Ultimate 2nd Amendment Argument...

[TMMT]

Why is it, that within the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments of our Bill of Rights, the rights of the "people" are interpreted, referring to the rights of "individuals", and yet, only within the Second Amendment, is the word "people", allegedly intended by our Founding Fathers to symbolize a collective or state right?

If it is your position that the Second Amendment is addressing only a collective or state right, then, for the purposes of clarification and uniformity, we should immediate replace the words "people" and "persons" with the word "state", in all aforementioned Amendments. 


Upon performing this minor alteration, we can all feel certain that our 50 states will be comforted in knowing that they now have a right to freely express their religious beliefs. 
And, perhaps, our state governments can now be secure in the knowledge that they are free to speak and peaceably assemble.


Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures will certainly bring a sense of well being to our states. 
Each state can rejoice in the understanding that they cannot be arrested without a warrant, to be issued only upon probable cause. 
That the life, limb and property of each state cannot be placed in jeopardy twice for the same offense. 
And, the state shall no longer be compelled in a criminal case to give evidence against itself. 
Each state can now eagerly anticipate the utterance of a police "Miranda" warning, prior to its arrest and prosecution. 


Frankly, I think that it would be far easier to abolish the Ninth Amendment altogether, rather than explain why we believed it necessary to change its meaning from "Reserved rights to the people" to "Reserved rights to the state". A few mindful individuals might feel compelled to question this one. 


Lastly, we must now proceed to erode the Tenth Amendment. The distortion of this Amendment is also quite simple. Henceforth, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively, and back to the states again, where such powers shall remain". Not to worry, as the Tenth Amendment will become quite confusing as a result of this proposed change, and most citizens haven't a clue as to what our Bill of Rights represent, I do not believe that many challenges will arise to cause you consternation.


In this light, I should imagine that anyone exhibiting even a trace of commonsense could not help but see the outlandishness of such semantic manipulations. But, in reality, this is precisely what politician and disingenuous judiciaries have contrived for the Second Amendment, our principal defender of the Bill of Rights. 


In a most illustrative example of governmental corruption and hypocrisy, which, to my knowledge, has never been challenged in a court of law, let us now examine the following scenario that everyone can easily comprehend.

If a state or local government were to violate the civil rights of any individual (clearly defined and enumerated within the Bill of Rights), the federal government and courts would immediately admonish that offending state or city. Excluding, of course, the civil and unalienable individual rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment is the only Constitutional protection to be singled out for, state and local recognition or lack thereof, state interpretation, and unconstitutional state infringements. Whereas, the states are seldom permitted to infringe upon the civil rights contained within the remaining nine Amendments, they are encouraged by the federal government and courts to assault the principles of the Second Amendment.

These legislative and judicial abuses are an outrage, yet, willfully and readily employed in every state within this nation. 


Whether or not the majority of citizens believe in the right of the people (individuals) to keep and bear arms is irrelevant to the application of constitutional law. Intentionally disregarding degrees of social and political popularity, the Constitution equally protects the rights of every individual.

Like it or not, this is a nation of laws and not men. We do not consider the political correctness of Socialism, or polls of public opinion in order to determine which unalienable, constitutional rights government shall permit the people to exercise. We are dependent upon "Constitutional Law" for such judgments. Not any individual or faction has ever been blessed with the luxury of picking and choosing which "Article or Amendment" is more convenient and adaptable to their self-serving needs.

The Constitution must be accepted logically, with honesty and in its entirety. 
The essence and intent of the United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Second Amendment, have most definitely ricocheted off the intellect of the left. In presenting a conclusion of such vital principles, the void of honest scrutiny and practice should be of some concern to many.

[Volzfan]

Great post!

[sigmtnman]

The same reason why corporations are recognized as people. The constitution stopped mattering late in the 1800s. The government considers people who think highly of it and/or talk about it as terrorists.

[Guest PatriotCSA]

The same reason why corporations are recognized as people. The constitution stopped mattering late in the 1800s. The government considers people who think highly of it and/or talk about it as terrorists.

The sad thing is, that's not an exaggeration. They really do consider patriots who demand adherence to the Constitution as threats to "national security."

[Bigiron]

The greatest threat to this nation is in Washington D.C.

[Guest jackdm3]

The greatest threat to this nation is Washington D.C.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The constitution will never stop mattering unless we allow it. It's all we have to work with, unless some would like some more marxism. I wouldn't.