The Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment: How Foolish Are We?

[P-14]

As we know, the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights reads: “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[1].”

As we also know, there are two interpretations out there: The Second Amendment is about a collective right (i.e., only applying to militias) or it is about an individual right of the people[2].

How foolish are we? If you actually read the entire Bill of Rights, “the right of the people” is used in 3 different Amendments: The First, Second, and Fourth.

The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (emphasis added)

Is there any argument by anyone that the First Amendment is not written for individuals (i.e., the people)? No, of course not.

The Fourth Amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (emphasis added)

Clearly, the First and Fourth Amendments leave no doubt about our individual rights. It is our right to peaceably assemble, petition the government, and be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures.

So, why is there even a discussion about the true meaning of the Second Amendment? It is clear, as in the First and Fourth Amendments, that it is the right of the people that the Founders stated “shall not be infringed.”

Is it a misguided attempt to take the Second Amendment out of context and claim there is only a collective right to keep and bear arms? I think not. I think it has been a deliberate attempt for a very long time to control arms and remove them from the people by using this subterfuge.

How foolish are we for letting this hoax of an interpretation even be considered? All that matters is the rights of the people!

---

[1] The Bill of Rights: A Transcription
[2] Second Amendment

 

[VetteGirlMA]

Hah attempting to talk about this with a modern day leftist you might as well bang your head against a wall. They want all the power. They want to determine who has rights and who doesn't. You're talking to people who don't even see the world the way you or I do.

 

[timbo]

This is a liberal explaining the 2nd amendment:

 

[greencobra]

This is a liberal explaining the 2nd amendment:

View attachment 626265

don't think it could be said any better.

 

[bigbravehog]

imo the issue isn't the ignorance of the left, its the complacency of the right. We have let them give away so many of our rights until it's too late.

 

[Uzi2]

Hah attempting to talk about this with a modern day leftist you might as well bang your head against a wall. They want all the power. They want to determine who has rights and who doesn't. You're talking to people who don't even see the world the way you or I do.

Correct, they see everything in the universe in reverse.

Up is down, down is up, left is right, right is left, good is bad, bad is good, truth and facts are false and falsities are fact.

This is why if you ever watch the leftist news or read a leftist newspaper rag article, all you have to do is reverse everything in the article to find the actual truth.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

Correct, they see everything in the universe in reverse.

Up is down, down is up, left is right, right is left, good is bad, bad is good, truth and facts are false and falsities are fact.

This is why if you ever watch the leftist news or read a leftist newspaper rag article, all you have to do is reverse everything in the article to find the actual truth.

It's not even an opposite. There are 2 competing views of the country. One camp and I'm in this camp are people who support and defend the constitution. I like having civil rights spelled out and limitations on government. The other group believes that just because something isn't spelled out they invent it out of whole cloth and prop it up. Anything can be put up for a vote including everything in the bill of rights. Say a mean thing on twitter? It's not free speech and you can go to jail. Oh and what that mean thing is? Well it changes from moment to moment. Want to keep a revolver in the sock drawer? No 4th amendment protection either the police can kick in your door and search your house with a warrant. Conservative? No right to an attorney. They don't hide it and say it right out in the open.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

Correct, they see everything in the universe in reverse.

Up is down, down is up, left is right, right is left, good is bad, bad is good, truth and facts are false and falsities are fact.

This is why if you ever watch the leftist news or read a leftist newspaper rag article, all you have to do is reverse everything in the article to find the actual truth.

You left out that bees are fish and men can have abortions.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights should be read aloud to all members of Congress at the beginning of each session.

Bob

 

[mothybee]

I've found that most people view the bill of rights as rights the govt. gives you when in reality it's rights that God gave you and the govt. can't touch.

 

[G4Y4HK]

My democrat friends have told me the second amendment says the right to bear arms is meant for the well-regulated militia = all the state national guards can have weapons, not Joe MAGA Gun Lover. The purpose was so if the federal government wanted to be tyrannical to states, individual state militaries and guards could fight back.

 

[paul73]

My democrat friends have told me the second amendment says the right to bear arms is meant for the well-regulated militia = all the state national guards can have weapons, not Joe MAGA Gun Lover. The purpose was so if the federal government wanted to be tyrannical to states, individual state militaries and guards could fight back.

they're not liberal enough.
best liberal explanation is - it was intended for the federal government to have a military, and that military to have weapons to enforce law and order in the country and across any states, if any states would dare to misbehave.

you should've told them that with a straight face and see the reaction, because the best liberal explanation is always the one that is an exact and furthest opposite of truth.

 

[G4Y4HK]

they're not liberal enough.
best liberal explanation is - it was intended for federal government to have military, and that military to have weapons to enforce law and order in the country and across any states, if any states would dare to misbehave.

you should've told them that with a straight face and see the reaction, because the best liberal explanation is always the one that is an exact opposite of truth.

No see, they both have Chinese immigrant girls as partners so they understand the importance that smaller governments must have the power to fight the big central government. Their women escaped that world and into the savior arms of the white American man. The spirit of the second amendment is to give municipal and states a chance to do that. They made sure that I understood they are not commies.

 

[paul73]

smaller governments must have the power to fight the big central government

yep, while the whole point of founding fathers was the 'we the people', not 'we the governments'.
any government LOVES to make pretend they are the 'peoples'. and they never are.

and the most logical usual consequence of that is - any government next presumes that all 'rights' apply to the government itself and its hired goons only, and 'we the peoples' are just a same raw sewage it always was.

 

[enbloc]

I Am the Second Amendment.

 

[mothybee]

My democrat friends have told me the second amendment says the right to bear arms is meant for the well-regulated militia = all the state national guards can have weapons, not Joe MAGA Gun Lover. The purpose was so if the federal government wanted to be tyrannical to states, individual state militaries and guards could fight back.

Where they get that wrong is the nat. guard is federal at the whim of our ruler. Militias are made up from the people. That's why the govt. hates them so.

 

[Uzi2]

You left out that bees are fish and men can have abortions.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights should be read aloud to all members of Congress at the beginning of each session.

Bob

Yes, then a copy of each rolled up tight and jammed into their eye socket.

 

[AJK129]

 

[Uzi2]

Hah attempting to talk about this with a modern day leftist you might as well bang your head against a wall. They want all the power. They want to determine who has rights and who doesn't. You're talking to people who don't even see the world the way you or I do.

Funny you should say that.

Here's a little expansion on the issue.


View: https://youtu.be/awshwaKq94s

 

[r2kbA]

Not sure if dupe but this seems like what you might have watched. Worth the hour if you haven't...

View: https://rumble.com/v18904x-were-not-ready-for-whats-coming....html

 

[DarkJoker33]

I was about to post that ^^^^^^^
Watched it last night

 

[fshalor]

Correct, they see everything in the universe in reverse.

Up is down, down is up, left is right, right is left, good is bad, bad is good, truth and facts are false and falsities are fact.

This is why if you ever watch the leftist news or read a leftist newspaper rag article, all you have to do is reverse everything in the article to find the actual truth.

Murder is already illegal.

I think that's the only real argument.

 

[StevieP]

If anyone argues for the "collective militia right" just tell them to read the first ~six pages of the Heller decision.

Justice Scalia spelled it out perfectly.

This is settled law and no longer open to that interpretation (collective right). They might *want* it to be that way. But that does not make it so.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

 

[oldguy68]

The bill of rights, guarantees an individual's rights.
Not the governments rights!

Why is it so hard to understand?
Unless you are trying to perverse those rights as to who they apply to.
Like a tyrant would!

 

[Lucas McCain]

My interpretation of 2A is that it is there among other things, to protect the people from a tyrannical government. We all know that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". We have the God given right to be secure in our persons, that includes self protection as well as the right to remove tyrants. Simple eh?

 

[Uzi2]

If anyone argues for the "collective militia right" just tell them to read the first ~six pages of the Heller decision.

Justice Scalia spelled it out perfectly.

This is settled law and no longer open to that interpretation (collective right). They might *want* it to be that way. But that does not make it so.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Then punch them in the mouth (twice) for being such an ignorant leftist fool.

 

[AHM]

... they both have Chinese immigrant girls as partners so they understand the importance that smaller governments must have the power to fight the big central government. ... They made sure that I understood they are not commies.

So now that we've established that they're commies...

The Constitution and Bill of Rights should be read aloud to all members of Congress at the beginning of each session.

Yes, then a copy of each rolled up tight and jammed into their eye socket.

 

[Bfatz]

Murder is illegal…we still have murders
Drugs are illegal…we still have a massive drug problem
So tell me again how any new (very unconstitutional) laws restricting guns rights are going to prevent one single criminal act.

These so called leaders are delusional. The same a**h***s that mandated you inject a Biologic into your body claning it to be a Vaccine if you wanted your freedom back..Now all of a sudden they care about the Children? Come on now..

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Covered in UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ and cited by Scotus in Heller https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

 

[cathouse01]

You can change four words in the Second Amendment and ask liberals how they would interpret it.

Change regulated to educated, change militia to electorate, change bear to read and change arms to books.
You get:

A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.

Does this mean that only the "well-educated”, say those with at least a college degree, can keep and read books?
Or does it mean that the people's right to keep and read books can not be infringed so that they will be able to be well educated?

 

[SgtHal75]

Isn’t it funny that the 1st,2nd and 4th amendments are the only ones that are under constant assault?….individual rights