Parker Gun Collectors Association Forums  

Go Back   Parker Gun Collectors Association Forums Parker Forums General Parker Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 06-14-2016, 02:53 PM   #1
Member
Bindlestiff
PGCA Lifetime
Member
 
Robin Lewis's Avatar

Member Info
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,118
Thanks: 703
Thanked 2,941 Times in 870 Posts

Default

I read the original Bill of Rights and I easily see a common thread in all of them, which I believe Russell tried to shine a light on when he listed them. That common thread is that each, and everyone of these amendments, is directed at the individual and are rights reserved for them alone. Not rights reserved for a Militia or church or town or army or .... whatever, just for the individual alone,.... the people.

It seems unreasonable to argue that the second amendment alone is not dedicated to the rights of the individual.
Robin Lewis is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Robin Lewis For Your Post:
The People
Unread 06-14-2016, 03:12 PM   #2
Member
Sheepherder
PGCA Member

Member Info
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 116
Thanks: 322
Thanked 57 Times in 42 Posts

Default The People

Robin, Well said. Right On !
Hal Sheets is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-14-2016, 03:39 PM   #3
Member
Setter Man
PGCA Member

Member Info
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,798
Thanks: 1,710
Thanked 1,640 Times in 638 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Lewis View Post
I read the original Bill of Rights and I easily see a common thread in all of them, which I believe Russell tried to shine a light on when he listed them. That common thread is that each, and everyone of these amendments, is directed at the individual and are rights reserved for them alone. Not rights reserved for a Militia or church or town or army or .... whatever, just for the individual alone,.... the people.

It seems unreasonable to argue that the second amendment alone is not dedicated to the rights of the individual.
So you don't believe constitutional rights should be extended to entities (religious institutions, non-profit entities, schools or corporations)?
Jay Gardner is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-14-2016, 03:44 PM   #4
Member
Bindlestiff
PGCA Lifetime
Member
 
Robin Lewis's Avatar

Member Info
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,118
Thanks: 703
Thanked 2,941 Times in 870 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Gardner View Post
So you don't believe constitutional rights should be extended to entities (religious institutions, non-profit entities, schools or corporations)?
Yep, I do. These rights are extended to all the "people" that make up the religious institutions, non-profit entities, schools or corporations thereby the organizations have these same rights. Take away the people and they lose these rights.
Robin Lewis is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Robin Lewis For Your Post:
Unread 06-14-2016, 03:49 PM   #5
Member
Dean Romig
PGCA Invincible
Life Member
 
Dean Romig's Avatar

Member Info
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 32,954
Thanks: 38,666
Thanked 35,890 Times in 13,162 Posts

Default

Only insofar as the constitution specifically includes them... IMHO

They have no right to pretend the constitution protects them by attempting to identify themselves as individuals and claim protection under the Bill of Rights.

And I agree that without the "people" these entities are not protected.





.
__________________
"I'm a Setter man.
Not because I think they're better than the other breeds,
but because I'm a romantic - stuck on tradition - and to me, a Setter just "belongs" in the grouse picture."

George King, "That's Ruff", 2010 - a timeless classic.
Dean Romig is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-14-2016, 04:38 PM   #6
Member
Kensal Rise
PGCA Member

Member Info
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,772
Thanks: 624
Thanked 2,590 Times in 929 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Romig View Post
...without the "people" these entities are not protected.

Ahem... Quite right, Dean.

But perhaps certain of us might do well to recall the preamble to The US Constitution. Please pay particular attention to the FIRST THREE WORDS... :

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
John Campbell is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to John Campbell For Your Post:
Unread 06-14-2016, 10:27 PM   #7
Member
OH Osthaus
PGCA Lifetime
Member
 
Rick Losey's Avatar

Member Info
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 7,935
Thanks: 1,778
Thanked 8,547 Times in 3,347 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Campbell View Post
Ahem... Quite right, Dean.

But perhaps certain of us might do well to recall the preamble to The US Constitution. Please pay particular attention to the FIRST THREE WORDS... :

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), writing the majority opinion - wrote that the term "the people" has the same meaning in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. All those five amendments in the Bill of Rights use the term "the people" to guarantee a right for individual citizens, not just some collective right of the state as a whole.


In his opinion there is no reason to believe that the Second Amendment uses the term "the people" differently from the other four amendments.

honestly - to think these word smiths used the term "PEOPLE" in WE THE PEOPLE and 4 other amendments but meant something completely different in just the second amendment stretches credibility even for an activist judge
__________________
"If there is a heaven it must have thinning aspen gold, and flighting woodcock, and a bird dog" GBE
Rick Losey is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Rick Losey For Your Post:
Unread 06-14-2016, 05:02 PM   #8
Member
Bruce Day
PGCA Lifetime
Member
 
Bruce Day's Avatar

Member Info
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,995
Thanks: 554
Thanked 15,698 Times in 2,676 Posts

Default

Regarding individual gun rights and the Second Amendment,

I think it does too, but it is not as clear a statement as some would believe or act like they believe and you have to go beyond the words of the amendment to reach that conclusion. Scalia thought so too and he wrote the landmark and narrow majority Heller decision with that in mind. He was perhaps the best friend gun owners could have. With him gone and more people turning against gun owners because of wacko shootings we lose public goodwill. Some people are willing to take all gun owners down with them because they want their butt ugly Bushmasters, ARs, AKs and the like.

Because of these military style weapons the public turns against us and may fail to distinguish one gun from another. The AK and AR crowd tells us we must stand together, no wonder , they need the support now for the problems these weapons have created.
Bruce Day is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bruce Day For Your Post:
Unread 06-14-2016, 05:05 PM   #9
Member
Setter Man
PGCA Member

Member Info
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,798
Thanks: 1,710
Thanked 1,640 Times in 638 Posts

Default

Think Heller was the right decision but I disagree with Citizens United. Unless corporations can be held to the same responsibilities as an individual they should not enjoy the same protections.
Jay Gardner is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jay Gardner For Your Post:
Unread 06-15-2016, 08:20 AM   #10
Member
Paul Harm
Forum Associate

Member Info
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,774
Thanks: 44
Thanked 758 Times in 419 Posts

Default

" Some people are willing to take all gun owners down with them because they want their butt ugly Bushmasters, ARs, AKs and the like. " Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Also, united we stand, divided we fall. Some of us like Parkers, some pistols, some target rifles; but let us not disregard anyone's gun rights just because we don't play their game or like the way their gun looks. I never saw a AR jump up and shoot anyone all by itself.
__________________
Paul Harm
Paul Harm is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Paul Harm For Your Post:
Visit Paul Harm's homepage!
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1998 - 2025, Parkerguns.org
Copyright © 2004 Design par Megatekno
- 2008 style update 3.7 avec l'autorisation de son auteur par Stradfred.