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]Straw Man
(6,624 posts)300. Wrong again.
Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776,
Declaration of Rights
III. That THE PEOPLE of this State have the SOLE, EXCLUSIVE and inherent RIGHT of governing and regulating the internal police of the same.
Declaration of Rights
III. That THE PEOPLE of this State have the SOLE, EXCLUSIVE and inherent RIGHT of governing and regulating the internal police of the same.
That's a state constitution, not the Bill of Rights. It simply means that the state, not the federal government, will regulate the police of that state. It refers to the respective jurisdictions of the different levels of government. That is NOT what the Bill of Rights is concerned with.
I fully understand your explanation of the variable application of the enumerated rights, and I reject it as based on nothing but your own flawed interpretation.
My argument is that the U.S. Bill of Rights was written by the same men who framed those state constitutions and they used the same words to mean the same thing in the U.S. BoR.
And that's an unsupported contention. You yourself have claimed that "the people" refers to different things in different amendments. How then are we supposed to take it on your word that "they used the same words to mean the same things"?
Again, the context is different. A state constitution serves to delineate a state's powers from the those of the federal government. The Bill or Rights defines and protects the rights of ALL citizens of the republic.
I provide documented evidence from the founding era.
Your argument is based on your own subjective interpretation of that evidence.
Because "the right of the People to keep and bear Arms" means the same thing.
No. It does not. You can spin it as hard as you want, but you can't make it mean that. It means what it says.
A natural right for all individuals to own guns for self defense would have looked NOTHING like the Second Amendment.
Yet several of the state constitutions provide exactly that, in very similar wording, a fact that you dismiss as irrelevant to the "thrust" of their meaning.
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