Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)I said:
"Suppose the same state has these two provisions in it's constitution:
1. The people have the right to regulate the police.
2. The people have the right to be secure in their papers and effects.
Both refer to the collective body which holds the right, so they're BOTH collective rights. But they're NOT both applied in the same way. A citizen acting alone CANNOT regulate the police even though, as a citizen belonging to that body, he's free from unreasonable searches. This is what you guys fail to understand when looking at the U.S. Bill of Rights. The amendment dealing with the security of a free State isn't applied in the same way as the one dealing with unreasonable searches. If eligible to serve, citizens would be called to serve in a well regulated militia on BEHALF of "the people," the body which holds the right.
Strawman said:
I fully understand your explanation of the variable application of the enumerated rights, and I reject it...
I said:
If you understand it, why do you reject it? You don't WANT to accept it, that's the problem.
Because it's wrong, for all the reasons I've already repeatedly stated. Don't confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.
Q1. You disagree that not all rights are applied in the same way?
Q2. You still disagree when presented with examples?
Your stated reason for disagreement is just an excuse. They're BOTH collective RIGHTS of "the people" in a "Declaration of Rights" but both differ in their application.