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
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)183. The other state provisions
Thirdly- some contemporary state constitutions you omitted referencing
Firstly, notice than none of them contain the word "keep," which is the word you guys distort into meaning "personally own."
Secondly, the right is secured to "the people" in there collective capacity, not to each "person" or "citizen."
Thirdly, they both have a military context. They're both MILITIA provisions.
Fourthly, they don't address self-defense with the word "themselves." The defense of "themselves" is the same as "the common defense." If the State government became tyrannical, they could defend "themselves" without being confined to defending the state government.
Look at this from the same declaration of rights of Pennsylvania:
"That EVERY MEMBER of society hath a right TO BE PROTECTED in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, and therefore is bound to contribute his proportion towards the expence of that protection, and yield his PERSONAL SERVICE when necessary, or an equivalent thereto:... Nor can any man who is conscientiously scrupulous of BEARING ARMS, be justly compelled thereto, if he will pay such equivalent,..."
There was also an identical provision in Vermont.
The arms bearing proposal is a COLLECTIVE right of "the people." The right to be protected BY THE MILITIA belongs to "every member of society." If they wanted to secure the right to bear arms to every member of society, they could have. Also, notice that "service" in the militia is the same as "bearing arms."
1776 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.
1777 Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
1777 Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
Firstly, notice than none of them contain the word "keep," which is the word you guys distort into meaning "personally own."
Secondly, the right is secured to "the people" in there collective capacity, not to each "person" or "citizen."
Thirdly, they both have a military context. They're both MILITIA provisions.
Fourthly, they don't address self-defense with the word "themselves." The defense of "themselves" is the same as "the common defense." If the State government became tyrannical, they could defend "themselves" without being confined to defending the state government.
Look at this from the same declaration of rights of Pennsylvania:
"That EVERY MEMBER of society hath a right TO BE PROTECTED in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, and therefore is bound to contribute his proportion towards the expence of that protection, and yield his PERSONAL SERVICE when necessary, or an equivalent thereto:... Nor can any man who is conscientiously scrupulous of BEARING ARMS, be justly compelled thereto, if he will pay such equivalent,..."
There was also an identical provision in Vermont.
The arms bearing proposal is a COLLECTIVE right of "the people." The right to be protected BY THE MILITIA belongs to "every member of society." If they wanted to secure the right to bear arms to every member of society, they could have. Also, notice that "service" in the militia is the same as "bearing arms."
TopBack to the top of the page
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
ShareGet links to this post
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
324 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The cumulative count will always increase unless people start rising from the dead.
hack89
Aug 2014
#6
An unsupported claim *and* a strawman in just one sentence. Well done!
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2014
#24
Let me know when it drops below the rate of death from e-bola in the US.
notrightatall
Oct 2014
#202
And this is why I feel good about resisting the people that want me to ban you, SM
krispos42
Aug 2014
#8
You're "helping the cause" in the same way Ian Paisley used to "help" Unionism...
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2014
#17
So you think I'm being harassed for being the host of a group that bans gun nuts?
SecularMotion
Aug 2014
#26
Well the only place where opposing views to the ones presented in your echo chamber
shedevil69taz
Aug 2014
#31
A flat declaration of fact is now an "opinion", and a strawman is repeated
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2014
#39
Rates declining is not the same as the proportion of guns used to commit homicide.
acalix
Aug 2014
#50
Great Post! The 2a is racist, unnecessary, and evil. It should be repealed.
ncjustice80
Sep 2014
#58
Bogus! That mofo just keeps popping up. Such clearly debunked bullshit, and it still comes up.
NYC_SKP
Oct 2014
#81
The Dred Scott decision was passed, in part, to prevent slaves from owning guns.
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2014
#67
Hit and run cowards with hands on their keyboards are giving aid and comfort to the GOP. NT
pablo_marmol
Sep 2014
#70
I think you're right but I wouldn't blame movies and books and TV shows on the NRA.
NYC_SKP
Sep 2014
#72
Even if we accept your erroneous interpretation that would still make the 2A addressed to the people
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2014
#124
It's kind looking, from the passge you have cited, that individual liberty is the issue at hand.
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2014
#129
The passage -- which was selected by you and is not the totality of the debate -- deals with
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2014
#140
Your entire line of argument is moot, thanks to the unorganized militia...
friendly_iconoclast
Oct 2014
#191
The ageist and sexist language wouldn't stand up to legal challenge
friendly_iconoclast
Oct 2014
#208
Your claim conflicts directly with the wording of the Second Amendment itself
friendly_iconoclast
Oct 2014
#216
The 'collective' reading of the Second Amendment is what's moot...
friendly_iconoclast
Oct 2014
#238