Aren't We the People the same People in the Second Amendment?

[mt4design]

I suppose what I am trying to get to is the most basic, simple a concept to talk to an anti like one might talk to a child.

We understand the larger concepts that the framers argued and debated and the conclusions they came to regarding the necessity to include the Second Amendment.

We don't need to convince each other.

But, the people we find ourselves confronted with only get their information from the leftist media and a school system dedicated to selling a revisionist history of how this nation was founded.

They'll never tell a child this nation was born of blood, and violent struggle, and sacrifice and at the center of that struggle was the most modern firearm of it's time.

So, we're left with a need to simplify the argument.

We, the people, are the same people per the SA who keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed.

[Dhena81]

This is a really good video done by ZombieTactics

[anthem]

the militia debate is tiresome,
the bill of rights reserves rights to the states and the people respectively,
the phrase about militia clarifies that the right to keep and bear arms is reserved to the people ...
because the right is reserved to either the state and the people respectively,
not to the federal govt, the phrase that a state will have a militia clarifies that the state will naturally be armed, as the militia is a necessity,
thusly the right to keep and bear arms is reserved to the people ... not the state, not the state militia, but the people, and shall not be infringed by either the federal or the state government

it's pretty clear, always amazed that in all the attempted deconstruction everyone mucks it up and tries to declare that the people are the militia,
sure the people are the militia, if they choose to be, but it matters not
as the right to keep and bear arms is reserved directly to the people, the individual, and shall not be infringed by either the fed or the state

naturally the founders knew that the state would be armed, it being a necessity, thus the individual, the people, reserved the right to keep and bear arms as protection against the fed and the state, the right to be infringed upon by neither

HTH, philo

Thank you, thank you, thank you....

[mt4design]

Great video Dhena81, thank you!

[Merkava_4]

PM sent to mt4design.

[mt4design]

PM sent to mt4design.

Got it, thank you!

[Tarn_Helm]

Don't oversimplify.

I suppose what I am trying to get to is the most basic, simple a concept to talk to an anti like one might talk to a child.

We understand the larger concepts that the framers argued and debated and the conclusions they came to regarding the necessity to include the Second Amendment.

We don't need to convince each other.

But, the people we find ourselves confronted with only get their information from the leftist media and a school system dedicated to selling a revisionist history of how this nation was founded.

They'll never tell a child this nation was born of blood, and violent struggle, and sacrifice and at the center of that struggle was the most modern firearm of it's time.

So, we're left with a need to simplify the argument.

We, the people, are the same people per the SA who keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed.

Oversimplifying plays into the hands of revisionist historians and their uneducated dupes.

As soon as someone starts talking about militia, invite him to sit down with you and go over the sources.

Remind him also that the SCOTUS has already ruled that "people" = "[the unorganized] militia" = "us"--based on historical sources.

So to answer your question: No.

If the problem were so simple, the SCOTUS would have never had to rule on it.

[mrdd]

According to many anti-2A people I know, they firmly believe that 2A applies only in the militia sense that we have come to know them by. If we were to accept their argument then the framers of the constitution would have established two distinct classes of citizens. People in that sense would mean militia.

The U.S. Supreme Court has already settled this in Heller. They held that it is an individual right.

[chris]

Asked and answered. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on this question.

of course we know what it really means but the mindless minions of this country believe the politicians that the 2nd Amendment is a collective one. i think they still believe Miller vs US is still valid.

[mrdd]

of course we know what it really means but the mindless minions of this country believe the politicians that the 2nd Amendment is a collective one. i think they still believe Miller vs US is still valid.

I think you mean "United States v. Miller", and why do you think it is not a valid decision?

[The Wingnut]

Many statists view 'the people' as being equivalent to the state, in that the state represents the people, be it with their consent or not, in line with their desires or not.

The People's Republic of China is most decidedly NOT governed by the people or for the people of China, and this is what sets the United States -as it was intended- apart from the rest of the world; there is meant to be no difference between the most impoverished citizen and the most empowered government servant. They are meant to be treated equally under the law because they are both citizens. There is no differentiation between them.

'The people' means something completely different to those who view it through a statist's eyes, whether they honestly believe it, or are being intellectually dishonest for the sake of their argument. THIS is a lynchpin in how our rights are being broken down and infringed.

Heller v. D.C. is well-known among the firearms community, but it has been buried and hidden from general public knowledge. Many people are still unaware that the Supreme Court weighed in on the nature of the nature of the right to self defense as being an individual right, and unless those of us in the know continue to bang the gong of enlightenment and and bang it loudly, it will continue to be obscure.

[pistol3]

The Supreme Court said it well in US v. Miller:

"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

[EL_NinO619]

Couldn't we all just not form one BIG A&S Militia? Problem solved, no they would probably regulate that also...