It has been argued that in the BoR, people refers to the general population, i.e. a collective right not applied to the individual. Rights belonging to the individual are covered with the term persons.
If that is true, are these the meaning of the amendments?
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.
An individual may not assemble nor petition for redress of grievances. That is only a right of a group.
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.
Individuals are not guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms unless in a militia (National Guard?). If they are members of the militia, however, they should keep their arms in their personal possession.
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.
An identified group of people (by geography, race, income, political beliefs or other criteria), are to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. Individuals, however do not have this protection. Searches and seizes may be preformed on individuals as long as it is not based on a set criteria identifying them as a people.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Groups may have other rights, which shall not be denied or disparaged. Individual rights may be so.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
As per Amendment IX
If these interpretations are true, then there would be consistency through the BoR and I could accept the 2A applies to militias. (Whether that is the NG is a topic for a different flamefest :image035:)
I'm somewhat well educated. I haven't been to law school. But I don't read it that way.
The OP does not have the First Amendment right to free speech, because that is a right of the group? And on down the line. Totally misleading reading of the constitution. Perhaps a troll, but I bit. I feel so ashamed.
Fantastic. Let those Washington DC ass-clowns tax the 'collective', not the individual. I'm tired of paying for everybody.
Not trolling http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d1...onComputer.png
Originally Posted by tiwee
Just had been in an argument with pro-GC folks who were giving me the line that where the BoR says people it is referring to a collective right. So I decided to re-interpret the amendments with that train of "logic"...
There other point was the 2A only applies to weapons of that time. My counter was then only written word and public speaking would be covered under the 1A. Any electronic media could be censored. They walked away then
The point about electronic media is the perfect rebuttal to the "only weapons of their time" argument. It always seems to stump people. It's amazing how when you apply their "logic" to the rights that they are concerned about, their arguments dry up.
Back when the Constitution was drafted as militia was considered all able bodied males of age wasn't it?