In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Do We Really Have A Right To Keep And Bear Arms?
Defender
Member Posts: 1,772 ✭✭✭✭✭
Do We Really Have A Right To Keep And Bear Arms?
http://www.crimefilenews.com/2008/03/do-we-really-have-right-to-keep-and.html
http://www.crimefilenews.com/2008/03/do-we-really-have-right-to-keep-and.html
Comments
i know it is going to come down to some judge to decide it legally one way or the other, but to me it is written in plain english...you, the citizen of the u.s.a. have the right to own guns...and it doesnt say except for x y or z...
2. No person could be forced to take or pass a test in order to enjoy the right.
3. No waiting periods to obtain firearms could be enforced.
4. There could be no rationing programs like the one gun a month idea.
5. Any American other than felons or mental defectives could buy a firearm in any state.
6. The carrying of firearms outside of prisons could not be prevented.
7. Most or all of the 1934 National Firearms Act would be invalid.
They got #1 wrong. If we have a right to keep and bear arms there will be NO permits or registrations
quote:1. There could be no tax or fee for permits or registrations.
2. No person could be forced to take or pass a test in order to enjoy the right.
3. No waiting periods to obtain firearms could be enforced.
4. There could be no rationing programs like the one gun a month idea.
5. Any American other than felons or mental defectives could buy a firearm in any state.
6. The carrying of firearms outside of prisons could not be prevented.
7. Most or all of the 1934 National Firearms Act would be invalid.
They got #1 wrong. If we have a right to keep and bear arms there will be NO permits or registrations
Background checks and registration will be there like voter's registration if the politicians want it. . They won't be able to make us wait for permits.
Where is my Full-Auto Tommy Gun?
The fact that they even "legally" classify weapons into catagories like Pistol and Rifle is illegal. "Pistol" and Rifle" should be industry terms not lawyer speak.
quote:1. There could be no tax or fee for permits or registrations.
2. No person could be forced to take or pass a test in order to enjoy the right.
3. No waiting periods to obtain firearms could be enforced.
4. There could be no rationing programs like the one gun a month idea.
5. Any American other than felons or mental defectives could buy a firearm in any state.
6. The carrying of firearms outside of prisons could not be prevented.
7. Most or all of the 1934 National Firearms Act would be invalid.
Actually, I think #5 is correct about the purchasing ability but wrong about the people who can purchase. If the you believe in the 2nd Amendment interpretation that the government may not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, that means that felons that have served their time and are walking among the people as free citizens would be entitlted the protection offered by the 2nd Amendment as they too would be included in the collection known as the "people".
If you believe, as I do, that the government does not have the authority to infringe on the rights of a U.S. Citizen to keep and bear arms, then you cannot allow for "exceptions". Either the right is absolute or it is not.
If you believe that it is okay to prevent a convicted felon or a mental defective that is no longer incarcerated from buying a gun, then you have opened up the possibility of losing the rights for everyone.
For some, it is acceptable to exclude a felon or a mental defective from owning a gun for the simple reason that those two groups are in the minority. Why should I care? I am not a felon or mental defective, and thus have no reason to worry about their right to own and keep a gun.
But what will you do when groups like the anti-gun faction decide to push the limits? Most likely you will not put up much of a fight as long as you are not affected. These anti-gun factions have made it known that they want to ELIMINATE ALL GUNS from private ownership. Will you fight the good fight when they convince the government that inner city poor are too much of a risk to use guns in a crime and thus make an "exception" to exclude a group that "may" use a gun while committing a crime? Most likely you won't because you are not inner city poor. Eventually, you will be in a group that someone with power has decided needs to be included in the "exception" and they will eventually get to you as well. Who will help you fight then? Everyone that could have helped would have been neutralized. If you accept the "exceptions", then eventually, you will become one of the "exceptions".
In my opinion, the 2nd Amendment is as absolute as the 1st Amendment. The Federal government, and by extension State Governments, do not have the authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment does not include an asterick or a footnote that says, "unless you have long hair, burn the flag and bad-mouth the U.S. Government". The 2nd Amendment does not offer exceptions.
"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."
This means ZERO infringments on the right of the PEOPLE. If you are fanatical, hate mongering Neo-Nazi, you are part of the PEOPLE. Your rights cannot be infringed. If you are an angry man with tendencies to get into bar fights, you are part of the PEOPLE. Your rights cannot be infringed. If you are a soft spoken, mild mannered librarian, you are part of the PEOPLE. Your rights cannot be infringed.
As long as you walk as free men walk and talk as free men talk, you are one of the "PEOPLE". If you are part of the "PEOPLE", your right to keep and bear arms is protected by the 2nd Amendment and those who have sworn to defend it.
Xerico
I used to think that "it's a shame the Second Amendment is poorly phrased." Then I learned the context.
After the Revolutionary War, "the People" (Americans) throughout the states mistrusted standing armies for good reason - even our own. Washington's Continental Army was disbanded after the war precisely because Americans generally abhorred the idea of a standing army sitting around with nothing to do but await further orders from government. It would be too easy for government to fall into the wrong hands.
Given that national mistrust, the fact that most states still wished to create & maintain their own smaller state militias to protect their own colonial borders from enemies foreign or domestic became a big problem, a sticking point in the national debate.
Alexander Hamilton made the case for why the People never need fear state militia in the Federalist Papers. He said that we need never fear government troops because the people would always maintain their fundamental right to bear arms essentially equal to those used by state militia. This principle was the guarantor that state militia would never be able to dominate any state's citizenry.
Suddenly, the language in the Second Amendment appears perfectly written and not awkward at all. In summary, because state militias will likely still be deemed prudent or necessary, the People's right to keep and bear arms (of equal nature) for their own security must never be infringed.
The word "infringed" meaning nibbled at the edges. Liberals and liberal courts have gone far past nibbling the edges since at least 1934. My contention is that this nibbling represents a body of flawed and rotten doctrine, which is destined to be set aside just as, for example, the unconstitutional body of court decisions and statutes supporting the scheme called "separate but equal" was set aside during the civil rights period.
Given the simple clarity with which the Bill of Rights was written, it is unlikely that the Founders bequeathed us a poorly phrased Article II. I think they knew what they meant and meant what they said: A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the Security of a free State, THE PEOPLE'S right to keep and bear Arms, shall not be INFRINGED.
Acknowledge the potential for state armed forces, and simultaneously guarantee the people never need fear its power themselves.
The historical documentation exists in the Library of Congress to prove this is the correct reading, I have no doubt - if you can get the liberal horse to drink the water, having led him to the stream.
The question arises from the subordinate clause at the beginning of Article II: "A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state..."
I used to think that "it's a shame the Second Amendment is poorly phrased." Then I learned the context.
After the Revolutionary War, "the People" (Americans) throughout the states mistrusted standing armies for good reason - even our own. Washington's Continental Army was disbanded after the war precisely because Americans generally abhorred the idea of a standing army sitting around with nothing to do but await further orders from government. It would be too easy for government to fall into the wrong hands.
Given that national mistrust, the fact that most states still wished to create & maintain their own smaller state militias to protect their own colonial borders from enemies foreign or domestic became a big problem, a sticking point in the national debate.
Alexander Hamilton made the case for why the People never need fear state militia in the Federalist Papers. He said that we need never fear government troops because the people would always maintain their fundamental right to bear arms essentially equal to those used by state militia. This principle was the guarantor that state militia would never be able to dominate any state's citizenry.
Suddenly, the language in the Second Amendment appears perfectly written and not awkward at all. In summary, because state militias will likely still be deemed prudent or necessary, the People's right to keep and bear arms (of equal nature) for their own security must never be infringed.
The word "infringed" meaning nibbled at the edges. Liberals and liberal courts have gone far past nibbling the edges since at least 1934. My contention is that this nibbling represents a body of flawed and rotten doctrine, which is destined to be set aside just as, for example, the unconstitutional body of court decisions and statutes supporting the scheme called "separate but equal" was set aside during the civil rights period.
Given the simple clarity with which the Bill of Rights was written, it is unlikely that the Founders bequeathed us a poorly phrased Article II. I think they knew what they meant and meant what they said: A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the Security of a free State, THE PEOPLE'S right to keep and bear Arms, shall not be INFRINGED.
Acknowledge the potential for state armed forces, and simultaneously guarantee the people never need fear its power themselves.
The historical documentation exists in the Library of Congress to prove this is the correct reading, I have no doubt - if you can get the liberal horse to drink the water, having led him to the stream.
Thanks Steve.
Well said.
Long time no see.
WB. [:D]
I used to think that "it's a shame the Second Amendment is poorly phrased." Then I learned the context.
After the Revolutionary War, "the People" (Americans) throughout the states mistrusted standing armies for good reason - even our own. Washington's Continental Army was disbanded after the war precisely because Americans generally abhorred the idea of a standing army sitting around with nothing to do but await further orders from government. It would be too easy for government to fall into the wrong hands.
Given that national mistrust, the fact that most states still wished to create & maintain their own smaller state militias to protect their own colonial borders from enemies foreign or domestic became a big problem, a sticking point in the national debate.
Alexander Hamilton made the case for why the People never need fear state militia in the Federalist Papers. He said that we need never fear government troops because the people would always maintain their fundamental right to bear arms essentially equal to those used by state militia. This principle was the guarantor that state militia would never be able to dominate any state's citizenry.
Suddenly, the language in the Second Amendment appears perfectly written and not awkward at all. In summary, because state militias will likely still be deemed prudent or necessary, the People's right to keep and bear arms (of equal nature) for their own security must never be infringed.
The word "infringed" meaning nibbled at the edges. Liberals and liberal courts have gone far past nibbling the edges since at least 1934. My contention is that this nibbling represents a body of flawed and rotten doctrine, which is destined to be set aside just as, for example, the unconstitutional body of court decisions and statutes supporting the scheme called "separate but equal" was set aside during the civil rights period.
Given the simple clarity with which the Bill of Rights was written, it is unlikely that the Founders bequeathed us a poorly phrased Article II. I think they knew what they meant and meant what they said: A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the Security of a free State, THE PEOPLE'S right to keep and bear Arms, shall not be INFRINGED.
Acknowledge the potential for state armed forces, and simultaneously guarantee the people never need fear its power themselves.
The historical documentation exists in the Library of Congress to prove this is the correct reading, I have no doubt - if you can get the liberal horse to drink the water, having led him to the stream.
T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
NRA Life Member
This is the best explanation of the 2nd Amendent I've seen anywhere. I'm sending it to all my friends and asking them to pass it on .
Thanks,
Adam12