"We the people . . ." and the Second Amendment

https://www.yahoo.com/news/letter-ed...191501125.html

It is too long to cut-and-paste here, but it is worth reading.


Condensed: The article maintains that words used in one part of The Constitution mean the same thing in other parts. It cites phrases that include "the people", from the body of the document and from the Bill of Rights and shows that "the people" was meant to refer to the citizens as individuals. /then brings that observation back to the Second Amendment.

Read it.

No.

No. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

56330

Hijack.

the constitution stands in the way of leftist tyranny

and thus their no is ever more strident and alarming

Challenging to read, but enlightening if you can manage it. Madison was pretty clear on why the People must be armed and compared the consequence of what would happen if they were not.

Federalist 46: James Madison:
...
The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it...

Fucking ignorant clueless uneducated racist morons go on n on n...women and minorities have no rights

Dah...orange mushroom is good to suk to a fucking moron

What is a woman???

Don't ask the newest member of the SC that because she isn't a biologist.


Have you heard the latest suggestion from the gromers? Anybody that wears a name tag should have their preferred pronoun on the tag just so there is no confusion about what someone is. Yeah, that should end the confusion huh?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/letter-ed...191501125.html

It is too long to cut-and-paste here, but it is worth reading.

Condensed: The article maintains that words used in one part of The Constitution mean the same thing in other parts. It cites phrases that include "the people", from the body of the document and from the Bill of Rights and shows that "the people" was meant to refer to the citizens as individuals. /then brings that observation back to the Second Amendment.

Read it. Originally Posted by ICU 812

what do you mean too long? the article is short. lazy fingers brigade struck again!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/letter-ed...191501125.html Originally Posted by ICU 812

Letter to the editor: 2nd Amendment refers to ‘people’
Ventura County Star
Wed, June 29, 2022 at 2:15 PM·2 min read

First of all, what does the U.S. Constitution actually say?

Secondly, I assume that a word used in the Constitution in one section has the same meaning or definition when used elsewhere in the Constitution.

The second part of the Second Amendment reads, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The key word in my argument is the word “people.”

The preamble begins “We the people ...” (you and I)

Article I, section 2 states, “The House of Representatives ... by the people ...” (you and I)

The First and Fourth Amendments state, “... the right of the people ...” (you and I)

The Ninth Amendment states, “... retained by the people ...” (you and I)

The 10th Amendment states, “... nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people.” (you and I)

The 17th Amendment states, “... by the people thereof ...” (you and I)

I conclude the preamble, article I, section 2, and the first, fourth, ninth, 10th, and the 17th amendments to the U.S. Constitution that the word people refers to you and me and not the federal government, states’ governments, national guard, nor the militia, but to you and me.

The 10th Amendment specifically separates states and people and does not imply states and people mean the same entity. So, the Second Amendment states that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. This decision was just made by the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia remarked that the U.S. Constitution is not a living document, it is a dead document. You don’t interpret it according to popular sentiment.

If you don’t like what the Constitution says, then go to Article V for instructions on amending it.

George Maguire, Ventura

This article originally appeared on Ventura County Star: Letter: 2nd Amendment refers to ‘people’

Fucking ignorant clueless uneducated racist morons go on n on n...women and minorities have no rights... Originally Posted by Tsmokies

Sorry, not seeing anything in the 2nd amendment that says women and minorities are excluded from owning guns. You got a link to something relevant to back up that ridiculous claim?

Letter to the editor: 2nd Amendment refers to ‘people’..’ Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

The notion of a Constitutional Republic centers on The People in large measure. The People are amassed in states, which is where their main sense of government resides. The People have more influence over their local government via a vehicle known as math.

While Madison mentions it in Federalist 46 above, I also did some of the math that he alluded to in Dang! Maybe sounding like conservatism is creepy in the vaccume of your mind . Point being that a Federal rule was the worst burden to bear. Keep it local. That way you can go scream in their face as needed and remove them from office more easily. It's a numbers game and the FF were pretty big on that concept, hence many references to The People and States, which is a collection of The People.

Relevant section from my link above:

But then the questions:
- So what the fuck does it have to do with you?
- You a registered voter there?

Notwithstanding, see how (above) you rolled right on down that slippery slope from death, 6 weeks, 2 day, nothing. Yet, it is entirely an Oklahoma problem - ~ population of 4M voters.
- What you have there is a local problem, i.e. Not your problem
- That a majority or 2/3rds majority can change, 2.1M or 2.6M
- That change can be more restrictive or less restrictive

Now, if it were federal law, regardless of exact wording for sake of argument
- Oklahomans now have to tussle with 100 US Senators and ~450 Congress critters and a ~330M voting base
- do the math

It's a Republic stupid (not you personally)

Fucking ignorant clueless uneducated racist morons go on n on n...women and minorities have no rights

Dah...orange mushroom is good to suk to a fucking moron
Originally Posted by Tsmokies

How does this sort of 9th grsde name caslling make your point?

What IS your point?

Come back with an argument that makes sense and people will take you seriously.

How does this sort of 9th grsde name caslling make your point?

What IS your point?

Come back with an argument that makes sense and people will take you seriously. Originally Posted by ICU 812

Your first mistake is thinking this guy is here to make a point, he is not. I understand that some of you are adverse to putting people on ignore but holy crap people, are you masochists deep down inside?