural Rights," were ever thought to be
absolute, most particularly by the Founders:
Madison:
"Supposing a bill of rights to be proper the articles which ought to
compose it, admit of much discussion. I am inclined to think that
absolute restrictions in cases that are doubtful, or where emergencies
may overrule them, ought to be avoided." -- James Madison to Thomas
Jefferson 17 Oct. 1788
Jefferson::
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within
limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." --Thomas
Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819.
"All natural rights may be abridged or modified in their exercise by
law." --Thomas Jefferson: Official Opinion, 1790.
"Laws abridging the natural right of the citizen should be restrained
by rigorous constructions within their narrowest limits." --Thomas
Jefferson to I. McPherson, 1813.
Rights are not, and never were, absolute. As for responsibility, that
comes from our responsibilities to each other in a civil society.
Jefferson and all of the later Enlightenment philosophers believed
that another thing inherent in man's nature is the formation of
societies and governments. Jefferson often talked about how the
Cherokee nation represented the transition of a primitive society from
one based on liberty and individual conflict, to the natural
development of an ordered society with a system of government. To make
such societies work, within the context of individual, Natural Rights,
requires responsible, individual action to fulfill the needs of the
society. Responsibility thus derives from our desire to form
societies.
I sure hope I didn't just confuse the issue. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
the Founders nor anyone else at the time ever intended.
It means, simply, "that which is morally correct or justifiable." It
doesn't say what makes it morally correct or justifiable, and even
those terms were not absolutes, either. The Founders had some ideas of
"rights" that would make us do backflips.
What you're referring to is based on the "Natural Rights" that Locke
proposed as a logical set of conditions inherent in the life and
purposes of man, and the "civil rights" necessary for governance with
liberty. He included a right to property among the Natural Rights.
Jefferson rejected a right to property, which he changed to "the
pursuit of happiness." They were what Jefferson often called
"inherent" rights; sometimes "unalienable" rights -- the Natural
Rights of the Enlightenment. But the list was very short: life,
liberty, and that third one, take your pick.
In logical terms, they were just an argument from authority
(argumentum ad auctoritatem) -- from Nature, or Nature's God, or God's
Nature, or man's Creator -- a logical fallacy, but one which had the
effect of shutting down further arguments, as argument from authority
is always intended to do.
Where we get into arguments is, first, in sanctifying the word
"rights" itself. Doing that is a kind of word magic.
Second, we confuse civil rights, which are rights necessary to
function in a civil society, such as equal treatment under the law and
a right to vote, if the society is based on representative democracy
as ours is.
Third -- and this is the big one -- we argue about the derivative
"rights" necessary to fulfill the Natural Rights. Our Second Amendment
is one of those. So is the First, and almost all of the rest of the
Bill of Rights. Again, these are NOT the "Natural Rights." They are
derivative rights. Reasonable people can disagree about many of these
because they sometimes involve an infringement of one person's right
by another. The same is true, of course, of some of the civil rights.
If one were to make a list of the things to be careful about when
arguing about "rights," my list would be these things:
1) Rights are just the "right" half of "right and wrong": the most
basic idea of what is moral.
2) "Natural rights" are a philosophical idea that derives from the
Enlightenment, and scarcely existed before that time.
3) Civil rights are those rights necessary to the functioning of a
civil, liberal society -- a society based on the Natual Rights of man.
4) No rights, not even the "Natural Rights," were ever thought to be
absolute, most particularly by the Founders:
Madison:
"Supposing a bill of rights to be proper the articles which ought to
compose it, admit of much discussion. I am inclined to think that
absolute restrictions in cases that are doubtful, or where emergencies
may overrule them, ought to be avoided." -- James Madison to Thomas
Jefferson 17 Oct. 1788
Jefferson::
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within
limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." --Thomas
Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819.
"All natural rights may be abridged or modified in their exercise by
law." --Thomas Jefferson: Official Opinion, 1790.
"Laws abridging the natural right of the citizen should be restrained
by rigorous constructions within their narrowest limits." --Thomas
Jefferson to I. McPherson, 1813.
Rights are not, and never were, absolute. As for responsibility, that
comes from our responsibilities to each other in a civil society.
Jefferson and all of the later Enlightenment philosophers believed
that another thing inherent in man's nature is the formation of
societies and governments. Jefferson often talked about how the
Cherokee nation represented the transition of a primitive society from
one based on liberty and individual conflict, to the natural
development of an ordered society with a system of government. To make
such societies work, within the context of individual, Natural Rights,
requires responsible, individual action to fulfill the needs of the
society. Responsibility thus derives from our desire to form
societies.
I sure hope I didn't just confuse the issue. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
Max Boot
May 13, 2013, 1:12:55 PM5/13/13
to
> They were what Jefferson often called
> "inherent" rights; sometimes "unalienable" rights -- the Natural
> Rights of the Enlightenment. But the list was very short: life,
> liberty, and that third one, take your pick.
>
> In logical terms, they were just an argument from authority
> (argumentum ad auctoritatem)
certain axioms about human nature - that nearly everyone accepts - and
deduced implications that lead to rights.
> -- from Nature, or Nature's God, or God's
> Nature, or man's Creator -- a logical fallacy, but one which had the
> effect of shutting down further arguments, as argument from authority
> is always intended to do.
fallacy like appeal to authority.
> Where we get into arguments is, first, in sanctifying the word
> "rights" itself. Doing that is a kind of word magic.
>
> Second, we confuse civil rights, which are rights necessary to
> function in a civil society, such as equal treatment under the law and
> a right to vote, if the society is based on representative democracy
> as ours is.
>
> Third -- and this is the big one -- we argue about the derivative
> "rights" necessary to fulfill the Natural Rights. Our Second Amendment
> is one of those. So is the First, and almost all of the rest of the
> Bill of Rights. Again, these are NOT the "Natural Rights." They are
> derivative rights. Reasonable people can disagree about many of these
> because they sometimes involve an infringement of one person's right
> by another. The same is true, of course, of some of the civil rights.
order derivative of the three mentioned natural rights to life, liberty
and property. None of the other rights addressed in the Bill of Rights
is based on a natural right - all are civil rights that only have
meaning in the context of an organized civil society. One holds a right
to self defense against other persons as well as against the state; a
right to free speech and exercise of religion, a right against self
incrimination, and right of representation and to a jury in trials - all
these only make sense in civil society.
Ed Huntress
May 13, 2013, 2:04:54 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 10:12:55 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
We'll include your opinion as a footnote in the next printing of the
Declaration of Independence. <g>
>
>
>> They were what Jefferson often called
>> "inherent" rights; sometimes "unalienable" rights -- the Natural
>> Rights of the Enlightenment. But the list was very short: life,
>> liberty, and that third one, take your pick.
>>
>> In logical terms, they were just an argument from authority
>> (argumentum ad auctoritatem)
>
>No, there was no appeal to/from authority in it at all. Locke posited
>certain axioms about human nature - that nearly everyone accepts - and
>deduced implications that lead to rights.
First, I was talking about Jefferson's basis -- the endowment by our
Creator.
Locke's position on the origin of Natural Law was ambiguous and often
contradictory. Scholars still argue about it today. For example, in
"Essays on the Law of Nature ," Locke says our moral decisions must be
made in obeyance of the will of our creator. In other places, he says
that the laws of nature can be derived through reason.
You're tapping a part of my memory that has lain fallow for over 40
years, but I do recall that this is a fundamental debate about Locke
and his predecessors on the natural-law question, and it's known as
the �voluntarist-rationalist� debate.
>
>
>> -- from Nature, or Nature's God, or God's
>> Nature, or man's Creator -- a logical fallacy, but one which had the
>> effect of shutting down further arguments, as argument from authority
>> is always intended to do.
>
>There was nothing fallacious about it - certainly not any informal
>fallacy like appeal to authority.
The entire argument, once it involves God, a Creator, or some
spiritual aspect of nature, is an appeal to authority.
You can also appeal to observations of the state of nature, as Locke
often did. That's another type of delusion.
>
>
>> Where we get into arguments is, first, in sanctifying the word
>> "rights" itself. Doing that is a kind of word magic.
>>
>> Second, we confuse civil rights, which are rights necessary to
>> function in a civil society, such as equal treatment under the law and
>> a right to vote, if the society is based on representative democracy
>> as ours is.
>>
>> Third -- and this is the big one -- we argue about the derivative
>> "rights" necessary to fulfill the Natural Rights. Our Second Amendment
>> is one of those. So is the First, and almost all of the rest of the
>> Bill of Rights. Again, these are NOT the "Natural Rights." They are
>> derivative rights. Reasonable people can disagree about many of these
>> because they sometimes involve an infringement of one person's right
>> by another. The same is true, of course, of some of the civil rights.
>
>The second amendment concerns a right to self defense that is a first
>order derivative of the three mentioned natural rights to life, liberty
>and property.
Yes. A derivative.
> None of the other rights addressed in the Bill of Rights
>is based on a natural right - all are civil rights that only have
>meaning in the context of an organized civil society.
The free exercise of religion is derived from the right to liberty.
The Fourth and Fifth both about about liberty. The context and purpose
is the right to liberty, not the needs of organized society. In fact,
they both *limit* society's authority.
The Ninth and Tenth both protect derivative rights retained by the
people.
> One holds a right
>to self defense against other persons as well as against the state; a
>right to free speech and exercise of religion, a right against self
>incrimination, and right of representation and to a jury in trials - all
>these only make sense in civil society.
And their purpose only makes sense in relation to the Natural Rights.
Another round? <g>
--
Ed Huntress
Declaration of Independence. <g>
>
>
>> They were what Jefferson often called
>> "inherent" rights; sometimes "unalienable" rights -- the Natural
>> Rights of the Enlightenment. But the list was very short: life,
>> liberty, and that third one, take your pick.
>>
>> In logical terms, they were just an argument from authority
>> (argumentum ad auctoritatem)
>
>No, there was no appeal to/from authority in it at all. Locke posited
>certain axioms about human nature - that nearly everyone accepts - and
>deduced implications that lead to rights.
Creator.
Locke's position on the origin of Natural Law was ambiguous and often
contradictory. Scholars still argue about it today. For example, in
"Essays on the Law of Nature ," Locke says our moral decisions must be
made in obeyance of the will of our creator. In other places, he says
that the laws of nature can be derived through reason.
You're tapping a part of my memory that has lain fallow for over 40
years, but I do recall that this is a fundamental debate about Locke
and his predecessors on the natural-law question, and it's known as
the �voluntarist-rationalist� debate.
>
>
>> -- from Nature, or Nature's God, or God's
>> Nature, or man's Creator -- a logical fallacy, but one which had the
>> effect of shutting down further arguments, as argument from authority
>> is always intended to do.
>
>There was nothing fallacious about it - certainly not any informal
>fallacy like appeal to authority.
spiritual aspect of nature, is an appeal to authority.
You can also appeal to observations of the state of nature, as Locke
often did. That's another type of delusion.
>
>
>> Where we get into arguments is, first, in sanctifying the word
>> "rights" itself. Doing that is a kind of word magic.
>>
>> Second, we confuse civil rights, which are rights necessary to
>> function in a civil society, such as equal treatment under the law and
>> a right to vote, if the society is based on representative democracy
>> as ours is.
>>
>> Third -- and this is the big one -- we argue about the derivative
>> "rights" necessary to fulfill the Natural Rights. Our Second Amendment
>> is one of those. So is the First, and almost all of the rest of the
>> Bill of Rights. Again, these are NOT the "Natural Rights." They are
>> derivative rights. Reasonable people can disagree about many of these
>> because they sometimes involve an infringement of one person's right
>> by another. The same is true, of course, of some of the civil rights.
>
>The second amendment concerns a right to self defense that is a first
>order derivative of the three mentioned natural rights to life, liberty
>and property.
> None of the other rights addressed in the Bill of Rights
>is based on a natural right - all are civil rights that only have
>meaning in the context of an organized civil society.
The Fourth and Fifth both about about liberty. The context and purpose
is the right to liberty, not the needs of organized society. In fact,
they both *limit* society's authority.
The Ninth and Tenth both protect derivative rights retained by the
people.
> One holds a right
>to self defense against other persons as well as against the state; a
>right to free speech and exercise of religion, a right against self
>incrimination, and right of representation and to a jury in trials - all
>these only make sense in civil society.
Another round? <g>
--
Ed Huntress
Gunner Asch
May 13, 2013, 6:09:36 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 07:35:58 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
wrote:
>>
wrote:
>>
>> Define "responsiblity" if you would be so
>
>Why don't you? You're the one who wrongly and stupidly insists rights
>entail responsibilities.
Still waiting
>
>Why don't you? You're the one who wrongly and stupidly insists rights
>entail responsibilities.
Gunner Asch
May 13, 2013, 6:10:10 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 07:38:34 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
wrote:
>>>
Thanks!!
wrote:
>>>
>>> There isn't going to be one. You know it, too.
>>
>> Cites?
>
>"Cites" - ha ha ha ha ha! It's not the kind of thing for which "cites"
>are needed or even have any meaning.
So you are unable to back up your claim.
>>
>> Cites?
>
>"Cites" - ha ha ha ha ha! It's not the kind of thing for which "cites"
>are needed or even have any meaning.
Thanks!!
Gunner Asch
May 13, 2013, 6:10:52 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 07:39:26 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
wrote:
>>>
--
wrote:
>>>
>>> No, it didn't.
>>
>> Cites!!
>
>You're funny when you squeak "cites".
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact, most but not all references to "the people" in the Constitution
>>>>> and the Bill of Rights refer to the people as a collective body. I'm
>>>>> sure you're quite unaware that the expression "the people" occurs only
>>>>> twice in the Constitution outside the Bill of Rights: in the Preamble,
>>>>> and in Article I Section 2. In the Bill of Rights, it appears in five
>>>>> of the 10 amendments: the first, second, fourth, ninth and tenth. In
>>>>> all but the fourth, it clearly is referring to the people as a
>>>>> collective. Only in the fourth does the context only permit it to be
>>>>> referring to people as individual persons.
>>>>
>>>> And the Second of course.
>>>
>>> Likely, but not obviously from the wording of the amendment.
>>
>> Cites!!
>
>Funnier.
>
>
>>>
>>>>> In any case, the expression is not limited only to citizens, as non
>>>>> citizens are clearly covered in many of the provisions.
>>>>
>>>> Yes it does.
>>>
>>> No, it does not.
>>
>>
>> Cites!!
>
>ROFLMAO funny.
Your continued inablity to back up your claims is funny as hell.
>>
>> Cites!!
>
>You're funny when you squeak "cites".
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact, most but not all references to "the people" in the Constitution
>>>>> and the Bill of Rights refer to the people as a collective body. I'm
>>>>> sure you're quite unaware that the expression "the people" occurs only
>>>>> twice in the Constitution outside the Bill of Rights: in the Preamble,
>>>>> and in Article I Section 2. In the Bill of Rights, it appears in five
>>>>> of the 10 amendments: the first, second, fourth, ninth and tenth. In
>>>>> all but the fourth, it clearly is referring to the people as a
>>>>> collective. Only in the fourth does the context only permit it to be
>>>>> referring to people as individual persons.
>>>>
>>>> And the Second of course.
>>>
>>> Likely, but not obviously from the wording of the amendment.
>>
>> Cites!!
>
>Funnier.
>
>
>>>
>>>>> In any case, the expression is not limited only to citizens, as non
>>>>> citizens are clearly covered in many of the provisions.
>>>>
>>>> Yes it does.
>>>
>>> No, it does not.
>>
>>
>> Cites!!
>
>ROFLMAO funny.
--
"You guess the truth hurts?
Scout
May 13, 2013, 6:10:40 PM5/13/13
to
"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
news:c6a40$518edd65$414e828e$23...@EVERESTKC.NET...
> On 5/11/2013 4:11 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Max Boot" <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in message
>> news:b9516$518ec58c$414e828e$13...@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>> Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment
>>> is clearly within the scope of the amendment. Mr. Justice Scalia in
>>> the Heller decision:
>>>
>>> There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
>>> history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
>>> to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
>>> just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
>>> e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
>>> do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
>>> to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
>>> read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
>>> speak for any purpose.
>>> [...]
>>> Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
>>> *not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
>>> commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
>>> not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
>>> manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
>>> [emphasis added]
>>>
>>>
>>> You may think the right *ought* to be unlimited, but as a matter of
>>> text, history and interpretation, it is not. That is simply a fact,
>>> and crazed far-right gun crackpots are going to have to accommodate
>>> themselves to that fact.
>>
>> <yawn>
>>
>> Who exactly has said otherwise?
>
> You do by implication.
Like I said, your delusions.
Gunner Asch
May 13, 2013, 6:11:28 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 10:12:55 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
wrote:
>>
wrote:
>>
>> What you're referring to is based on the "Natural Rights" that Locke
>> proposed as a logical set of conditions inherent in the life and
>> purposes of man, and the "civil rights" necessary for governance with
>> liberty. He included a right to property among the Natural Rights.
>> Jefferson rejected a right to property, which he changed to "the
>> pursuit of happiness."
>
>Jefferson got that wrong.
>
Take it up with Jefferson.
>> proposed as a logical set of conditions inherent in the life and
>> purposes of man, and the "civil rights" necessary for governance with
>> liberty. He included a right to property among the Natural Rights.
>> Jefferson rejected a right to property, which he changed to "the
>> pursuit of happiness."
>
>Jefferson got that wrong.
>
Max Boot
May 13, 2013, 6:20:10 PM5/13/13
to
On 5/13/2013 3:09 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 07:35:58 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Define "responsiblity" if you would be so
>>
>> Why don't you? You're the one who wrongly and stupidly insists rights
>> entail responsibilities.
>
> Still waiting
Yes, we are, but since you never back anything up, the wait will be
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 07:35:58 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Define "responsiblity" if you would be so
>>
>> Why don't you? You're the one who wrongly and stupidly insists rights
>> entail responsibilities.
>
> Still waiting
fruitless.
Max Boot
May 13, 2013, 6:21:13 PM5/13/13
to
On 5/13/2013 3:10 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 07:38:34 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> There isn't going to be one. You know it, too.
>>>
>>> Cites?
>>
>> "Cites" - ha ha ha ha ha! It's not the kind of thing for which "cites"
>> are needed or even have any meaning.
>
> So you are unable to back up your claim.
It's fully backed up. There will be no unpleasant "surprise" that you
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 07:38:34 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> There isn't going to be one. You know it, too.
>>>
>>> Cites?
>>
>> "Cites" - ha ha ha ha ha! It's not the kind of thing for which "cites"
>> are needed or even have any meaning.
>
> So you are unable to back up your claim.
initiate. We all know this.
Max Boot
May 13, 2013, 6:22:12 PM5/13/13
to
On 5/13/2013 3:10 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
with you.
Max Boot
May 13, 2013, 6:22:57 PM5/13/13
to
On 5/13/2013 3:11 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 10:12:55 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> What you're referring to is based on the "Natural Rights" that Locke
>>> proposed as a logical set of conditions inherent in the life and
>>> purposes of man, and the "civil rights" necessary for governance with
>>> liberty. He included a right to property among the Natural Rights.
>>> Jefferson rejected a right to property, which he changed to "the
>>> pursuit of happiness."
>>
>> Jefferson got that wrong.
>>
> Take it up with Jefferson.
What people actually have a right to is property.
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 10:12:55 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> What you're referring to is based on the "Natural Rights" that Locke
>>> proposed as a logical set of conditions inherent in the life and
>>> purposes of man, and the "civil rights" necessary for governance with
>>> liberty. He included a right to property among the Natural Rights.
>>> Jefferson rejected a right to property, which he changed to "the
>>> pursuit of happiness."
>>
>> Jefferson got that wrong.
>>
> Take it up with Jefferson.
Gunner Asch
May 13, 2013, 7:09:30 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 15:21:13 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
wrote:
>On 5/13/2013 3:10 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 07:38:34 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There isn't going to be one. You know it, too.
>>>>
>>>> Cites?
>>>
>>> "Cites" - ha ha ha ha ha! It's not the kind of thing for which "cites"
>>> are needed or even have any meaning.
>>
>> So you are unable to back up your claim.
>
>It's fully backed up. There will be no unpleasant "surprise" that you
>initiate. We all know this.
Still waiting
>On 5/13/2013 3:10 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 07:38:34 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There isn't going to be one. You know it, too.
>>>>
>>>> Cites?
>>>
>>> "Cites" - ha ha ha ha ha! It's not the kind of thing for which "cites"
>>> are needed or even have any meaning.
>>
>> So you are unable to back up your claim.
>
>It's fully backed up. There will be no unpleasant "surprise" that you
>initiate. We all know this.
Gunner Asch
May 13, 2013, 7:10:42 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 15:22:12 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
"We"? The rat in your pocket or the voices in your head?
Still waiting. If you continue to refuse to supply cites..into the
old bit bucket you go.
Gunner
Still waiting. If you continue to refuse to supply cites..into the
old bit bucket you go.
Gunner
Gunner Asch
May 13, 2013, 7:11:51 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 15:20:10 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
is becoming boring..so off to the bozo bin you go.
<plink>
Gunner
wrote:
>On 5/13/2013 3:09 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 07:35:58 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Define "responsiblity" if you would be so
>>>
>>> Why don't you? You're the one who wrongly and stupidly insists rights
>>> entail responsibilities.
>>
>> Still waiting
>
>Yes, we are, but since you never back anything up, the wait will be
>fruitless.
Sorry...wrong answer. Continuing to bat you around like a bit of lint
>On 5/13/2013 3:09 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 07:35:58 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Define "responsiblity" if you would be so
>>>
>>> Why don't you? You're the one who wrongly and stupidly insists rights
>>> entail responsibilities.
>>
>> Still waiting
>
>Yes, we are, but since you never back anything up, the wait will be
>fruitless.
is becoming boring..so off to the bozo bin you go.
<plink>
Gunner
Max Boot
May 13, 2013, 7:32:41 PM5/13/13
to
On 5/13/2013 4:09 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 15:21:13 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/13/2013 3:10 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 07:38:34 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There isn't going to be one. You know it, too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cites?
>>>>
>>>> "Cites" - ha ha ha ha ha! It's not the kind of thing for which "cites"
>>>> are needed or even have any meaning.
>>>
>>> So you are unable to back up your claim.
>>
>> It's fully backed up. There will be no unpleasant "surprise" that you
>> initiate. We all know this.
>
> Still waiting
No surprises - fully documented.
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 15:21:13 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/13/2013 3:10 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 07:38:34 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There isn't going to be one. You know it, too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cites?
>>>>
>>>> "Cites" - ha ha ha ha ha! It's not the kind of thing for which "cites"
>>>> are needed or even have any meaning.
>>>
>>> So you are unable to back up your claim.
>>
>> It's fully backed up. There will be no unpleasant "surprise" that you
>> initiate. We all know this.
>
> Still waiting
Max Boot
May 13, 2013, 7:33:59 PM5/13/13
to
Max Boot
May 13, 2013, 7:34:42 PM5/13/13
to
On 5/13/2013 4:11 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 15:20:10 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/13/2013 3:09 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 07:35:58 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Define "responsiblity" if you would be so
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you? You're the one who wrongly and stupidly insists rights
>>>> entail responsibilities.
>>>
>>> Still waiting
>>
>> Yes, we are, but since you never back anything up, the wait will be
>> fruitless.
>
> Sorry...wrong answer.
Your continued failure is noted with great amusement.
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 15:20:10 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/13/2013 3:09 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 07:35:58 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Define "responsiblity" if you would be so
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you? You're the one who wrongly and stupidly insists rights
>>>> entail responsibilities.
>>>
>>> Still waiting
>>
>> Yes, we are, but since you never back anything up, the wait will be
>> fruitless.
>
> Sorry...wrong answer.
Gray Guest
May 13, 2013, 7:56:57 PM5/13/13
to
Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in
news:84bbd$518fe1ef$414e828e$21...@EVERESTKC.NET:
> On 5/12/2013 11:02 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
>> Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in news:6c2f5$518fc93d$414e828e
>> $17...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>> news:b9516$518ec58c$414e828e $13...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>> you shouldn't have any problem with the coppers randomly searching
>>>> your home for contraband, without a waarnt, just becuase somethings
>>>> are a danger
>> to
>>>> the peace and security of the public? Right?
>>>
>>> Wrong. There has to be a valid and contestable public safety basis.
>>
>> Nope Max, it's because I feel it. Just like the libs.
>
> No, you're feelings are irrelevant, and of course it's *not* "just like
> the libs [sic]."
>
> The basic fact that you just can't seem to comprehend is that the right
> secured by the second amendment *never* included a whole host of
> features you imagine - wrongly, of course - that it does and should.
>
> By contrast, the right secured by the fourth amendment very much
> excludes the kinds of things you're incorrectly saying are permitted.
> It's not that the right against unreasonable search and seizure is
> unlimited - *no* right is unlimited - rather, it is that certain things
> very clearly *within* the scope of the right are not permitted.
>
>
>>>> The 2A refers to the militia and the individual citizen. It provides
>>>> a context as to what is expected of the armed citizen,
>>>
>>> No, the amendment provides no such thing. You don't know what you're
>>>
>>> talking about.
>>
>> Hmm, well you are invited to post your proof after which i will
>> dissamle it.
>
> Sorry, Goat - it is you who has to prove your claim. You have to prove
> that the *amendment* provides some "context" [sic] as to what is
> expected of the armed citizen. Feel free to try. So far, you haven't
> even attempted it, and it's a certainty you can't do it. But go ahead -
> have a go at it.
>
>
>>>> it establishes the sphere of responsibility for the militia
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't do that, either. You really are appallingly ignorant
>>> about what the amendment is and what it does.
>>
>> "The security of a free state". Are you illiterate or just stupid?
>
> That is not in any way establishing a <chortle> "sphere of
> responsibility" for the militia, dummy. It is stating the primary
> reason why society wishes to have a militia.
>
>
>>>
>>>> and by incorporation the
>>>> individual as opposed to a national armed force.
>>>>
>>>> Ok, so what is the militia's role. Clearly it is not as an
>>>> expeditionary force.
>>>>
>>>> Article 2 Section 8 says: "calling forth the militia to[blah blah
>> blabber]
>>>
>>> None of that has any bearing on what the actual right *secured* - not
>>> defined, created or conferred - by the second amendment is.
>>
>> What is your imterpetation then Sparky?
>>
>> Is ti the right to hunt?
>
> No.
>
>
>> Is it the right to be allowed to own the guns that are poltical masters
>> think we should own?
>
> No.
>
>
Then what?
--
Refusenik #1
Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.
Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama
Gray Guest
May 13, 2013, 7:59:50 PM5/13/13
to
Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in news:ef48f$518fe514$414e828e
$27...@EVERESTKC.NET:
it.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
This is typical scumbag bullshit. I've heard it all before. If you don't
know who the people are, it's becuase you don't want to. Your semantics are
a waste of oxygen.
$27...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>> news:1c59$518fc9a1$414e828e$17...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>
>>> On 5/12/2013 9:09 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
>>>> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
>>>> 797763.182...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <6uqto8tl9uot7fk3n...@4ax.com>,
>>>>> Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>
>>> On 5/12/2013 9:09 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
>>>> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
>>>> 797763.182...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <6uqto8tl9uot7fk3n...@4ax.com>,
>>>>> Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "You guess the truth hurts?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell us about it, gun nut.
>>>>
>>>> Ok
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok
>>>>
>>>> The 2A refers to the militia and the individual citizen.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, it makes no mention of the individual citizen. It refers to "the
>>> people."
>>
>> And who are the people, Sparky?
>
> You know, you demean yourself when you toss out lame, stale Usenet
> insults like calling your (intellectually superior) interlocutor
> "Sparky." Maybe you didn't know that. It's a fact, whether you are
> aware of it or not.
>
> To answer your question, it's hard to say. Stop to think that not
> everyone supported the adoption of the Constitution; yet, the preamble
> starts "We the People of the United States..." Does that mean *all* the
> people, including those citizens who opposed the adoption of the
> Constitution?
>
>>> people."
>>
>> And who are the people, Sparky?
>
> You know, you demean yourself when you toss out lame, stale Usenet
> insults like calling your (intellectually superior) interlocutor
> "Sparky." Maybe you didn't know that. It's a fact, whether you are
> aware of it or not.
>
> To answer your question, it's hard to say. Stop to think that not
> everyone supported the adoption of the Constitution; yet, the preamble
> starts "We the People of the United States..." Does that mean *all* the
> people, including those citizens who opposed the adoption of the
> Constitution?
>
> In fact, most but not all references to "the people" in the Constitution
> and the Bill of Rights refer to the people as a collective body. I'm
> sure you're quite unaware that the expression "the people" occurs only
> twice in the Constitution outside the Bill of Rights: in the Preamble,
> and in Article I Section 2. In the Bill of Rights, it appears in five
> of the 10 amendments: the first, second, fourth, ninth and tenth. In
> all but the fourth, it clearly is referring to the people as a
> collective. Only in the fourth does the context only permit it to be
> referring to people as individual persons.
>
> and the Bill of Rights refer to the people as a collective body. I'm
> sure you're quite unaware that the expression "the people" occurs only
> twice in the Constitution outside the Bill of Rights: in the Preamble,
> and in Article I Section 2. In the Bill of Rights, it appears in five
> of the 10 amendments: the first, second, fourth, ninth and tenth. In
> all but the fourth, it clearly is referring to the people as a
> collective. Only in the fourth does the context only permit it to be
> referring to people as individual persons.
>
> In any case, the expression is not limited only to citizens, as non
> citizens are clearly covered in many of the provisions.
>
>
>>>> It provides a
> citizens are clearly covered in many of the provisions.
>
>
>>>> context as to what is expected of the armed citizen, [remaining foam
>>>> washed away]
>>>
>>> No, it does not. *NO* recognition of a right ever does. If it is
truly
>>> a right, there is *no* corresponding responsibility.
>>
>> Well such is "your" interpetation. When you can post proof I will read
>>>> washed away]
>>>
>>> No, it does not. *NO* recognition of a right ever does. If it is
truly
>>> a right, there is *no* corresponding responsibility.
>>
it.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
This is typical scumbag bullshit. I've heard it all before. If you don't
know who the people are, it's becuase you don't want to. Your semantics are
a waste of oxygen.
Gray Guest
May 13, 2013, 8:00:34 PM5/13/13
to
Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:7ksvo8t4h1422bchl...@4ax.com:
>>The 2A refers to the militia and the individual citizen. It provides a
>>context as to what is expected of the armed citizen, it establishes the
>>sphere of responsibility for the militia and by incorporation the
>>2) suppress insurrections and
>>3) repel invasions.;
>>
>>The Attorney General of the United States ruled in 1912 that the militia
>>could not be compelled to serve outside the United States except in the
>>most narrow of cases (hot pursuit of, or a "spoiling attack" upon,
>>invaders). "These three occasions, representing necessities of a
>>strictly domestic character, plainly indicate that the services of the
>>militia can be rendered only on the soil of the United States and it's
>>territories". Feb 17, 1912. Source 55 Congressional Record 3851 52.
>>
>>Now, envision a military force, either regulars or volunteers, which
>>would be constituted to perform such tasks. Can you imagine such a force
>>needing nukes for these tasks? Absolutely not. I can imagine no scenario
>>where one would use nuclear weapons on home soil. Therefore no, nukes
>>are not militia weapons and are not protected under the 2A.
>>
>>OTOH the variety of weapons that could be used in the militia mission
>>and therefore covered by the 2A and prohibited from regulation would
>>give any liberal permanent diarrhea.
>>
>>Helicopter gunships, tanks, artillery, armored vehicles, automatic
>>weapons, RPGs, etc all meet the criteria of the militia mission.
>>
>>Have a nice day.
>
>
> Well stated.
>
>
> --
news:7ksvo8t4h1422bchl...@4ax.com:
>>context as to what is expected of the armed citizen, it establishes the
>>sphere of responsibility for the militia and by incorporation the
>>individual as opposed to a national armed force.
>>
>>Ok, so what is the militia's role. Clearly it is not as an expeditionary
>>force.
>>
>>Article 2 Section 8 says: "calling forth the militia to
>>1) execute the laws of the union,
>>
>>Ok, so what is the militia's role. Clearly it is not as an expeditionary
>>force.
>>
>>Article 2 Section 8 says: "calling forth the militia to
>>2) suppress insurrections and
>>3) repel invasions.;
>>
>>The Attorney General of the United States ruled in 1912 that the militia
>>could not be compelled to serve outside the United States except in the
>>most narrow of cases (hot pursuit of, or a "spoiling attack" upon,
>>invaders). "These three occasions, representing necessities of a
>>strictly domestic character, plainly indicate that the services of the
>>militia can be rendered only on the soil of the United States and it's
>>territories". Feb 17, 1912. Source 55 Congressional Record 3851 52.
>>
>>Now, envision a military force, either regulars or volunteers, which
>>would be constituted to perform such tasks. Can you imagine such a force
>>needing nukes for these tasks? Absolutely not. I can imagine no scenario
>>where one would use nuclear weapons on home soil. Therefore no, nukes
>>are not militia weapons and are not protected under the 2A.
>>
>>OTOH the variety of weapons that could be used in the militia mission
>>and therefore covered by the 2A and prohibited from regulation would
>>give any liberal permanent diarrhea.
>>
>>Helicopter gunships, tanks, artillery, armored vehicles, automatic
>>weapons, RPGs, etc all meet the criteria of the militia mission.
>>
>>Have a nice day.
>
>
> Well stated.
>
>
> --
> "You guess the truth hurts?
>
>
> Really?
>
> "Hurt" aint the word.
>
> For Liberals, the truth is like salt to a slug.
> Sunlight to a vampire.
> Raid® to a cockroach.
> Sheriff Brody to a shark
> Bush to a Liberal
>
> The truth doesn't just hurt. It's painful, like a red hot poker shoved
> up their ass. Like sliding down a hundred foot razor blade using their
> dick as a brake.
>
> They HATE the truth."
>
>
Thanks!
>
> "Hurt" aint the word.
>
> For Liberals, the truth is like salt to a slug.
> Sunlight to a vampire.
> Raid® to a cockroach.
> Sheriff Brody to a shark
> Bush to a Liberal
>
> The truth doesn't just hurt. It's painful, like a red hot poker shoved
> up their ass. Like sliding down a hundred foot razor blade using their
> dick as a brake.
>
> They HATE the truth."
>
>
Gray Guest
May 13, 2013, 8:01:52 PM5/13/13
to
Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in
news:73238$518ff464$414e828e$26...@EVERESTKC.NET:
> On 5/12/2013 12:52 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:55:27 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/12/2013 9:09 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
>>>> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
>>>> 797763.182...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <6uqto8tl9uot7fk3n...@4ax.com>,
>>>>> Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/12/2013 9:09 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
>>>> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
>>>> 797763.182...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <6uqto8tl9uot7fk3n...@4ax.com>,
>>>>> Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "You guess the truth hurts?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell us about it, gun nut.
>>>>
>>>> Ok
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok
>>>>
>>>> The 2A refers to the militia and the individual citizen.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, it makes no mention of the individual citizen. It refers to "the
>>> people."
>>
>>> people."
>>
>> So the "people" mentioned in the rest of the Constitution..is somehow
>> different than the "people" mentioned in the 2nd Ammendment?
>
> Define "the people." Provide several citations to support your
> definition. Don't lollygag - get to it now.
>
>
>>>
>>>> It provides a
>> different than the "people" mentioned in the 2nd Ammendment?
>
> Define "the people." Provide several citations to support your
> definition. Don't lollygag - get to it now.
>
>
>>>
>>>> context as to what is expected of the armed citizen, [remaining foam
>>>> washed away]
>>>
>>> No, it does not. *NO* recognition of a right ever does. If it is
>>> truly a right, there is *no* corresponding responsibility.
>>
>>>> washed away]
>>>
>>> No, it does not. *NO* recognition of a right ever does. If it is
>>> truly a right, there is *no* corresponding responsibility.
>>
>> Sure there is. Have you never read the Constitution and the Bill of
>> Rights?
>
> No mention of any responsibilities of any rights holder in either one.
>
> You haven't read them.
>
>
We know what "the people" are. Clearly you don't. It's an evasion technique
>> Rights?
>
> No mention of any responsibilities of any rights holder in either one.
>
> You haven't read them.
>
>
of vermin.
Max Boot
May 13, 2013, 8:09:34 PM5/13/13
to
On 5/13/2013 4:56 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
> Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in
> news:84bbd$518fe1ef$414e828e$21...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>
>> On 5/12/2013 11:02 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
>>> Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in news:6c2f5$518fc93d$414e828e
>>> $17...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>
>>>> On 5/12/2013 9:08 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
>>>>> Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:b9516$518ec58c$414e828e $13...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
>>>>>> amendment is clearly within the scope of the amendment. Mr. Justice
>>>>>> Scalia in
>>> the
>>>>>> Heller decision:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
>>>>>> history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual
>>> right
>>>>>> to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not
>>>>>> unlimited*, just as the First Amendment �s right of free
> Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in
> news:84bbd$518fe1ef$414e828e$21...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>
>> On 5/12/2013 11:02 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
>>> Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in news:6c2f5$518fc93d$414e828e
>>> $17...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>
>>>> On 5/12/2013 9:08 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
>>>>> Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:b9516$518ec58c$414e828e $13...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
>>>>>> amendment is clearly within the scope of the amendment. Mr. Justice
>>>>>> Scalia in
>>> the
>>>>>> Heller decision:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
>>>>>> history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual
>>> right
>>>>>> to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not
Max Boot
May 13, 2013, 8:10:35 PM5/13/13
to
workable definition at all.
Max Boot
May 13, 2013, 8:11:36 PM5/13/13
to
Gray Guest
May 13, 2013, 8:10:25 PM5/13/13
to
Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in news:b26b9$519180b9$414e828e
$23...@EVERESTKC.NET:
> On 5/13/2013 4:56 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
>> Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in
>> news:84bbd$518fe1ef$414e828e$21...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>
>>> On 5/12/2013 11:02 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
>>>> Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in news:6c2f5$518fc93d$414e828e
>>>> $17...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/12/2013 9:08 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
>>>>>> Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:b9516$518ec58c$414e828e $13...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
>>>>>>> amendment is clearly within the scope of the amendment. Mr.
Justice
>>>>>>> Scalia in
>>>> the
>>>>>>> Heller decision:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
>>>>>>> history, that the Second Amendment conferred an
individual
>>>> right
>>>>>>> to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not
>>>>>>> unlimited*, just as the First Amendment �s right of free
Who gets to define what is appropriate for those purposes? I'm pretty sure
we have differing views and what you think you know about what I would
choose and why is completely wrong.
$23...@EVERESTKC.NET:
> On 5/13/2013 4:56 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
>> Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in
>> news:84bbd$518fe1ef$414e828e$21...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>
>>> On 5/12/2013 11:02 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
>>>> Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in news:6c2f5$518fc93d$414e828e
>>>> $17...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/12/2013 9:08 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
>>>>>> Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:b9516$518ec58c$414e828e $13...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
>>>>>>> amendment is clearly within the scope of the amendment. Mr.
Justice
>>>>>>> Scalia in
>>>> the
>>>>>>> Heller decision:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
>>>>>>> history, that the Second Amendment conferred an
individual
>>>> right
>>>>>>> to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not
we have differing views and what you think you know about what I would
choose and why is completely wrong.
Gray Guest
May 13, 2013, 8:12:27 PM5/13/13
to
Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in news:a51f8$519180f6$414e828e
$23...@EVERESTKC.NET:
The individuals that constitute the citizenry.
Will ther be anything else?
$23...@EVERESTKC.NET:
Will ther be anything else?
Gray Guest
May 13, 2013, 8:13:17 PM5/13/13
to
Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in news:c46d8$51918133$414e828e
$23...@EVERESTKC.NET:
Look a couple message up, Sparky. I think you're building up a tolerance to
the antipsychotics.
$23...@EVERESTKC.NET:
the antipsychotics.
Gunner Asch
May 13, 2013, 8:23:38 PM5/13/13
to
--
"You guess the truth hurts?
Max Boot
May 13, 2013, 8:30:07 PM5/13/13
to
the Bill of Rights refers to a collective body. In the second and
fourth amendments, it refers individuals - not necessarily citizens -
because the people do not collectively have houses, papers, and effects.
In the tenth amendment, however, the powers that are retained by the
people are held by the people as a *collective body*, not as individuals.
You really don't know what you're talking about. You ought to refrain
from blabbering ignorantly to those like me who do know.
Max Boot
May 13, 2013, 8:32:36 PM5/13/13
to
it. You aren't aware of that, are you? You really do.
Anyway, you don't know what "the people" refers to. I've already
instructed you on it in another reply.
Max Boot
May 13, 2013, 8:33:17 PM5/13/13
to
SaPeIsMa
May 18, 2013, 7:53:46 AM5/18/13
to
"Max Boot" <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in message
news:84bbd$518fe1ef$414e828e$21...@EVERESTKC.NET...
Scalia went to a lot of trouble to make sure that was CLEARLY enunciated and
explained
You can find them here (Heller)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
and here (Macdonald)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1521.ZS.html
news:84bbd$518fe1ef$414e828e$21...@EVERESTKC.NET...
> On 5/12/2013 11:02 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
>
> Sorry, Goat - it is you who has to prove your claim. You have to prove
> that the *amendment* provides some "context" [sic] as to what is expected
> of the armed citizen. Feel free to try. So far, you haven't even
> attempted it, and it's a certainty you can't do it. But go ahead - have a
> go at it.
>
You can find ALL of that in Heller and MAcdonald
>
> Sorry, Goat - it is you who has to prove your claim. You have to prove
> that the *amendment* provides some "context" [sic] as to what is expected
> of the armed citizen. Feel free to try. So far, you haven't even
> attempted it, and it's a certainty you can't do it. But go ahead - have a
> go at it.
>
Scalia went to a lot of trouble to make sure that was CLEARLY enunciated and
explained
You can find them here (Heller)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
and here (Macdonald)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1521.ZS.html
0 new messages