Re: Myth: The Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to own a gun.

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:10:57 -0700, Ronald 'More-More' Moshki
<sector_four@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 27, 11:58 am, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Benj wrote:
John-Melb wrote:
I think Gunner is trying to tell us "the right of the people"
mentioned in the second amendment refers to a different group of
people to "the right of the people" mentioned in the fourth
amendment.

I don't know what Gunner has been smoking, but I know we don't shop
at the same tobacconist!

No, No, John-Melb! You just don't get it! Rights have ALWAYS been
"collective" rather than individual. A king's authority comes from his
being directly descended from God and therefore is God's ONLY
representative on earth. His word is LAW! For this reason mankind has
held for as long as history that the rights of subjects are
"collective" which is to say determined by their rulers.

The fourth amendment, for example, mentions the "right of the people"
and that DOES refer to the same "people" as in the Second amendment.
In other words the fourth amendment refers to the right of all
government officials to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Those in
power obviously have the right to search the persons, houses, papers
and effects of any of their subjects any time they so choose, it is
clear that since this is a collective right, subjects NEVER have any
right to search those in public service.

The same ideas hold for ALL the "collective" rights in the Bill of
Rights. Congress, for example is forbidden to make any law
establishing religion or abridging free speech, free press or the
right to assemble. Of course these things being collective only refer
to Congress being forbidden from passing any laws that might restrict
the ability of Congress to give speeches or assemble or even to print
materials. In other words Congress under the collective rights concept
is totally forbidden from passing laws that might say, for example,
that Government officials or publications cannot lie in the public
interest. Such a restriction would clearly be unconstitutional as has
been long established! Subjects on the other hand fall under NO such
protection! Subjects do not have collective rights. They only have
such privileges as granted them by their rulers acting under the
divine authority of the king.

This is how it is and this is how it has been throughout history!
Anyone who says differently knows nothing of the history of human
government!

Well said Benj... well said.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

After Reagan was shot,
we are lucky to have a single gun store.

We could be rounded up ala the Third Reich and there is nothng
we could do about it. That's the law.


I think that the 80+ million gun owners in this country would have a
bit to say about it. In terms of numbers, that's more armed personnel
than all the military and police forces in the western hemisphere.
It's twenty times the combined numbers of military and police in the
United States.
.

Relevant Pages