Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts) Sun Jul 3, 2016, 08:48 PM Jul 2016

The right of the People [View all]

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.

42 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The right of the People [View all] RobertEarl Jul 2016 OP

Who asked for "a blanket infringement upon all people"? sheshe2 Jul 2016 #1

I can only infer you're saying no one on DU has ever posted "ban all private ownership of guns". cherokeeprogressive Jul 2016 #9

You can infer what you please. sheshe2 Jul 2016 #10

LOL mmmkay. cherokeeprogressive Jul 2016 #12

Every right TeddyR Jul 2016 #2

And the right to sue... beevul Jul 2016 #21

If, as your torturing the language assumes, the founders intended a "collective" right.. X_Digger Jul 2016 #3

So everyone can have a gun edhopper Jul 2016 #4

That's it RobertEarl Jul 2016 #7

Because "right of the People" occurs a few other times. Igel Jul 2016 #24

Fine with me too. (nt) bigwillq Jul 2016 #11

"Including their home in some cities" is disenfranchisement by location. NutmegYankee Jul 2016 #32

New York City edhopper Jul 2016 #33

And it all depends on how they enforce it. NutmegYankee Jul 2016 #34

We agree then edhopper Jul 2016 #35

That was the key outcome of the Heller v. DC SCOTUS case. NutmegYankee Jul 2016 #36

yeah, but Heller edhopper Jul 2016 #37

I don't consider it atrocious. It basically stated the actual situation. NutmegYankee Jul 2016 #38

Nothing is set in stone. deathrind Jul 2016 #5

"People are losing their lives to firearms in ever increasing numbers" Oneka Jul 2016 #16

Forgot already? deathrind Jul 2016 #18

A single act of terror Oneka Jul 2016 #20

A "single act of terror"... deathrind Jul 2016 #23

"zero tolerance for compromise" beevul Jul 2016 #22

Compromise. deathrind Jul 2016 #25

Put your money where your keyboard is. beevul Jul 2016 #26

Gun Safety... deathrind Jul 2016 #27

LOL. beevul Jul 2016 #28

I'm tired of "compromise." FixTheProblem Jul 2016 #31

Like many Second Amendment gun types, guillaumeb Jul 2016 #6

What contradicts the point? TeddyR Jul 2016 #8

"Well regulated" bhikkhu Jul 2016 #14

That construction, {reason}, {statement} was common at the time. X_Digger Jul 2016 #15

Again, like Antonin Scalia, you quote a select fraction of the actual text. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #39

For 200+ years the Second Amendment has protected an individual right to keep and bear arms TeddyR Jul 2016 #40

Since YOU brought up the term "intellectual dishonesty", guillaumeb Jul 2016 #41

The Heller decision says it is a personal right. MohRokTah Jul 2016 #13

Why is the same phrase used in the 1st and 4th amendments considered an individual right? NutmegYankee Jul 2016 #17

Because that's exactly what it is. Just reading posts Jul 2016 #19

Right of the individual? RobertEarl Jul 2016 #29

So you have no right to privacy? NutmegYankee Jul 2016 #30

Simplistic dogma is both delicious and rationalized in today's environmen LanternWaste Jul 2016 #42