Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The second amendment refers to the right of the "people" (a collective group, as preceded by the phrasing about "people" who are a militia), whereas the latter amendments refer to the right of a particular person (a citizen) to vote.
Individual human rights are not subject to the whim of government, majority, special interest, or one's neighbor. The right to self defense is a natural human right.
That's an interesting question I've never heard before, but I thought I'd take a guess.
I thought one possibility might be that they considered the terms interchangeable.
Another possibility is that for their purposes, they didn't think you needed to be a citizen. The intent of the Second Amendment was to highlight the necessity of militias, since there was no standing army. Perhaps they felt that a new arrival to this country should be allowed to participate in a militia in the same way that a long-time citizen could.
However, just looking now at the Bill of Rights, though, I see that the word "citizen" isn't in there at all. For voting, which is what 15 and 19 are obvious, it's pretty obvious that you'd need to be a citizen. Duh.
How can it possibly be interchangeable, if both words appear in the same sentence, in Article 1, Section 2 - second paragraph. Clearly in that sentence both words have a different meaning.
Probably when the Bill of Rights was drawn up there was no citizens. Don't think the Bill of Rights gas ever been changed, correct me if wrong. Still firearms should be granted only to citizens and citizens who have not been to jail for a violent crime.
The second amendment refers to the right of the "people" (a collective group, as preceded by the phrasing about "people" who are a militia), whereas the latter amendments refer to the right of a particular person (a citizen) to vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunD1987
Probably when the Bill of Rights was drawn up there was no citizens. Don't think the Bill of Rights gas ever been changed, correct me if wrong. Still firearms should be granted only to citizens and citizens who have not been to jail for a violent crime.
Check out Article 1, Section 2... Person and citizen are used in the same sentence, so that cannot be it.
It isn't what anyone thinks it "should say". It is what it actually says, that is the law placed upon government. Government cannot change that.
You tell me? Seems from the response that they didn't know, or even want to know what the 15th or 19th amendments were all about, says volumes about the left and just what knowledge I'm going to get explained to me.
Seeing who is posting, The right doesnt have an answer for you either.
The truth is no one knows the answer and No, the Constitution is not written so that the
"everyman" can understand.
As far as I understand the constitution in Article one allowed congress to determine naturalizations laws. In essence the people gave the right to federalism to determine who was a citizen or not. The intention was probably meant for future citizen. Who was considered a citizen at the time the constitution is an interesting question. The colonies at the time ran under common law but that law could vary from colony to colony. However certain rights were considered inalienable whether you were a citizen or not.
Of course the constitution was not voted on by the people. It was voted on by colony delegates. So basically not a democracy in the purest sense.
The supreme court has weighed in on this a few times but with varying nuances. I do not believe there is a definitive litmus test for who is a people. Basically they have said that you must have a significant connection to the America and be of good standing. Of course, next well could change.
Also, congress could change naturalization laws and grandfather people in I doubt the supreme court could rule that unconstitional.
"Citizens" are slaves/subjects of the State who have only privileges. People are free humans who have inalienable rights free from the whim of government.
Check out Article 1, Section 2... Person and citizen are used in the same sentence, so that cannot be it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
How can it possibly be interchangeable, if both words appear in the same sentence, in Article 1, Section 2 - second paragraph. Clearly in that sentence both words have a different meaning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Bear
The second amendment refers to the right of the "people" (a collective group, as preceded by the phrasing about "people" who are a militia), whereas the latter amendments refer to the right of a particular person (a citizen) to vote.
Article 1, Section 2 states: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
This makes a distinction between citizens and non-citizens, meaning that non-citizens are still persons. In this context, the two words are not synonyms used interchangeably, even though both words refer to an individual. Ted Bear's point is correct, as the wording of the second amendment is the right of the people, a collective group, not a person, singular.
Article 1, Section 2 states: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
This makes a distinction between citizens and non-citizens, meaning that non-citizens are still persons. In this context, the two words are not synonyms used interchangeably, even though both words refer to an individual. Ted Bear's point is correct, as the wording of the second amendment is the right of the people, a collective group, not a person, singular.
Then why the 2nd amendment clearly says, people, not citizens?
We understand perfectly why the 14th, 15th and 19th amendments would use citizen/s. But in particular, the 2nd amendment is not specific. It says people as in all people that reside or come here, be it business or pleasure. And a person has all their rights, unless incarcerated or dead.
......and each individual person, makes up the collective people. People, is plural of person.
Why some, more specific than the other
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
