Gun Control & RKBA

CompanyFirstSergeant

(1,558 posts)

24. Let's say for a moment...

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:56 AM

Apr 2016

That the framers wanted to make the First Amendment more wordy, but still have the same meaning...

1A. The ability to attend a church of one's own preference being necessary for individual spirituality...
... the right of the people to practice free exercise of religion shall not be infringed.

1B. The ability of the people to read newspapers of their choosing being necessary to an informed populace...
..... the right of the people to exercise free speech shall not be infringed.

1C. The ability to exchange ideas in a group setting being necessary for a democracy,,,
.....the right of the people to peaceably assemble shall not be infringed.

1D. The ability to express displeasure at elected officials being necessary to maintain responsive government...
...the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances shall not be infringed.

In no place in the above do the introductory clauses change the meaning of the operative clauses.

The rights remain the same. The introductory clauses just clarify the right. They do not limit it.

Therefore, the following two statements mean the exact same thing:

1. A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

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

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

38 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

2A: Group or individual right? [View all] tortoise1956 Apr 2016 OP

How interesting. SheilaT Apr 2016 #1

It seems a foregone conclusion that... discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2016 #2

My education in political theory pretty much held that the B.O.R.'s rights... Eleanors38 Apr 2016 #13

I reject the notions of collective and/or individual so-called "rights" to guns. stone space Apr 2016 #3

But can you support such an assertion... theatre goon Apr 2016 #4

At my age, I offer mostly moral support for those actively struggling against the tools of violence. stone space Apr 2016 #6

So, the answer is no. theatre goon Apr 2016 #8

At my age... CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #17

In other words, you do nothing of substance to advance your cause of gun control Lurks Often Apr 2016 #18

Au Contraire! DonP Apr 2016 #19

This message was self-deleted by its author CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #20

I'm amused by the near complete lack of support that one receives Lurks Often Apr 2016 #21

So, you you believe... Puha Ekapi Apr 2016 #7

What part of "I reject the notion" did you not understand? stone space Apr 2016 #9

Ok, I just wanted to see... Puha Ekapi Apr 2016 #10

Perhaps the confusion originates in the fact that you are unable to answer questions... Marengo Apr 2016 #29

re: "Guns are not a "right"." discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2016 #11

I used the expression "negative" in regard government's restrictions and implied duties. Eleanors38 Apr 2016 #14

Always has been an individual, always should be. ileus Apr 2016 #5

Three important points... CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #12

It became murky when the representatives recreated the Miltias into the National Guard. jmg257 Apr 2016 #15

The Militia and the National Guard are not one and the same... CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #16

UNorganized Militia is a JOKE jimmy the one Apr 2016 #25

I take it... CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #28

feel good unorganized militia, mostly untrained armed rabble jimmy the one Apr 2016 #31

This message was self-deleted by its author CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #35

This message was self-deleted by its author CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #36

All of which is entirely irrelevant to the simple fact that it exists. Marengo Apr 2016 #30

Linguistically, clearly individual. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2016 #22

Let's say for a moment... CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #24

What good are rights not granted to the individual??? ileus Apr 2016 #23

Well - rights SECURED for the individual...I fixed it! :) nt jmg257 Apr 2016 #27

This message was self-deleted by its author CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #26

such misconstruction of what's right before your eyes jimmy the one Apr 2016 #32

Let's take these one at a time tortoise1956 Apr 2016 #37

raccoons are scavengers discntnt_irny_srcsm May 2016 #38

re: "Group or individual right?" discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2016 #33

Very obviously individual, of course. N/T beevul Apr 2016 #34