How to Read the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution

[cory]

1. "The people" did no "allocating" of their rights, as they neither wrote nor ratified the Constitution. It was written by members of the US government, and ratified by State governments.
2. You just contradicted yourself, again. You originally wrote: "...the Founders crafted the Constitution where the Rights taken from the Individual and allocated to the government...

1. They absolutely did. Who ratified it? Representatives of the people of the state acting on the behalf of the people.

2.Fair enough. I'm may have said that there but it's not exactly what I meant. What I have said in regards to it more recently is true.
What you're really doing here is playing semantics for the sake of winning and not to actually get us anywhere.

Interesting. I would've sworn that the Founders established a government with three branches of equal power.o

I'll forgive you as this is a common misconception. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution or supporting literature that suggests this. In fact the intent was the very opposite of this. Read the Federalist Papers if you don't believe me.

The founders intended for the judicial branch to be the weakest and the Congress the strongest branch with specific powers divided between the 2 house. It's with noting here that they intended for the President to be responsible for all aspects of the executive branch. It's why we only vote for the one position in the executive branch.

LOL. That's my question. But, the Declaration of Independence and the Ninth Amendment clearly indicate that there are rights which neither document. o

I've presented a reasonable theory on this. And in turn all you've done is said nope I don't like it while pissing on the board.

I assume no such thing. My position is that "rights" do not actually exist; they are inventions of the human mind, and we have only such "rights" as we can either (a) convince others to willingly respect, or (b) use force to make them respect.


ETA: Oops. I think I misread your last sentence quoted above. By "you assume" I thought you meant me personally, but upon rereading it looks like you meant "one assumes." :o

In reality I firmly agree with you on point a and b. However, in order to do that we must have a frame work to work towards.

Rights may not be as real as the air you breath or the ground you walk on. However, they are necessary for society to exist and for a legal system to work especially in a free society. Therefore, to take a phrase from Jordan B Peterson, they're real enough.