Re: If Obama Supports The Second Amendment....


"Bob" <freatork1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:e7d896af-baf9-4ce0-8b77-77ca58c40f20@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


> > > BEGIN.

> > > UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ

> > > "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."
> > > That text, by contrast with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, extends
> > > its reach only to "the people."

> > > END.

> > > Extends it's reach ONLY to "the people?" What does this mean if it
> > > doesn't mean that this right doesn't extend it's reach to every
> > > individual?


The question above hasn't been answered.


> > >Rights of "the people" are NOT broad, individual rights
> > > like free speech. If you belonged to the class of persons known as
> > > "the people," then you, as an individual, were secure from
> > > unreasonable searches and seizures.

> > So, it's okay to unreasonably search and seize individuals who do not
> > belong to the class of persons known as "the people"?

> According to the Constitution, yes. But don't miss the point - Not all
> individuals were considered to be part of the entity "the people."

I haven't missed your point, obviously.

#
# If you haven't missed the point you will understand that "the people"
# doesn't mean ALL "individuals. Also note that as an individual,
# Urquidez had a right to the trial. The argument that rights of "the
# people" are broad, individual rights has sunk.

The only person "missing points" here is you
We're not yet sure of the reason
But we're starting to conclude that it's from blind prejudice and an unwillingness to face the truth.

The meaning of "the people" has evolved quite a bit from the writing of the Bill of Rights 200+ years ago
Nowadays includes just about all adults with a very few exception for such things as free speech, freedom of religion, the 5th, and even the 2nd
About the only real restriction is for voting rights which require citizenship as well

So in actual fact, individuals rights have actually broadened in the last 200+ years








> > > Having said that, It doesn't
> > > follow that each person belonging to "the people" class could choose
> > > by HIMSELF when to"bear arms." It's "the people" in their collective
> > > capacity that have the right to bear arms, and it would be "the
> > > people" in their collective capacity that would make those kind of
> > > decisions.

> > A while back I asked: "which groups of people or persons are
> > protected by each of the previously mentioned amendments (1st, 2nd,
> > 4th, 9th, and 10th), and how does one make the determination of just
> > exactly who is protected and who is not?"

> Are you asking me who decided which individuals could be considered
> part of "the people?" If so, I don't know, it's just how things were.

Ah. That clears things up.

#
# Good.
#

Well you should NOT be complacent or even proud of your limited knowledge
Instead you should seek to expand it, instead of expounding on your oh-so-obvious ignorance




> Mind you, it was all done at the point of a gun.

"But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably
the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute
Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such
Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security."

#
# What point are you trying to make with that quote? Does it refute any
# of the points I've made?

Some of the Framers of the Constitution felt that the 2nd was the "reset switch" for this countty if for some reason the government forget it's intended purpose.




> > It sounds like individuals can't determine if they have those rights,
> > but only "the people", in their collective capacity, make those kind
> > of decisions. Sounds rather circular to me. Perhaps I've
> > misunderstood you?

> You couldn't have millions of individuals each deciding for themselves
> when to bear arms. What if only a hundred individuals believe that the
> State is in danger but the other few million don't?

The phrase is "keep and bear arms".

#
# Do you think that the keeping of military armaments can only be done
# by individual persons?
#

NOPE
They should also be kept by the military for military use
(Isn't that rather obvious ?)
On the other hand, since the purpose of an armed "general militia" is to have available individuals who can be called up and be somewhat proficient in the use of MILITARY small arms, it makes sense to protect the right of citizens to own those same military weapons



If the situation you envision arose - I assume that you mean that a
hundred individuals have decided to revolt

#
# Suppose this revolt was in a neighbouring State - Do you suppose that
# the framers intended that individuals should decide for themselves to
# go to that State to crush the rebellion?
#

Why don't you go read what they had to say on the subject




> > The Preamble to this document states in part: "The body politic is
> > formed by a voluntary association of individuals: it is a social
> > compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and
> > each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by
> > certain laws for the common good. It is the duty of the people,
> > therefore, in framing a constitution of government, to provide for an
> > equitable mode of making laws, as well as for an impartial
> > interpretation, and a faithful execution of them; that every man may,
> > at all times, find his security in them."

> > Sounds like rights belong to everyone....

> "Rights weren't mentioned.

They are in the other parts of the document.

#
# And some of those rights are for "the people" as an entity while
# others are individual in nature. This is clear by simply reading the
# decloration. Article XXIX makes it crystal-clear that both "the
# people" and each "citizen" have rights.
#

Considering that the term "the people" is a generic for INDIVIDUALS, that's a tautology
And you should remember basic set theory, which states that for a group to have a specific quality, each memeber of that groups MUST HAVE that same quality
So for a "group of redheads", EVERY SINGLE MEMBER MUST BE a "redhead"


#
#
# XXIX.--It is essential to the preservation of the rights of every
# individual, his life, liberty, property and character, that there be
# an impartial interpretation of the laws, and administration of
# justice. It is the right of every citizen to be tried by judges as
# free, impartial and independent as the lot of humanity will admit. It
# is therefore not only the best policy, but for the security of the
# rights of THE PEOPLE, and of EVERY CITIZEN, that the judges of the
# supreme judicial court should hold their offices as long as they
# behave themselves well; and that they should have honorable salaries
# ascertained and established by standing laws.
# http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss6.html
#

The above does NOT jibe in ANY way with your claim
But clearly this is the phrase that confuses you
"but for the security of the rights of THE PEOPLE, and of EVERY CITIZEN,"
Citizens are a subset of "the PEOPLE".
ANd why ?
Because citizens can vote and hold certain public offices
Of the PEOPLE, ONLY the CITIZENS can vote
And there are even some restrictions there are well.
Eg, candidates for President must be US-Born citizen over 35 years of age.
But the people is basically ALL those living in the US
For example you do NOT need to be a CITIZEN to qualify for the Miranda or the right to a lawyer if arrested for a crime. Being part of "the people" is enough.



.