XPost: alt.politics, can.politics, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: rec.arts.tv   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "!Jones"  wrote in message   
   news:86jfcdt88ibu3huunf9ekh0n03k37nj7f1@4ax.com...   
   > x-no-idiots: yes   
   > x-get-the-fuck-over-it-Rudy: yes   
   >   
   > On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 12:05:14 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just   
   > Wondering  wrote:   
   >   
   >>Such as the concept that the Second Amendment was part of the Bill of   
   >>Rights, a group of amendments intended to protect individual rights?   
   >   
   > Not exclusively *individual* rights; it limits government power.  For   
   > example, the right of the people to assemble peacefully is obviously a   
   > collective right.   
      
   So how does one person, who doesn't have a right to assemble, join in   
   assembly with another person, who doesn't have a right to assemble, in order   
   to form the assembly you then claim *poof* suddenly has a right that neither   
   individual had to form the assembly in the first place?   
      
   Because if no person has the right to assemble... then NO assembly could   
   ever be formed if the law prohibited individuals from assembling.   
      
   The notion that there exists any sort of "collective right" is a lame   
   attempt to deny such rights to individuals as if a group can somehow have   
   something that no individual can possess.   
      
   So in his desperation to deny people their right to keep and bear arms... he   
   would also deny them their right to assembly and to petition the government   
   for a redress of grievances.   
      
   But let's see what SCOTUS had to say on the matter.   
      
   ""Right of the People." The first salient feature of the operative clause is   
   that it codifies a "right of the people." The unamended Constitution and the   
   Bill of Rights use the phrase "right of the people" two other times, in the   
   First Amendment 's Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment   
   's Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar   
   terminology ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall   
   not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"). All   
   three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not   
   "collective" rights, or rights that may be exercised only through   
   participation in some corporate body."   
      
   DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290)   
   478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.   
      
      
   ".... All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual   
   rights...."   
      
   So no, despite Jones' assertion it is NOT obvious at all that the right to   
   assemble is reserved for some dubious "collective" but rather a right that   
   can be exercised at will by any person. Because even a single person can   
   still petition the government for a redress of grievances and doesn't   
   require any collective to do so.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)