zogger
Tree Freak
people
The concept of people or person didn't change from one sentence to the next in the constitution. Those were some pretty smart cookies and they thought things out and chose their words carefully. It's an individual right. Your right to free speech, is it collective, or *yours*? It's the same all the way through, they didn't want or design a different form of individual just for the second.
Of course the black robed wonders balled it all up with granting corporations personhood......
Interesting little factoid in US history, both marriage "licenses" and gun licenses or "permits" originated as blatantly racist "jim crow" laws. "Vermont styled" is the only legitimate form of gun ownership in the US, everything else is BS. A born with "right" does not need a permit or permission, you are born with it. And marriage licenses, again, BS, it is not the states business to decide who you associate with, for any purpose. I think they are both rather obviously unconstitutional. But we haven't had a constitutional government since....a long time. We certainly don't have one now. They claim we do, but really...that's a stretch and a half.
I think it would be a good idea if they really tried it, because it just might work.
And a gun won't protect you from that! I just happened to choose firearm statistics, I could have easily chosen vehicular statistics.
The United States is unique in many ways, most significantly that it is still operating under a Constitution that was adopted in 1791. Over the past 220 years there have been vast changes in the world and the courts have attempted to apply this document to activities that were never known to the founding fathers.
At the time of the Constitution there was a very small professional army and navy that defended the country as there was deep seated fear of the repercussions of a large standing army which might lead to future wars. As a result there was a great reliance on a civilian corp (the "militia" referred to in the Constitution) that would be called to combat if the need arose. The Second Amendment was drafted with this in mind, that people in civilian life could keep arms for the sake of defending the company in the event the need arose.
Below is the text of the Amendment:
"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."
At the time the weaponry was of many differing calibers and origins. As a result, armories were established to house the weapons necessary to supply the militia and standardization began to take place. The militia was considered the primary defense against foreign armies as well as internal tyrants.
It is from this concept that the militia would act to prevent the usurpation of power by the government that today's concept of the right to bear arms took hold. There has been much debate over the years as to whether the term "people" was used in an individual or a collective form. While I side with the theory that it was intended in the collective form, the Supreme Court has elected to interpret it on an individual level. While the NRA was founded to ""promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," its agenda has changed to a more political one in the past 30 years that promotes the right of gun ownership.
Out of curiosity, how many people who carry weapons have ever needed them to protect themselves while cutting?
The concept of people or person didn't change from one sentence to the next in the constitution. Those were some pretty smart cookies and they thought things out and chose their words carefully. It's an individual right. Your right to free speech, is it collective, or *yours*? It's the same all the way through, they didn't want or design a different form of individual just for the second.
Of course the black robed wonders balled it all up with granting corporations personhood......
Interesting little factoid in US history, both marriage "licenses" and gun licenses or "permits" originated as blatantly racist "jim crow" laws. "Vermont styled" is the only legitimate form of gun ownership in the US, everything else is BS. A born with "right" does not need a permit or permission, you are born with it. And marriage licenses, again, BS, it is not the states business to decide who you associate with, for any purpose. I think they are both rather obviously unconstitutional. But we haven't had a constitutional government since....a long time. We certainly don't have one now. They claim we do, but really...that's a stretch and a half.
I think it would be a good idea if they really tried it, because it just might work.