First Amendment - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dksuddeth · 04-06-2006, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Freedom of speech, press, religion, peaceable assembly, and to petition the government.

The first five rights protected by the Bill of Rights have seen numerous court decisions as the government vs. the people have hashed out what is and is not constitutional. Issues like the 'establishment' clause (or the separation of church and state, free speech vs. the alien and sedition acts, freedom of the press vs. libel and slander, freedom of petition and assembly vs. the supremacy clause.

The constitution is a document that issues powers to the government, powers that come from the people, so how far do we let government gag free speech, or block free press, or create free speech zones?

Is the 'right of the people' defined as an individual right to petition for redress of grievance or is it a collective right of the state to petition the federal government?

Does the prohibition of anything 'christian' or religion conform strictly to the establishment clause?

How far does 'free speech' allow the people to say things?

The_Jazz · 04-07-2006, 07:07 AM

I've been waiting for the start of these threads, and I'm glad that we started. Thanks, dksuddeth.

Niceties out of the way, Free Speach, IMO gives the individual the right to say anything that is not seditious (actively advocating for the violent overthrow of the government), treasonous (actively undermining the physical wellbeing of the nation and people) or dangerous ("fire" in a crowded theater). That leaves an incredibly wide area open. The petition for redress applies to both the people and the states, and I think that this is pretty well established law.

Religion is where it gets interesting, especially in today's "10 Commandments" climate. I'm not really sure how to directly answer your question since I'm not entirely sure where you're trying to go with it, so I'm going to focus on a single topic. The state cannot and should not advocate any religion or bodies of religion. Yes, the 10 Commandments are a part of our heritage, just like the Magna Carta. However, displaying them on state property on a standalone basis is the active advocation of Judeo-Christianity. I'm looking at you, Alabama. The 10 C. as a part of a display of the history of law is fine.

dksuddeth · 04-07-2006, 07:24 AM

'Fire' in a crowded theatre has not been deemed illegal, however, that does not mean there are not consequences to pay for any damages.

religion, tough one. While it says that congress shall make 'no law' establishing religion, it also says 'the free exercise thereof' and thats a biggie. As you said, our nation was based upon a judeo-christian set of principles and I, personally, see nothing wrong witht 10 commandment displays, nativity scenes, etc. It's the free exercise of religious expression.

Petition for redress, I'd like some more people to comment on this as well. My take is that the supremacy clause is over abused to deny people the right to sue the government and this is on all levels, fed, state, and local.

ubertuber · 04-07-2006, 07:37 AM

First off, there is a lot of groundwork to be laid if these threads are going to be productive. I'm all for discussion and I don't want to invalidate anyone's opinion, but we need to lay out a framework and provide people with a working understanding before we dig too far into debate.

To all posters in these threads, I have a request:

Please distinguish between your interpretation of amendments, court actions, etc. and actual court decisions and precedents. It could be very easy to make our water murky here.

That said, I think that the fact that free speech exists within several very well established restrictions must be acknowledged. I refer you to this pdf

Obscenity
Child Pornography (separate from obscenity in that the Miller test need not be applied)
Content based ("fighting words" etc)
Commercial speech (is not afforded full protection)
Defamation
Speech harmful to children (which uses some of the above classifications)
Incidental restrictions (such as prohibiting demonstrations on public park land for reasons incidental to the right of speech, such as preserving the environment)

With the exception of obscenity, the application of restrictions to free speech seems to uphold the idea that all speech is indeed free, though the speaker must bear the consequences of their speech. Take for example the commonly cited example of crying "Fire" falsely in a crowded theater. If there is no fire then this speech can be restricted as it would likely result in damage to people and property (or more clearly, the speaker could be held liable for damages). If there is a fire, then the speaker would likely be a hero.

I'll come back later with more material - there's a lot more to this amendment than just the freedom of speech.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

While it says that congress shall make 'no law' establishing religion, it also says 'the free exercise thereof' and thats a biggie. As you said, our nation was based upon a judeo-christian set of principles and I, personally, see nothing wrong witht 10 commandment displays, nativity scenes, etc. It's the free exercise of religious expression.

In my opinion, "free exercise thereof" does not encompass religious expression through governmental means. To me it looks like this is the direction modern interpretation is headed - and that's a change from the days of Christianity almost being endorsed without being established. It could be that the resurgence of the religious right in mainstream politics is a reaction to this direction in the courts.

The_Jazz · 04-07-2006, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

In my opinion, "free exercise thereof" does not encompass religious expression through governmental means. To me it looks like this is the direction modern interpretation is headed - and that's a change from the days of Christianity almost being endorsed without being established. It could be that the resurgence of the religious right in mainstream politics is a reaction to this direction in the courts.

Thanks for laying a framework, uber. Hopefully that will entice some more responses to a topic that I find fascinating.

As far as religion goes, I have to agree with the distinction that you're drawing between personal and state-sponsored religion. If you want to erect a giant cross on your property (assuming that it's structurally sound and fall within the local zoning ordanances), that's fine with me. However, putting one on the side of City Hall is something completely different. The government, whether its local, state or federal, has no business erecting religious icons. Now, if private citizens want to do it on government property, that's fine with me, so long as there's no discrimination amongst the religions. And if that means that the local satanists get to put up whatever it is they want to display, so be it.

joshbaumgartner · 04-07-2006, 12:29 PM

The following is my own interpretation/opinion regarding the First Amendment.

It all boils down to freedom of thought and the inclusion of that thought in the commons. Attempting to found a government that was revolutionary in that unlike all before it--in that it served the people not the other way around--the framers had to ensure certain rights of the people. If a government is going to serve the people it has to answer to them. The people have to be able to petition the government when it does not serve them properly. But to do so, the people must have an idea of what they need and desire of their government. To know this they have to be able to hatch and share ideas about this, so that in a 'marketplace' of ideas, the true desires and needs of the people can be determined.

Thus the requirement for freedom of religion, and the prohibition on government establishment of religion, as the people must be free to think for themselves or else their ability to direct their own governance is meaningless. What good is it to have a government have to do what you say if that government can tell you what to think and limit what you can say? Freedom of religion is the most basic element of freedom of thought.

The requirement for freedom of speech, and of the press, is that if ideas are to be meaningful, you have to be able to share them. This isn't just the ability to complain and protest. This is the freedom to bring your ideas without restriction to the community where they can be shared and ultimately incorporated into the community as appropriate. Thus we are no longer restricted to the grand schemes of single individuals, but instead able to reap the benefits of the ideas of all individuals, melded together to come up with truly great ideas for the improvement of our quality of life. Naturally, it is also important to the development of thought that information be freely available, for thought is only as good as the information upon which it is based.

The rights to assembly and petition are how we actually turn these ideas into action, so that they may actually have an impact.

Without the ability to think freely, without the ability to share our thoughts and information with others, or without the ability to turn that information into action, we are powerless to control our government or to ensure its continued service to us. Thus the absolute necessity of the First Amendment rights to the experiment the framers were embarking upon--a government which served its citizens.

Given this as the basis for the Amendment, it gives me much greater clarity when answering questions about the impact of it on cases. Generally speaking if the end result is going to be a limitation on the peoples' ability to direct their own governance, then I am extremely wary of moving in that direction.

dksuddeth · 04-09-2006, 03:49 PM

good post josh. I'll start another amendment discussion on monday, unless people want to continue this one.

dksuddeth · 04-27-2006, 10:35 AM

Looks like the first amendment is in danger of being limited or removed soon.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/pr...TICLE_ID=49906

Some Christian leaders are protesting the Bush administration decision to seek up to six months in federal prison for Wenyi Wang, the woman who shouted at the president and Chinese leader Hu Jintao at the White House last week.

At the event, Wang, who got access to the White House grounds as a media representative with a Chinese opposition paper, shouted, "President Bush, stop him (President Hu) from persecuting Falun Gong" and "President Bush, stop him from killing."

KnifeMissile · 04-27-2006, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Niceties out of the way, Free Speach, IMO gives the individual the right to say anything that is not seditious (actively advocating for the violent overthrow of the government), treasonous (actively undermining the physical wellbeing of the nation and people) or dangerous ("fire" in a crowded theater). That leaves an incredibly wide area open. The petition for redress applies to both the people and the states, and I think that this is pretty well established law.

It's ironic that you hold "sedition" as an exception to the first amendment considering how it is to be used with the second amendment to overthrow the government, should it become too repressive, a la Nazi Germany...

Also, what's the deal with flag desecration? How can your government work so hard to make it illegal and still pretend to hold the first amendment so dear?

ubertuber · 04-27-2006, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnifeMissile

Also, what's the deal with flag desecration? How can your government work so hard to make it illegal and still pretend to hold the first amendment so dear?

Actually, people are working hard for this amendment. And some of them are in the government. Other people aren't. Current law, court cases, and many people hold that flag burning is protected speech. Incidentally, liberal nemesis Antonin Scalia is one of those who, while disliking the desecration of our flag, firmly upholds your right to do it.

The_Jazz · 04-28-2006, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnifeMissile

It's ironic that you hold "sedition" as an exception to the first amendment considering how it is to be used with the second amendment to overthrow the government, should it become too repressive, a la Nazi Germany...

Also, what's the deal with flag desecration? How can your government work so hard to make it illegal and still pretend to hold the first amendment so dear?

I don't get your point. Sedition is pretty clearly not allowed and for very good reason. We're talking about violent overthrow of the government by its very definition, so how in the world can that be a good thing? There are similar bans pretty much everywhere else around the world - including Canada I might add.

As far as your referrence to Nazi Germany, I don't see how it's even relevant since 1) we're discussing the US and not Germany, 2) there are other bars to facism and totalitarianism besides the 1st Amendment and 3) we're talking about the reasonable limits of 1st Amendment rights, not their retraction, which to my knowledge has never been discussed seriously by anyone in the current government. I welcome your proof otherwise.

Your flag burning point doesn't make sense either. Do we have a flag burning amendment? No. Do some people working for one mean that the rest of us support one? No.

nezmot · 04-28-2006, 09:00 AM

The Jazz, I think KnifeMissile's point is that the spirit of the second amendment (a standing armed militia in the case that the government needs to be overthrown) stands contrary to your interpretation of the first in regards to anti-sedition.

The_Jazz · 04-28-2006, 09:48 AM

Nezmot, I don't agree with that interpretation at all. Nowhere in the text of the 2nd Amendment makes referrence to the armed overthrow of the government by militias. Note the ONLY thing that the right to bear arms is designed to protect - a "free state". Not the people. I could quible on the "spirit" of the 2nd Amendment, but I think that it's perfectly clear (to me at least) that the framers NEVER intended to provide the framework for a constitutional excuse for violent overthrow of the government. If that's was the point KnifeMissle was trying to make, well, it's ludacris.

Note - the framers of the Constitutions were NOT necessarily the framers of the Declaration of Independence. There were many of the same personalities involved, but certainly not all and certainly not the most important - Jefferson for example.

KnifeMissile · 04-28-2006, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Nezmot, I don't agree with that interpretation at all. Nowhere in the text of the 2nd Amendment makes referrence to the armed overthrow of the government by militias. Note the ONLY thing that the right to bear arms is designed to protect - a "free state". Not the people. I could quible on the "spirit" of the 2nd Amendment, but I think that it's perfectly clear (to me at least) that the framers NEVER intended to provide the framework for a constitutional excuse for violent overthrow of the government. If that's was the point KnifeMissle was trying to make, well, it's ludacris.

While I think my interpretation of the first and second amendments is debatable, I don't think it's so ludicrous.

Sure, one would not expect a government to allow provisions for itself to be overthrown, but the US Constitution was written at a time when the colonies were fighting for freedom from its own government, the British royalty. These people understood how much a government can suck and were humble enough to know that their own government can grow to suck just as badly. Hence, all the liberal ideas in the constitution that were unprecedented, at the time.

I, too, don't wish to quibble over the second amendment, so let me quickly point this out.

Quote:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If all we're talking about is protecting the government of a free State, then why do the people need a right to bear Arms? The standing armies may have all the weapons they need to protect the government but it's the people who need weapons to protect themselves from the government, just as it had done so from the British. Of course, it is hard to overthrow the government if we can't all agree to do so, hence the first amendment.

While we can debate the relevance of such ideas in the modern world, I honestly do believe this was the original intent of the first two amendments and I'm not the only one who thinks so. Considering the crap that the federal government is pulling these days, even in opposition to its various states, is it any wonder that an occasional revolution is considered a good thing?

The_Jazz · 04-28-2006, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnifeMissile

While I think my interpretation of the first and second amendments is debatable, I don't think it's so ludicrous.

Sure, one would not expect a government to allow provisions for itself to be overthrown, but the US Constitution was written at a time when the colonies were fighting for freedom from its own government, the British royalty. These people understood how much a government can suck and were humble enough to know that their own government can grow to suck just as badly. Hence, all the liberal ideas in the constitution that were unprecedented, at the time.

Go back and read the links that you just posted - the Constitution was absolutely not written during the Revolution or even in the immediate aftermath. The American Revolution lasted until 1779. The Constitution appeared a full 10 years later. Up to 1787, the country was governed by the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution replaced that document due in part to the problems of interstate commerce. The chief reason for including the Bill of Rights, including the First and Second Amendments was to incorporate the rights already won from the British government. Your statement above is historically innaccurate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnifeMissile

I, too, don't wish to quibble over the second amendment, so let me quickly point this out.
If all we're talking about is protecting the government of a free State, then why do the people need a right to bear Arms? The standing armies may have all the weapons they need to protect the government but it's the people who need weapons to protect themselves from the government, just as it had done so from the British. Of course, it is hard to overthrow the government if we can't all agree to do so, hence the first amendment.

First of all, at the time, the concept of a standing army was pretty much experimental at best. Up to that point, there was no regular army or professional officers in the US, and the framers expected to have to raise armies the way all previous leaders had - by recruitment for a specified duration or campaign. There is NO provision in the Constitution for a standing army other than the preamble's "common defense" statement. To suggest that the 2nd Amendment is a recipe for the disolution of the ENTIRE constitution is ridiculous. An armed uprising by the people by definition would disrupt the offices and powers establised in the Constitution, and I cannot see how you could have it any other way. Please show me something written by one of the framers illustrating your arguement. Until you can produce that, your arguement holds no water.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnifeMissile

While we can debate the relevance of such ideas in the modern world, I honestly do believe this was the original intent of the first two amendments and I'm not the only one who thinks so. Considering the crap that the federal government is pulling these days, even in opposition to its various states, is it any wonder that an occasional revolution is considered a good thing?

You may not be the only one who thinks so, but that just means that you have company in being wrong. Again, there's no documentation to support this arguement. You may consider it the intent in hindsight, but it certainly wasn't at the time.

dksuddeth · 04-28-2006, 01:01 PM

not to get too far off the first amendment and in to the second, but...

There is nowhere in the constitution that declares the people the right to overthrow the government. The only thing that even comes close to that is a line in the declaration that says - "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." - and this only refers to removing themselves out from under the rule of king george.

the whole point of the constitution and bill of rights was to declare that the people had natural rights and the government was given certain powers and authority to govern on behalf of, and by the power of, the people. The government does not have rights, neither federal or state, they only have powers that were given to them by 'we the people'.

The first and the second amendments are rights that the people have that 'pre-exist' the constitution. That means that they aren't granted by the constitution. They are supposed to be protected by the constitution, but that hasn't seemed to work out quite like it used to. The 'free state' that the second refers to is us, 'we the people'. It's not virginia, new york, or massachussetts, because states are only entities run by us, we the people. We are the militia that provides that free state. The right to keep and bear arms is 'supposed' to prevent the government from overreaching beyond the powers it's been given by us, we the people, and disarming us, hence the term 'shall not be infringed'. When a government extends its power beyond that which it is authorized, it is 'we the people' that have the right, the duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. this refers to ousting those that sit in the government and not the type of government, the representative republic, and putting new members in its place.

Those that put the 'individual right' interpretation of the 2nd amendment in the 'wrong' category are relying upon tyrannical opinions and decisions handed down by circuit courts that have either seriously misinterpreted the history and intent of the second or have colluded with branches of government intent on removing our rights and extending their power.

As far as no documentation to support the intent that the second is an individual right, unless you've been completely ignoring every one of my posts, i've posted them all there. I have yet to see any evidence that indicates the founders, framers, originalists, or ratifiers claim, denote, or even suggest that the right does not belong to the individual but to the state. Until such time as that evidence showing that it's a right of the state to arm itself instead of the people to arm themselves, you're flat out wrong.

now, back to the first amendment portion, of which this thread is titled.

04-07-2006, 07:07 AM	#2 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	I've been waiting for the start of these threads, and I'm glad that we started. Thanks, dksuddeth. Niceties out of the way, Free Speach, IMO gives the individual the right to say anything that is not seditious (actively advocating for the violent overthrow of the government), treasonous (actively undermining the physical wellbeing of the nation and people) or dangerous ("fire" in a crowded theater). That leaves an incredibly wide area open. The petition for redress applies to both the people and the states, and I think that this is pretty well established law. Religion is where it gets interesting, especially in today's "10 Commandments" climate. I'm not really sure how to directly answer your question since I'm not entirely sure where you're trying to go with it, so I'm going to focus on a single topic. The state cannot and should not advocate any religion or bodies of religion. Yes, the 10 Commandments are a part of our heritage, just like the Magna Carta. However, displaying them on state property on a standalone basis is the active advocation of Judeo-Christianity. I'm looking at you, Alabama. The 10 C. as a part of a display of the history of law is fine. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

04-07-2006, 07:24 AM	#3 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	'Fire' in a crowded theatre has not been deemed illegal, however, that does not mean there are not consequences to pay for any damages. religion, tough one. While it says that congress shall make 'no law' establishing religion, it also says 'the free exercise thereof' and thats a biggie. As you said, our nation was based upon a judeo-christian set of principles and I, personally, see nothing wrong witht 10 commandment displays, nativity scenes, etc. It's the free exercise of religious expression. Petition for redress, I'd like some more people to comment on this as well. My take is that the supremacy clause is over abused to deny people the right to sue the government and this is on all levels, fed, state, and local. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

04-09-2006, 03:49 PM	#7 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	good post josh. I'll start another amendment discussion on monday, unless people want to continue this one. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

04-27-2006, 10:35 AM	#8 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	Looks like the first amendment is in danger of being limited or removed soon. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/pr...TICLE_ID=49906 Some Christian leaders are protesting the Bush administration decision to seek up to six months in federal prison for Wenyi Wang, the woman who shouted at the president and Chinese leader Hu Jintao at the White House last week. At the event, Wang, who got access to the White House grounds as a media representative with a Chinese opposition paper, shouted, "President Bush, stop him (President Hu) from persecuting Falun Gong" and "President Bush, stop him from killing." __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

04-28-2006, 09:48 AM	#13 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Nezmot, I don't agree with that interpretation at all. Nowhere in the text of the 2nd Amendment makes referrence to the armed overthrow of the government by militias. Note the ONLY thing that the right to bear arms is designed to protect - a "free state". Not the people. I could quible on the "spirit" of the 2nd Amendment, but I think that it's perfectly clear (to me at least) that the framers NEVER intended to provide the framework for a constitutional excuse for violent overthrow of the government. If that's was the point KnifeMissle was trying to make, well, it's ludacris. Note - the framers of the Constitutions were NOT necessarily the framers of the Declaration of Independence. There were many of the same personalities involved, but certainly not all and certainly not the most important - Jefferson for example. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

04-07-2006, 12:29 PM	#6 (permalink)
joshbaumgartner Insane	The following is my own interpretation/opinion regarding the First Amendment. It all boils down to freedom of thought and the inclusion of that thought in the commons. Attempting to found a government that was revolutionary in that unlike all before it--in that it served the people not the other way around--the framers had to ensure certain rights of the people. If a government is going to serve the people it has to answer to them. The people have to be able to petition the government when it does not serve them properly. But to do so, the people must have an idea of what they need and desire of their government. To know this they have to be able to hatch and share ideas about this, so that in a 'marketplace' of ideas, the true desires and needs of the people can be determined. Thus the requirement for freedom of religion, and the prohibition on government establishment of religion, as the people must be free to think for themselves or else their ability to direct their own governance is meaningless. What good is it to have a government have to do what you say if that government can tell you what to think and limit what you can say? Freedom of religion is the most basic element of freedom of thought. The requirement for freedom of speech, and of the press, is that if ideas are to be meaningful, you have to be able to share them. This isn't just the ability to complain and protest. This is the freedom to bring your ideas without restriction to the community where they can be shared and ultimately incorporated into the community as appropriate. Thus we are no longer restricted to the grand schemes of single individuals, but instead able to reap the benefits of the ideas of all individuals, melded together to come up with truly great ideas for the improvement of our quality of life. Naturally, it is also important to the development of thought that information be freely available, for thought is only as good as the information upon which it is based. The rights to assembly and petition are how we actually turn these ideas into action, so that they may actually have an impact. Without the ability to think freely, without the ability to share our thoughts and information with others, or without the ability to turn that information into action, we are powerless to control our government or to ensure its continued service to us. Thus the absolute necessity of the First Amendment rights to the experiment the framers were embarking upon--a government which served its citizens. Given this as the basis for the Amendment, it gives me much greater clarity when answering questions about the impact of it on cases. Generally speaking if the end result is going to be a limitation on the peoples' ability to direct their own governance, then I am extremely wary of moving in that direction.

04-28-2006, 09:00 AM	#12 (permalink)
nezmot Registered User	The Jazz, I think KnifeMissile's point is that the spirit of the second amendment (a standing armed militia in the case that the government needs to be overthrown) stands contrary to your interpretation of the first in regards to anti-sedition.

04-28-2006, 01:01 PM	#16 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	not to get too far off the first amendment and in to the second, but... There is nowhere in the constitution that declares the people the right to overthrow the government. The only thing that even comes close to that is a line in the declaration that says - "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." - and this only refers to removing themselves out from under the rule of king george. the whole point of the constitution and bill of rights was to declare that the people had natural rights and the government was given certain powers and authority to govern on behalf of, and by the power of, the people. The government does not have rights, neither federal or state, they only have powers that were given to them by 'we the people'. The first and the second amendments are rights that the people have that 'pre-exist' the constitution. That means that they aren't granted by the constitution. They are supposed to be protected by the constitution, but that hasn't seemed to work out quite like it used to. The 'free state' that the second refers to is us, 'we the people'. It's not virginia, new york, or massachussetts, because states are only entities run by us, we the people. We are the militia that provides that free state. The right to keep and bear arms is 'supposed' to prevent the government from overreaching beyond the powers it's been given by us, we the people, and disarming us, hence the term 'shall not be infringed'. When a government extends its power beyond that which it is authorized, it is 'we the people' that have the right, the duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. this refers to ousting those that sit in the government and not the type of government, the representative republic, and putting new members in its place. Those that put the 'individual right' interpretation of the 2nd amendment in the 'wrong' category are relying upon tyrannical opinions and decisions handed down by circuit courts that have either seriously misinterpreted the history and intent of the second or have colluded with branches of government intent on removing our rights and extending their power. As far as no documentation to support the intent that the second is an individual right, unless you've been completely ignoring every one of my posts, i've posted them all there. I have yet to see any evidence that indicates the founders, framers, originalists, or ratifiers claim, denote, or even suggest that the right does not belong to the individual but to the state. Until such time as that evidence showing that it's a right of the state to arm itself instead of the people to arm themselves, you're flat out wrong. now, back to the first amendment portion, of which this thread is titled. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."