Random Questions on the 2nd

S

Slugthrower

New member
I believe the 2nd amendment is god given right, not government given.
The 2nd isn't supposed to be infringed upon.
A CCW is a law abiding way of obtaining a permit. A permit implies that carrying a gun hidden from view is a privilege. How is it that a right is now a privilege? Infringement?

How many twists do you put on the Bill of Rights before it breaks?
How twisted are the 10 at this time?

When the 2nd was put in the Bill. What was the reason of the day for it?

When the 2nd is abolished , what then?

Liberty is slowly fading as we forget what freedom really means.
Back to the Constitution , remember the reasons for the Bill of Rights.
Don't elect leaders, elect representatives. Sheep are lead... and to where are they usually lead?

Ok yall can shoot me now.
 
Read the Federalist papers, and letters and quotes from the founding fathers.
The primary reason was to protect the liberty of the citizens of our country. Secondary was to defend local settlements from raiders white or indian. Third was for food. The main idea was that the People were incharge not the gov't.
 
How many twists do you put on the Bill of Rights before it breaks?
How twisted are the 10 at this time?

When the 2nd was put in the Bill. What was the reason of the day for it?

When the 2nd is abolished , what then?
Click to expand...
In order: Until people realise its twisted to much, to much, to protect ourselves from tyrants, and hopefully America will wake up and change.
 
When the 2nd was put in the Bill. What was the reason of the day for it?
Click to expand...
Back in 1775, there were British Troops here, supposedly for our protection, but Virginians felt that we didn't need protection and that the British Troops were here to control us. Virginia declared that a standing army, in times of peace, is a danger to liberty, and that the proper/safe/natural defense of a free State is the people of that State, trained to arms, and that in all cases the military power must be subordinate to the civil power. Later, when the States ratified the US Constitution and requested the Second Amendment, they said:

"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that 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. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power."


When the 2nd is abolished , what then?
Click to expand...
Arbitrary government and military rule.
 
I have a friend who helped develop the bill for the CC permit law in Texas with Representative Patterson, the Legislator who helped introduce it in the Legislature.

This same friend apologized for doing so, since he said it was arrogant on all our parts to believe we could provide a "permit" for an inalienable right granted by God, which was set forth in writing as the 2nd Amendment in our original "Contract" between Americans.

He felt like the farther away we as a government get away from claiming we understand the origin of the right, and the absolute supreme law of the Constitution over all laws later passed, the more we will come to accept the right is really only a privledge you pay money for, much like purchasing a ticket, and not a God-given Inalienable Right for which we do not need a "permit" since one already exists in the 2nd Amendment anyway. You don't have to pay for a right to excercize your first amendment right. Why should you pay for excercizing your 2nd?
 
Interesting points.

I believe the 2nd amendment is god given right, not government given.
Click to expand...

No, it's not, I don't think. A "right", by definition, must be conferred by and protected/enforced by, the secular government of men which happens to be in charge, or else it's not a right. A right without enforcement is meaningless and therefore not a right. God doesn't grant the RKBA any more than he grants the right to gazelles of being free from lion attacks. Without laws, and government, and men in the government with guns to enforce said laws, there are no rights; only natural occurrences, which follow the law of the jungle.

The right was *created* in the common law of the colonies predating the Constitution in 1789. The Bill of Rights, added to Constitution in 1791, clarified that the right survives the newly formed US of A and the 1789 Constitution, and is protected by the government (well, it's supposed to be, anyway).

The 2nd isn't supposed to be infringed upon.
A CCW is a law abiding way of obtaining a permit. A permit implies that carrying a gun hidden from view is a privilege. How is it that a right is now a privilege? Infringement?
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct. The CCW laws infringe our rights in that sense. The constitutional law says that you can't place a "prior restraint" on a right which is considered to be "fundamental". A license on the RKBA is no more constitutional than forcing citizens to accept a license to exercise freedom of speech. The CCW laws themselves don't actually infringe. It's the laws on the books that say if you DON'T have a CCW and you're carrying a gun, that this is a crime, which are the infringing laws. You can opt in or out of the CCW laws. Problem is, if you don't opt in, the states unconstitutionally arrest, convict, and imprison you for execercising your right to KBA.

The problem here is that the SCOTUS has shirked it duty to interpret the 2A, by not granting cert. There are hundreds and even thousands of cases on the 1A, the 4A, etc., but only a small handful on the 2A. And the the main case, US vs. Miller has been misinterpreted by the public and lower courts every since 1939 - it actually clearly supports the RKBA, but upheld the conviction on a technicality. Since 1939, the scotus has absolutely shirked and abdicated its duty to interpret the const. by not granting certiorari in the many gun cases - they KNOW that the law and history supports a finding of fundamentalness - they know that interpreting a case head-on like US v. Emerson would require one of two things - either many laws across the nation to be overturned, OR a complete convoluted fudging (intellectually dishonest) of the history and law surrounding the 2A, the tests for fundamentalness, and the incorporation doctrine, would have to be undertaken by them, which would result in a lot of (justifiable) scathing criticism. They don't like either possibility, so they SHIRK! IMO, every justice that's every voted more than once to deny cert in a gun case should be tarred & feathered for abdicating their judicial duty. Most of them are dead now though. Still, they should be exhumed, and tarred & feathered, to dishonor their graves!

How many twists do you put on the Bill of Rights before it breaks?
How twisted are the 10 at this time?
Click to expand...

The Tenth amendment is the MOST twisted of the ten, by far. The second is the second most twisted, due to the above-mentioned shirking of responsibility by the scotus. How many before it breaks? Dunno. The 1st, 4th, and 5th have been fairly interpreted in my view with an astounding amount of case law. The 3rd is mostly irrelevant (not completely though). The 2nd has been ignored, even though it's highly relevant today. The 10th has been trampled/eviscerated by members of both major political parties and the scotus.

When the 2nd was put in the Bill. What was the reason of the day for it?
Click to expand...

Defense against a tyrannical government with a standing army, and of foreign invaders/occupiers (like the redcoats).

When the 2nd is abolished , what then?
Click to expand...

Then we're screwed if a world goverment takes over, AND a Hitler-esque takeover of said world gov't occurs. But no need to abolish it, when the courts can just skate along ignoring it, since the scotus refuses to correct the misinterpretation of US v. Miller. It's as if it's not even there, just like the 10th amendment.

Liberty is slowly fading as we forget what freedom really means.
Back to the Constitution , remember the reasons for the Bill of Rights.
Don't elect leaders, elect representatives. Sheep are lead... and to where are they usually lead?
Click to expand...

Amen, brutha!! Throw out the scoundrels. Support the

www.constitutionparty.org !
 
"The second amendment wont be needed till they try and take it."

Now *that* would make a fine T-shirt.

Tim
 
The right to carry a weapon is not a "God-given" right. The God-given rights are those that we are born with. For example, we are all born with reproductive organs, and therefore, the right to marry and reproduce as we choose is a God-given right. Also, we are born with the skin characteristics that we exhibit. So, the right to live free of racial oppression is a God-given right. We were born with minds that can think and form ideas. So, the right to share our ideas openly in a non-oppressive environment is a God-given right.

We were not all born with guns in our hands. Guns are a worldly creation, and as such, they are defined by a worldly set of laws. The right to self-defense may be a God-given right, but the right to carry a gun is VERY man-made, as guns were made by man and not God (although many I know perceive St. John the Browning as rather god-like).

I agree that the right to bear arms should not be diminished, reduced, infringed, or otherwise tampered with by our ever-more meddling government. But, I think the characterization of our rights to bear arms as "God-given" is somewhat misplaced.

Just my input of the moment...
 
Ok , this is good information. The "God" given part... Man being only as good as his tools, must devise ways to protect himself , sticks , stones and bones . By our very existence we must have the best tools at our disposal to exercise self preservation. If a government deprives you of these means they deprive you of liberty and potentially life. Assuming God created me, he gave me the free-mind and will to defend myself. Men came along and made some rules to play by... I imply that self preservation super cedes any law that a man can place upon it. Too bad we don't have fangs and claws , then we would only have to keep the Vets away.

Feed my brain it is tiny and hungry. Troubles and tribbles;)
 
We used to have the divine right of Kings, where an individual had a God-given right to rule over Virginia ... and we decided that a King was not divine, that all men were equal, and that Virginians have a God-given right to control our own State. If we consider that Virginians have a God-given right to free government, then maybe it isn't such a stretch to say that we have a God-given right to the pillars of free government such as free speech, jury trials, and the right to keep and bear arms.
 
God given right

Our Founding Fathers suscribed to what were called at the time, the idea of "Natural Rights", those rights you had because you drew breath. "Endowed by the Creator", etc.

The other side of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit..." is the natural right of self defense. If you can't defend it, you won't have Life, Liberty, etc.

The Second Amendment is written to be a limit on Govt. authority over the people's posession of arms. Today we think only in terms of guns, but our Founding Fathers wrote arms, which is any and (technically) everything needed for the security of a free state. Not just guns.

Prohibiting arms would be a violation of the people's natural right to the tools of defense. Something like passing a law saying that the antelope could not have horns to protect themselves with. Since the Creator gave the antelope horns, it would be a violation of the antelope's natural right to out law the keeping and bearing horns.

Has the 2nd Amendment been infringed? Certainly.

Are CCW permits a violation of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution?
NO

CCW permits are a state requirement, not a Federal one. The 2nd Amendment only restricts the Federal govt. Not the individual states.

Most states have a section of their state constitution that mirrors or closely duplicates the Federal constitution, and CCW may be a violation of the state constitution, depeneding on the exact wording of the state document.
 
Wow! Some magnificent points were made in this thread since last I read it. My hats-off to you, people!

Now, for the sake of argument, let me play Devil's Advocate on the "gun control" issue. We can all agree that individuals should not be allowed to own nuclear bombs, right? (If you don't agree, then play along with this basic premise for a moment.) Yet, if you are being threatened, and you need to kill to defend yourself, then a nuclear bomb would be a SURE FIRE way to kill whoever you needed to. So, why is it that we do not allow people to own nuclear weapons?

The answer is that nuclear weapons cause more harm than good. Nuclear weapons have too great a potential to harm innocent people, or to cause damage to the surrounding environment, BEYOND one's basic need to defend one's self against an attacker.

Now, can we name any types of firearms or ammo that have the potential to do more harm than good? Perhaps if a particular design of firearm is too difficult to control (has too much recoil) such that it cannot be held steady when fired? (Held steady by an "average" person, that is...) Would such a weapon pose such a threat to bystanders in the hands of an ordinary person that an ordinary person should not be allowed to have it? Are there some types of ammo (armor-piercing) that have such a propensity to go through walls and hit unintended targets that ordinary folks should not be allowed to have them?

For that matter, should ordinary folks be allowed to have nuclear bombs?

Where is the line? Is there a line? Is this some grey area that must be decided case by case? Or is there some flaw in my (...er... not "my," but the anti-gun camp's) logic?

This discussion is good! :) :)
 
There are a few misconceptions, that should be addressed.
Ausserordeutlich said:
The ONLY rights contained in the U.S. Constitution are granted by men, not God.
Click to expand...
Patently false.

The Constitution (and by inference, the general government) does not grant rights. It recognizes rights as pre-existing the Constitution.

How do we know this? We could take the long route and look back at what many of the founders believed; what they read; who they read, or, we could simply pull up the one essential document penned by Thomas Jefferson:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed...

When reading from the great philosophers and legal minds of the founders time, men like Locke; Blackstone; Kant; Rousseau; Hobbes and even Thomas Aquinas, put forth the supposition that man, by his very nature was endowed with rights at birth.

Now granted, many modern thinkers scoff and even dismiss this Natural Law and Natural Rights theories today, but, one must take into account what the founders thought when they were creating this country.

To look at it in any other way is to look at it in ways that are decidedly different than what was meant by the founding generation. This is how we get a "living Constitution."
 
When Madison proposed the USBOR to Congress, he said this about bills of rights:

"It may be said, in some instances they do no more than state the perfect equality of mankind; this to be sure is an absolute truth, yet it is not absolutely necessary to be inserted at the head of a constitution.

In some instances they assert those rights which are exercised by the people in forming and establishing a plan of government. In other instances, they specify those rights which are retained when particular powers are given up to be exercised by the legislature. In other instances, they specify positive rights, which may seem to result from the nature of the compact. Trial by jury cannot be considered as a natural right, but a right resulting from the social compact which regulates the action of the community, but is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature. In other instances they lay down dogmatic maxims with respect to the construction of the government; declaring, that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches shall be kept separate and distinct: Perhaps the best way of securing this in practice is to provide such checks, as will prevent the encroachment of the one upon the other.

But whatever may be the form which the several states have adopted in making declarations in favor of particular rights, the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode. They point these exceptions sometimes against the abuse of the executive power, sometimes against the legislative, and, in some cases, against the community itself; or, in other words, against the majority in favor of the minority."
 
Okay Samuri I played along, At the time and until the 1930's the People legally owned the same weapons that the military and police had. Now the People( who are to be in charge of the Gov't) are not by law allowed to have the same weapons as Gov't. The Battles of Lexington and Concord were fought because the Gov't was going to confiscate the citizens arms, to control the people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top