Re: The 2ed Amendment as a Gun Nuts Wet Dream

The Lone Weasel wrote:

> "Buckaroo Banzai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 
>
>
> > "Scout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:JJTxb.25410$Rk5.14612
>
> @newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net.
>
> > .. 
> >
> > > "The Lone Weasel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > > message 
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > >
> > > > "Buckaroo Banzai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > > > news:i8Sxb.25304$Rk5.18637
>
> @newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.n
>
> > > > et: 
> > > >
> > > > > "ulTRAX" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:3513d8b1.0311261845.4c6daf75
>
> @posting.google.com...
>
> > > > > > "Scout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > >
> > > > > news:<j6axb.23081$Wy4.17464
> > > >
> > > > @newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net
> > > >
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "ulTRAX" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:3513d8b1.0311261345.f65aca9
>
> @posting.google.com.
>
> > > > > > > .. 
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It's rather curious that the Gun Nuts find a
> > > > > > > > universal right to bear arms in language that
> > > > > > > > clearly doesn't intend one: "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."
> > > >
> > > > > > > Interesting how many people can't seem to see "the
> > > > > > > right of the
> > > > >
> > > > > people"....
> > > > >
> > > > > > MORE interesting that some can't see that the "well
> > > > > > regulated militia" being consistent with the
> > > > > > Constitution and the Militia Act can NOT mean
> > > > > > EVERYONE. 
> > > > >
> > > > > Even more interesting is the fact that all of the
> > > > > rights in the BofR are guaranteed to *all* the people,
> > > > > *except* the 2nd Amendment.  Very convenient.
> > > >
> > > > What about the Fifth Amendment, according to you the
> > > > Framers of the Bill of Rights meant the same thing when
> > > > they wrote "persons" as when they wrote "people":
> > > >
> > > > "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or
> > > > otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
> > > > indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in
> > > > the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
> > > > actual service in time of War or public danger; nor
> > > > shall any person be subject for the same offence to be
> > > > twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
> > > > compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
> > > > himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
> > > > without due process of law; nor shall private property
> > > > be taken for public use, without just compensation."
> > > >
> > > > So you'd indict everybody all the time whether they were
> > > > charged with a crime or not?  Or do you think maybe
> > > > parts of the Constitution mean individuals when it says
> > > > "person" and a class of the populace when it says
> > > > "people"? 
> > > >
> > > > Person = singular; people = plural.  That just makes
> > > > sense, right?
> > >
> > > Thus by your analysis, the 4th Amendment doesn't protect
> > > individuals since it speaks of the right of the people ( a
> > > plural). 
> > >
> > > However, I will simply note that a plural can also be used
> > > to address a bunch of individuals.
> > >
> > > Human beings are not the Borg.
>
>  
>
> > Thanks for handling that nonsensical argument for me Scout!
> > The Lone Weasel has been alone far too long I think.
>
>
> Well, he didn't explain why you claimed just the Bill of 
> Rights matters, not the whole US Constitution, and why you 
> think the Second Amendment grants individual gun rights when 
> it clearly grants a right to the people, which Snout failed 
> to discuss because he's an ignoramus, not to persons.
>
> Neither of you has explained why CJ Rehnquist is wrong on the 
> word "people".
>
> Why don't you tell us what you think, Duckaroo?
>
>
> Okay chump, tell us what you think.

	This quote from your cite says it all, Long Whistle:
> While this textual 
> exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the 
> people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First 
> and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are 
> reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a 
> class of persons who are part of a national community or who 
> have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this 
> country to be considered part of that community.

	The people whose rights are protected are the same in the First, Second, 
Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments.  That is to say, individual persons have 
intrinsic rights that are to be protected from government.

Pat Hines