"!Jones" <jones@fobahor.com> 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 <JustWondering@hotmail.com> 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.