The 2dA has always been an individuals right.

[montana]

https://thefederalist.com/2018/11/29/sec...ual-right/

[grayfox]

Well said.

[bj139]

Is Stan on vacation?

[grayfox]

Shhhhhh!!

[NugginFutz]

Carefule, bj. Last I heard LR55 say on the subject was there is to be no "Stan-baiting".

[stanc]

Is Stan on vacation?

Heh, heh. No, it was more of a forced absence. Computer died at the end of November. Just got it back from the shop about an hour ago.

[stanc]

Just read the article. It contains false and misleading statements. Examples:

...the founding generation believed individual Americans had an inherent right to bear those arms.

Misleading. The founding generation did not believe that all Americans had a right to bear arms. They believed that most of the black population had no rights whatsoever.

Many colonies enshrined an individual’s right to bear arms in their constitutions before the Bill of Rights was even written, most of them in more explicit individualistic terms.

False. Of the five State constitutions which preceded the Bill of Rights, the majority were explicit that the right to bear arms was for collective defense.

North Carolina (1776) "...the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State..."
Pennsylvania (1776) "...the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state..."
Virginia (1776) "...a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state..."
Vermont (1777) "...the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State..."
Massachusetts (1780) "The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence."

"The right of self defense is the first law of nature..."

False. The first (and perhaps only) law of nature is that living beings can do whatever they have the will and ability to do.

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers..."

LOL. If an armed citizenry actually were a "strong moral check" on the power of rulers, there wouldn't now be a ban on bump stocks, nor would we have laws like the NFA.

[stanc]

LR55: Since a couple of trivial posts in SASSY's thread caused you to lock it a few hours after your reply to my post, I'll respond in this thread since the subject is pretty much the same.

The concept of "natural rights" is a human invention. It is also a falsehood. In nature, there are no rights, least of all a right to life.
Indeed, the Creator -- if there was one -- designed living organisms to engage in an endless cycle of killing other living organisms.
And despite the "shall not infringe" language of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that the government can restrict, or even ban, some types of weapons.

Your interpretation is wrong. All animals will defend themselves if their lives are threatened. And this reading is simply a statement of that fact of nature.

Actually, the usual response of most animals when their lives are threatened is to flee, not fight.
There are exceptions to that general behavior, of course, but they are exceptions, not the rule.

Don't give us that line that it is invented by humans. Animals will defend themselves to preserve their lives.

I didn't say that self defense was invented by humans. I said that the concept of "rights" was.

As for the Supreme Courts rulings, can't deny them but they also do not rule that a person can not defend themselves if their life is being threatened. I don't think you are going to find a court that will say a guy must allow himself to be killed or that self defense is illegal.

So, now lets see your proof that we are not allowed to defend ourselves if our lives are being threatened?

:confused: Where did you see that in anything I wrote?

I have a CCP for Washington State and its sole intent is to provide me a means of protecting my life and property if threatened.

If people have always had a "right" to bear arms, why do you need government permission to carry a weapon?

[LR1955]

Stan:

You are 'ate up' as we said in the Army.

No, it isn't OK that you would hijack one of the few 2A threads that hasn't been locked because of your obsession with arguing.

You need to stay on the Military and LEA forum where your expertise as a historian is respected and admired.

I am locking this thread totally because of you.

My patience is gone.

[LR1955]

LR55: Since a couple of trivial posts in SASSY's thread caused you to lock it a few hours after your reply to my post, I'll respond in this thread since the subject is pretty much the same.


Actually, the usual response of most animals when their lives are threatened is to flee, not fight.
There are exceptions to that general behavior, of course, but they are exceptions, not the rule.


I didn't say that self defense was invented by humans. I said that the concept of "rights" was.


:confused: Where did you see that in anything I wrote?


If people have always had a "right" to bear arms, why do you need government permission to carry a weapon?

Stan:

I am banning you for two months.

I locked a thread mostly but not totally because of wise ass comments by two other members. Some of the reason was because of you. You argue the same point on every 2A thread and once you get backed into a corner, you turn the argument into one over how to interpret your writing or intent. It appears you are arguing only to argue and because of your constant use of the same arguments followed by arguing over word use and semantics, most of the smarter people on the forum who know something about the Constitution no longer participate.

Within a few hours of locking that thread, you move your argument over you word choice, semantics, and intent to this thread that is one of the few that has not been locked.

For hijacking this thread as you have done, in order to argue for the sake of arguing, you are banned from the forum for two months.

No, I don't like it but you have become disruptive and have driven off guys who really do know something about our history simply because they do not feel like getting into inane arguments with you over a word you used somewhere.

I would do the same to any forum member who hijacked a thread in order to continue an argument from a locked thread.

LR55

[RMiller]

Good article.