US Senate Website Confused on 2nd Amendment
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: US Senate Website Confused on 2nd Amendment

  1. #1

    US Senate Website Confused on 2nd Amendment

    Senate website says 2nd Amendment unclear: Rights may be 'collective' - Washington Times

    Senate website says 2nd Amendment unclear: Rights may be ‘collective’

    By Cheryl K. Chumley

    The Washington Times

    Thursday, September 26, 2013


    The Senate’s official website page on the Constitution says the Second Amendment right to bear arms could be a collective right, not an individual freedom.

    The website explains the Second Amendment this way: “Whether this provision protects the individual’s right to own firearms or whether it deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia has long been debated.”

    The Bill of Rights, however, was the Founding Father’s way of guaranteeing each and every individual their “unalienable rights,” as “endowed” by God. On top of that, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled — at least twice in the past five years — that the Second Amendment is an individual right, Breitbart reported.

    In 2008, the court ruled on District of Columbia v. Heller and found that “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.”

    And in 2010, Breitbart reported, the Supreme Court ruled the same held true in McDonald v. Chicago — that the Heller case showed “that individual self-defense is the ‘central component’ of the Second Amendment rights,” Associated Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote in his opinion.

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,418
    The Washington Times article has a link to the Senate's website, but it's not to the page where the quote can be found about the 2nd Amendment collective vs. individual right is. It wouldn't surprise at all that the Senate website posted such inanities, but the link at the article really should go to where their readers can see it for themselves.

    The OP wouldn't happen to have a link, would you?

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,602
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    The Washington Times article has a link to the Senate's website, but it's not to the page where the quote can be found about the 2nd Amendment collective vs. individual right is. It wouldn't surprise at all that the Senate website posted such inanities, but the link at the article really should go to where their readers can see it for themselves.

    The OP wouldn't happen to have a link, would you?

    Blues
    Here's the quotes from the site.
    Amendment II (1791)

    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.


    Whether this provision protects the individual's right to own firearms or whether it deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia has long been debated.
    U.S. Senate: Reference Home > Constitution of the United States

    Washington Times is correct.
    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
    NRA Certified RSO
    Normal is an illusion. What is normal to the spider is chaos to the fly.

  5. #4
    The Senate Website is: U.S. Senate: Reference Home > Constitution of the United States


    http://www.senate.gov/civics/constit...htm#amendments

    http://www.senate.gov/civics/constit...htm#amendments

    where it is written: Amendment II (1791)

    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.

    Whether this provision protects the individual's right to own firearms or whether it deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia has long been debated.

    It appears that the current Senate leadership does not consider The Bill of Rights to be "Settled Law."

  6. #5
    http://www.senate.gov/civics/constit...htm#amendmentshttp://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#amendments

  7. #6
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    756
    To ME "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" simply suggests, PEOPLE who are also individuals have the right to bear arms, AND a collective sense where the population as a whole have a right to keep and bear arms. More politicians looking for a way to make more and more things politically correct. Leave it as its written. Doesnt matter if they come to the assumption it means the Collective right, I cant imagine it would change a whole lot, if anything at all.
    Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier....One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,602
    Quote Originally Posted by Itstjs View Post
    To ME "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" simply suggests, PEOPLE who are also individuals have the right to bear arms, AND a collective sense where the population as a whole have a right to keep and bear arms. More politicians looking for a way to make more and more things politically correct. Leave it as its written. Doesnt matter if they come to the assumption it means the Collective right, I cant imagine it would change a whole lot, if anything at all.
    It is an individual right, not a collective right. When gov't makes something a collective right, it means they can control it by such as saying where things must be stored. Such as an armory in the case of guns.
    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
    NRA Certified RSO
    Normal is an illusion. What is normal to the spider is chaos to the fly.

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,556
    Thanks for the link. This thread was all about the 2A but I suggest everyone go to the link where the controversy came from. Just look at the explanation about the III Amendment. It stated that the 3rd is a "virtually obsolete provision". Oh yah really? I guess if the soldiers are anything but Brittish it is ok for them to quarter themselves in anyone's house! Everyone needs to stay vigilant and only support those that support the Constitution. Keep preaching the importance of this far from "obsolete" document. Go see for yourself. It sure says something about the morons in Washington!
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member
    NRA Certified RSO

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,418
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    The Washington Times article has a link to the Senate's website, but it's not to the page where the quote can be found about the 2nd Amendment collective vs. individual right is. It wouldn't surprise at all that the Senate website posted such inanities, but the link at the article really should go to where their readers can see it for themselves.

    The OP wouldn't happen to have a link, would you?

    Blues
    Quote Originally Posted by S&W645 View Post
    Here's the quotes from the site.

    Amendment II (1791)

    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.


    Whether this provision protects the individual's right to own firearms or whether it deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia has long been debated.
    U.S. Senate: Reference Home > Constitution of the United States

    Washington Times is correct.
    To me, the above quote from the Senate website is such a minor mistake as to be meaningless. It would be absolutely correct to say, "Whether this provision protects the individual's right to own firearms or whether it deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia had long been debated up until Heller was decided in 2008." Heller being the first-ever 100% true 2nd Amendment case heard, prior to that the "collective right" argument had been promulgated for decades, if not a century or more.

    "Had" - "has" - it really doesn't matter how they phrase it on the website. In reality, they will continue to try to control our access to guns, SCOTUS will make sure they have as much control as the overall oligarchy has determined The People will tolerate, all no matter what they say in public or on their websites.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  11. #10
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    north east Iowa
    Posts
    1,250
    This question has been settled several times by the Supreme Court with the Heller decision being the most recent. Every place in the Constitution where the phrase, "the people", is used; it is an individual right. But the statements in the website show you exactly where the great minds in the Senate are. Actually this entire question was settled in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was signed. The Constitution was written for average people. The founders never foresaw that Congress would be populated by idiots. The Second was added to protect the Constitution and the Republic against evil, stupid people exactly like we have today in Washington.

    In the eighteenth century the word militia referred to all able bodied men. The National Guard was never contemplated. The founders believed that owning a firearm was not only a right but the duty of a citizen. And "well regulated" meant trained and disciplined. A permanent army and even the National guard would have been feared by the founders as a danger to the republic.

    Today we have a government that considers the Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, to be a dangerous and subversive document. Certainly the Declaration of Independence is dangerous. And of course this government would be right. The founding documents are very threatening to to tyrants. To this government free speech and freedom of the press are more dangerous than firearms. And both have been severely limited by the Administration and the concept of political correctness.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast