General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe right of the People
People means everyone. It is an inclusive term meaning everyone.
Used in the 2nd amendment, it means that there can be no law passed that infringes upon everyone's rights to bear arms.
There never has been and never will be a law passed that stops everyone from bearing arms.
There can be limits placed on the kinds of arms, and laws which limit the rights of a few individuals to bear arms.
There shall never be a blanket infringement upon all the people without re-writing the 2nd to state that the People's rights can be infringed.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
sheshe2
(83,785 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)sheshe2
(83,785 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I knew that was what you meant.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Is subject to restrictions, including the right to vote, free speech, bear arms or abortion.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Such as trying to sue companies for the unlawful actions a third party perpetrates with a legally sold legally manufactured product.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts).. then why did these same folks go back to their states and pass state constitutions with language like 'for defence of themselves and the state..'.
Some of them had that language even before the 2nd amendment was passed.
[div class='excerpt']The present-day Pennsylvania Constitution, using language adopted in 1790, declares: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
Vermont: Adopted in 1777, the Vermont Constitution closely tracks the Pennsylvania Constitution. It states "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.."
Kentucky: The 1792 Kentucky constitution was nearly contemporaneous with the Second Amendment, which was ratified in 1791. Kentucky declared: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."
If I said, "Y'all can go to get a soda." -- would you assume we all have to go as a group? Utter foolishness.
edhopper
(33,580 posts)except for those who can't and in places they are not allowed. Including their home in some cities. And with restrictions like background checks and permits.
Okay, fine with me.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)It's that simple. I don't know why the gunnies are arguing.
They try to use the 2nd as some special weapon, when it isn't all that special.
Igel
(35,317 posts)We don't have blanket exceptions for felons, for instance, in the other instances.
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 affi rma-
tion, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed.
The restrictions on these rights depends on what somebody's done or are dependent on specific contexts--you can't decide to lobby your representative at 4 a.m. in his bedroom without permission, if there's a bomb threat in a building screw unreasonable search and seize and warrants, if there's an assassination threat a peaceful assembly can be disallowed or, in certain places, regulated. But saying, "Assemblies of more than 50 people with alcohol are simply banned in Maryland" would be found unconstitutional on their face.
Note that each of these rights entails a risk. That private home might be where you think somebody's planning an attack, but you still need the warrant and evidence. People die as a result. A fairly regular way of getting evidence of a perp's guilt thrown out was to show that the search was "unreasonable"--Sotomayor apparently backs this idea of punishing the authorities by disallowing evidence of a person's guilt based on reasonableness criteria. Under the "we the People" sort of thinking, that's punishing the population for their agents' activities, but nobody likes going that far. It may even be that the FBI thought Mateen was plotting something but lacked evidence for due process. In more than one instance this interpretation of the 4th amendment has led to deaths. But one's own shirt is nearer to one's skin, the Russian proverb says, so restricting due process to preserve life is different from restricting guns that we don't care about. Thing is, "justice is blind" is a damned good attitude--it means that the execution of justice doesn't depend on who's judging or who's judged, who's wronged or who's the wronger. (Mercy, that's a different matter.) Many "enlightened" folk think that justice has to be personal. That makes it based on whim and bias, even as the same people want to make sure that justice isn't biased against them or those they advocate for.
We can argue that the KKK assembly in Sacramento was the problem there--but they didn't start the violence, so it was the counterprotestors who should have been banned. Even lobbying your representative is risky, because he might decide something in your favor that hurts somebody else. You ask for money for your project, money doesn't go someplace else.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)Which is obviously highly unconstitutional. Imagine if the Right of the People to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure could be eliminated for certain locations for "public safety". The police could just search each apartment to ensure no illegal drugs or weapons were stored in any home. People outside of that location would retain their right to be free of unreasonable searches.
Oh right - that actually did exist - General Warrants from the British Crown to search colonists homes in key areas. That's the kind of injustice that would make a population rebel. 
edhopper
(33,580 posts)no hand guns at home without a permit.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 4, 2016, 07:03 PM - Edit history (1)
If anyone can apply and get one, it's probably legal. If it's only for select people, it's illegal. That New York City charges $400 versus $10 in the rest of New York is currently a point in litigation as illegal.
edhopper
(33,580 posts)I have no problem with permitted handguns.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)The court and plaintiff agreed the "D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously". Basically shall issue if you are not prohibited because of criminal or mental rulings.
edhopper
(33,580 posts)was another of Scalia's atrocious rulings, put it along side Hobby Lobby, Gore v Bush and Citizen's United.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)He was a religious blowhard, and most of his bad rulings relate to his inability to separate church and state. Otherwise some of his rulings were good: Kyllo v. United States, United States v. Jones, and Florida v. Jardines were some of the best defenses of the 4th Amendment in decades.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)A persons right to life far out weighs a persons right to bear "arms".
I have never advocated for a ban of the 2nd. A person should be able to own pistols/rifles/shotguns for hunting/sport shooting/self defense. I do advocate regulating it in a mature and common sense manner in the form of 100% BGC, capacity limits on pistol/rifles just like are in place for shotguns (if I got caught hunting with the plug removed on my shotgun so it could hold 6,7,8 shells it can be confiscated by game and fish) the same could easily be done for pistols/rifles.
But as previously stated nothing is set in stone. People are losing their lives to firearms in ever increasing numbers as firearm technology advances improving firing rates and ammo capacity. This needs to be addressed thru legislation built by compromise. The NRA could do itself a lot of good by dropping the current zero tolerance for compromise it currently advocates.
Oneka
(653 posts)Care to link to a citation to that assertion?
Last i checked: our national homicide rate has roughly halved since the early 90's.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)"It was both the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman and the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in U.S. history,"
Oneka
(653 posts)While very tragic, is not proof of your assertion that, "People are losing their lives to firearms in ever increasing numbers".
Overall crime rates, including homicides are down precipitously across the board over the last quarter century, while gun carry laws have been liberalised across the nation.
These crime statistics can be found here. https://m.fbi.gov/#https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/
deathrind
(1,786 posts)This was not a "single act of an emotion". I understand how diminishing it and blaming it on an emotion helps to justify the lack of concern because how does one fight an emotion.
In reality this was crime called murder where 49 innocent people died another 53 were injured and many many families lives were irrevocably changed. A crime that happens pretty regularly where the body count is increasingly rising from one event to the next, mainly due to technology advances in firearms/firing mechanism. A crime committed by a person who purchased the items needed to commit mass murder with little to no difficulty.
When framed in a reality based context the true nature an magnatude of these events become self evident and the need to address the ease with which one can commit such a heinous crime becomes clear as well.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Theres that word again: Compromise.
What are you anti-gun folks offering up, in terms of compromise?
Somehow I think you mean capitulation, not compromise.
Anti-gun folks frequently say one while they mean the other.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)Is the only way to solve indifference between two sides. Nothing ever gets solved when one side negotiates from a my way or nothing position.
I offered up two ideas which I have stated before. As for what you "think" I mean...read what I posted because that is what I mean. As for the "good faith" directed comment. If you do not trust others that is not something I can help you with.
beevul
(12,194 posts)I offered up two ideas which I have stated before.
Ok, so what are you willing to give, in order to get what you want? If you give up nothing, were just having a debate over the difference between full and partial capitulation.
Sure you can. Attack your fellow anti-gunners when they poison the well with untruths like 'weapons of war on our streets', 'gunshow loophole' and 'gun safety'.
I suspect its a matter of 'wont', not 'can't'.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)Is an "untruth"?
Private sellers at guns shows have to do back ground checks?
Gun safety is about the safe handling and use of firearms, not gun control.
Say that outloud.
Private sellers were never intended to be covered by the brady law which mandates background checks at retail.
In fact, legislation of private sales of firearms within the same state was deliberately avoided by congress, when they enacted the brady bill, which mandates background checks at retail.
I take it that you concede the point on 'weapons of war'?
FixTheProblem
(22 posts)I literally can't afford it anymore.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)you only mention a few words. Like Antonin Scalia, the hero of the NRA, you omit that which contradicts your point.
Totally pointless.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)The right of the people to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear. Of course, no right is completely immune from government regulation. But even if the prefatory clause provides a reason for the 2d Amendment, the rest of the amendment prevents government from infringing on a right that predates this country's existence.
bhikkhu
(10,718 posts)The NRA for instance entirely rejects the notion of any regulation, in contradiction to the wording of the constitution. And regulation itself implies a necessary limit upon the right to bear arms.
In full: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The grammar of the sentence is vague, to the point of not even being sensible English. Simply placing words and phrases in proximity doesn't work. Is it a well regulated militia that shall not be infringed, or is it the right of people to keep and bear arms? If it is the right of people to keep and bear arms, what exactly is the purpose of the phrase "a well regulated militia".
I suspect myself that the founding father were obfusticating, trying to placate differing points of view by writing things that could be read in different ways. I had an English professor in college who called that "chickenshit writing", and told us to either write it plainly or don't bother.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)See e.g. Rhode Island's constitution- "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject,".
It pays to read documents of the same time frame you're trying to understand, rather than applying today's grammar rules to something and subsequently trying to ascribe motivations to the result.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Nice try.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Heller didn't change that understanding but simply clarified it. If you think that there was some huge groundswell of support for barring individual ownership of firearms prior to Heller please point it out. As a recent article noted (I can't remember if it was in the Guardian or The Atlantic) prior to Heller exactly 2 locations banned private ownership of handguns - Chicago and D.C. In other words, pre-Heller there was essentially zero support for banning private ownership of handguns, and now it would be unconstitutional.
Of course, the court might someday reverse Heller (don't hold your breath) but if it does then we'll simply see a constitutional amendment (one of the few issues for which there would actually be enough support to amend the Constitution) that reaffirms Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller. In any event, the plain language of the amendment is clear - the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is nothing in the Second, regardless of how much you try to stretch it out of shape, that limits the right to militia members. If the drafters of the Second wanted to they could have said "the right of members of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." They did not -- instead, the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is the same people referred to in the First and Fourth Amendments and has the same meaning. If you don't like what the Second says then get it amended, but don't pretend it says something other than what it does. That is intellectually dishonest and makes Dems look bad.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)why have you not quoted the entire Second Amendment one time in your various posts purporting to explain what the Amendment says?
Instead, you select the words that support your conclusion, a conclusion totally unsupported by any SCOTUS rulings prior to the Heller v DC ruling.
That is intellectual dishonesty on a par with Scalia's legendary feat of dishonesty when he dismissed 1/2 of the Amendment as "merely prefatory".
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)So there are two choices to alter that decision. Either Heller is overturned or the constitution is amended.
The one thing I truly love most about progressive justices is their respect for stare decisis.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)Or the 9th and 10th which reserve rights to the people or protect those not specifically enumerated, like the right to travel and privacy?
The Federalists added the Bill of Rights to protect individual liberties.
Just reading posts
(688 posts) RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)It does not state that the right of an individual to bear arms shall not be infringed. If it did the gunnies might have a case.
People as a whole have the right to bear arms. But an individual can have their right to bear arms infringed.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)I can search your house at a whim right? It's the people who have the right to unreasonable searches, but I can search you at will.
And while the people can assemble peacefully, and I can have an individual banned from assembling with a group.
Hogwash.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Simplistic dogma is both delicious and rationalized in today's environment. Hence, we're gifted with the genius of Donald Trump running... as long as we realize that absolutism is simply irrational, regardless of whether we admit that or not.
The next bumper sticker may even contain something of wit, but I doubt it.