The Right of The People

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, January 25, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people"
- George Mason, June 4, 1788

"The Constitution asserts that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, June 5, 1824

Read the middle sentence of the 2nd amendment:

"...the people's right to keep and bear arms..."

Owning and carrying arms is explicitly recognized as a right, not a privilege.

How would a disarmed people, secure a free state?
How would a disarmed people, secure a free state from a tyrannical government?

the second amendment exists in case the first one is down

Sorry bud, the National Guard is not a militia and its existence cannot be construed as a reason to then take away private firearms.

The driving “privilege” is not espoused in the constitution in any way shape or form so it
May be limited within reason.

Ya not the first and second amendment. Those are foundational

which amendments are the non-foundational ones?

All the ones that weren’t there in the founding document

You know all the amendments are equal, right?

Equal before the law yes. So what, the Bill of rights are still foundational principals. That’s the first ten amendments for you Aussie socialists.

Not remotely Socialist, you American dunce.

Again if you support socialism and their mantras you are a socialist. You can call yourself a progressive if you want, that’s just what they call themselves here because they know socialists are scum here.

But I don't support Socialism. Neither do the Democrats. Stop being an ignorant American.

Democrats are socialists they call themselves progressives now because socialist has a bad connotation in America since we spent our post WW2 history fighting them. The liberal Democraps cower in fear and few of them speak out for fear of attack. They are useless.

They literally aren't Socialist. Look up Socialism. Democrats don't fit the bill.

The progressives are socialists. Bernie Sanders is a socialist, so are many top appointees of the Harris Administration and they have praised Castro communism in public..

Socialism is an economic model that NO DEMOCRATIC POLITICIAN SUPPORTS!

You really are ignorant. Many democrats and primarily the ones controlling the Harris administration are openly socialist and following socialist regime change tactics.

They're literally not.

"But it does, though - it's been proven to reduce gun crime."

Funny, cause your comment contradicted your stance....

"So they should murder innocents with guns instead?"

Your comment suggests that the murders will happen, regardless if you ban guns or restrict them. So why bother banning guns? The murders will still happen....

countries change their constitutions all the time. why shouldn't USA?

Amendments are added few are changed. Especially foundational bill of rights amendments. The only amendment at all that comes to mind is prohibition that was implemented, then repealed and thrown out. You can’t take away free speech or the right to bear arms and still have America.

none were in the founding document, genius

Genius, it’s called the Bill of Rights and they are the first ten amendments to the constitution. Do a non Google search or something and educate yourself.

So what? it is part of the foundation documents. It was ratified after the 7 articles of constitution but the bill of rights is still considered a foundational document and the base for all amendments. The first and second amendments are the ones leftists hate. They are the first and second because they are the most critical to a free country and the ones that cannot exist under communism.

Wrong there is no distinction to founding documents as all three are foundational documents though they were produced years apart. The United States was not created in a day. There were years of war internet stooge.

so, to summarize your position: the Constitution was a foundational document, and the Bill of Rights was a foundational document, neither of which can be changed (even though the Bill of Rights changed the Constitution by amending it), and all subsequent amendments are non-foundational because...?

The constitution wasn't the founding document, those were the articles of confederation. They went to hell 2 years after Washington left office.

Durpity Doo for you. Ever hear of the bill of rights?

dumb and dumber. you guys married?

You’re a retard. The Bill of rights together with the constitution and the Declaration of Independence are foundational documents Ya dumb cuck. The constitution wasn’t written when the Declaration of Independence was either, that doesn’t negate it as a foundational document you dumb turd.

Leftists hate the first two amendments to the constitution. They don’t believe you should be allowed to say what you want. Note the censorship by leftists. Censoring of valid journalistic articles that don’t fit the narrative. The second amendment is required for totalitarian monolithic governemnt control so that is the next assault. More people are killed with knives than rifles every year. Where’s the legislation to license knife ownership. Nutjobs drive cars into crowds causing mass casualties, the issue is nutjobs not what they use. Mental health is what needs to be dealt with. People like you only see depriving others of their rights as the solution to trade safety for freedom. I can’t think of anything less American. Addresss the real issue.

you are a willing tool of your leaders. i know that won't make sense to you now, but maybe in 20 years.

when i submit a manuscript to a journal, it goes through a review process. one thing the reviewers check for is factuality. if i were to load it up with bad data and/or warped interpretations that favor my theories, they wouldn't let it thru unless they shared those same theories. but then it wouldn't be much of an article, would it?

where's the legislation that you say is called for? you just had the White House and Senate for four years? didn't think the mass shooting problem was urgent enough? Trump was too busy watching TV and holding rallies. how you could feel threatened about some damage to the 2nd amendment in a gun-crazy country like this one is beyond me.

So you can twist it however you want I never said amendments can’t be amended and I gave the example of prohibition. Please name the other amendments that have been changed after adoption. Particularly any of the Bill of Rights amendments.

i'm just gonna wait out that 20 years. less work that way.

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200605/lancet-retracts-hydroxychloroquine-study?

Tell me again how anything published in a medical journal is inviolate?

Where’s the knife control legislation for the slaughter of civilians yearly that causes much more death than all rifle shootings. Background checks and serialized knives with registered owners should be implemented shouldn’t they?

Talk about being a tool? Your the idiot parroting the leftist destroy freedom agenda. You have likely never even held a weapon so I’m not going to classify you a knowledgeable or an authority.

the more you talk, the more you fail to reach accurate deductions, oh meat-headed one.

Of course you can’t respond with an answer or example of amendments to the constitution that have been changed or reversed besides probibituon. So your statement is debunked and you have been proven to be ignorant once again.

Its called "the bill of rights" which contain the first 10 amendments.

"and saying that those amendments can't be altered is saying that laws can't be changed. of course they can."

Sure they can be changed. There's a process for that. I suggest you work on passing an amendment to repeal the First and Second Amendments. Let me know how that goes.

"if you think the second amendment can't be rewritten,"

Sure it can. Pass an amendment. As for the first, I'm not particularly interested in repealing it. That would be people like you who want "hate speech" to be silenced.

Well...the dumb one about Prohibition would qualify.

true true.

they can be altered.

Not if you are continuing the country of the United States. You can’t destroy the founding principles and call it the same country.

Nope, mental defectives will drive cars into groups of people or stab them like the BLM supporter that killed the capitol policeman or the TDS afflicted leftist that shot up the grocery store.

No the issue is mental illness not the method used. It’s also illustrative of the leftist nutjobs who you lefties always overlook. More people are killed each year with knives than guns. Shall we remove them from everyone’s kitchen. Require them to be locked up in your home?

Congratulations on finally realizing that banning or putting restrictions on guns won't work in stopping mass killings.

But it does, though - it's been proven to reduce gun crime.

"impulsive conservatives "

Someone hasn't tracked the actual political leanings of mass shooters. Of course, if you're stupid enough to actually believe what CNN, NBC, ABC, etc. tell you, I guess there's no helping you.

were the shooters democrats?

There is only one amendment thats states it shall NOT be infringed and that is the second amendment because it protects the rest of the amendments from being stripped away by tyranny.

I see it like this - The 1st Amendment gives a person the right to tell government, "Go screw yourselves!" The 2nd Amendment gives a person the right to tell government, "Don't even think about it!"

Federally no. State and locally, yes. Do you think law abiding citizens in Portland would have to put up with ANTIF*Gs if they could get guns to protect themselves?

. . . Yet. But that’s exactly what the leftists are trying to do.

Yup, for ever.

Not ever gonna stop.

Just youtube "college students gun control" and you'll find hours of students saying guns should be flat out illegal, the second amendment should be removed, and even I recall a video of an antifa leader saying the entire constitution is "not a relevant document right now." That's the next generation of democrat voters right there. And if you find the polls, more and more democrats are in favor of a full on gun ban

Yes it is.... How long will you anti 2nd amendment doofs jeep parroting that sentiment?

Continuing the "it literally isn't" argument doesn't magically make it so. They are infringing on our 2nd amendment rights by limiting our ability to purchase and restricting our ability to own them. That's the literal definition of "infringement." It isn't difficult to understand this.

When the regulation restricts your right, then yes, it is an infringement.

So when the Democrats pretend they're offended by voter ID laws which restricts voting to those who are here legally and who have ID's? I'm still not understanding what the problem you have with that is. If you think it's racist, then maybe you should stop and think about what you're saying. You're acting as though black people and other minorities can't figure out how to get an ID.

Owning a gun is protected under the 2nd amendment, voting without an ID and not being a legal citizen of the US is not.

like voter ID?

ID is necessary to enforce the 26th amendment.

Then we should amend the constitution to provide gun control.

Sure, good luck with that.

nothing you can do to stop it.

Except vote for representatives who will uphold the constitution.

of break into the capitol :)

?

That is an infringement.

Fine, then change the Constitution via the amendment process.

Until you do, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

The Constitution nowhere says that the right to vote "shall not be infringed."

Because it doesn't say that. Reality is reality. The text says what it says. It does not say what it does not say. I'm sorry this is a difficult concept for you.

Yes, it does not say “shall not be infringed.”

You fail.

"what does it say?"

It says "shall not be denied *on the basis of* . . ." and then lists some qualifications which may not be used to deny an American citizen a vote.

This is not remotely comparable to the language of the second amendment. That simply says "shall not be infringed" period. No implication that there are more or less valid grounds for infringing it, only "shall not be infringed."

You lose, liar.

Yes. The U.S. Constitution has been amended 18 times. (There are 27 amendments but the first ten were passed at the same time.)

This was done through the amendment process, not by presidential order or by the Supreme Court claiming the Constitution should mean the opposite of what it actually says.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Self preservation is a right, protected by the 2nd amendment.

I'm not sure what you're trying to convey here.

There is no basic human right to drive. Sorry, your analogy fails. Your argument fails. You lose. Better luck next time.

If if happens, will you secede?

No, I’m not a state 😁

individuals can secede too you know.

No, they can’t. In fact it’s questionable weather a state can secede without amending the constitution or by force.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/27/so-you-want-to-secede-from-the-u-s-a-four-step-guide/

when an individual secedes, they simply leave the country :)

Also known as immigrate. But simply leaving the country doesn’t mean you seceded.

it does if you do so in protest of gun control or saving slavery.

No right to drive...heck, most roads are government roads anyways. It's a privilege accorded to the citizenry.

ok, then more like voter ID?

Dunno bro. It's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution how voting is to be managed, so therefore it is a power accorded to each state.

Besides, as I asked before, without voter ID of some sort then how do you know that only residents of that state are voting?

https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet

For the record, I loathe the ACLU because they, or at least the ones with whom I deal at the MT capitol building, lie and twist information regularly. As far as this article goes, I'd just ask this: What safeguard do they have in place to protect against fraud if there is no voter ID?

There is no good answer, because if you don't know who is voting then you can't protect against fraud, which is absolutely present in any election. Currently the levels of fraud are small, but removing safeguards removes any ability to tell if it grows and simultaneously emboldens those who would.

Additionally, the only thing preventing 100% distribution of free ID cards is a state legislature and money. We are the wealthiest country on the planet; initiating a Federal program to fund and expand the ID apparatus of each state would be trivial from a cost concern and reap all sorts of useful benefits. With expanded office locations for distribution points you could not only take an easy step towards securing voting, but also encourage more people to participate in all the other great things you can do with ID's (drive, buy alcohol, get a passport to travel, etc).

There is literally no downside to expanding ID access, and a lot of downsides to removing the need for it.