|A teetotaling |
This is correct, yet many are under the impression the founding fathers sat around and decided what rights the people should have. The rights were always there, and the amendments merely state them. Among the legislators of that time there were those who thought enumerating the rights with written amendments was not necessary. It is fortunate that they mutually agreed to put them in writing and make them part of the constitution. I can only imagine how anti 2A people would react if there were no written confirmation of these rights.
Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools. And their grandchildren are once more slaves.
First, the founder's didn't 'give' us this right, they recognized that it was an inalienable right of all men, bestowed on them at birth by their creator. Government does not provide 'rights'.
The Founders did not give us any rights. What the Founders did was give us the lawful authority to protect our rights. Article I, Section 8, Cls. 15&16, and the myriad of laws and state statutes that explain in great detail the DUTY of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.
The 2nd is a very small part of the construction of the DUTY to Keep and Bear Arms. The so-called Second Amendment community lives and dies by the last 14 words of the 2nd. No matter what fact of law given, there will be a denial that the 2nd means almost nothing at all without the willingness of the
People “to execute the Laws of the Union” as it is their Right, and DUTY.
If you study the law and the fundamentals of the scholars, you'll understand that Heller did not profess a right. What it did do was try to compensate for a poorly written suit by people who have no intention of winning the fight.
What Heller did was proclaim that the individual has the privilege to own a firearm that the government may regulate. That is not a right.
Read the Federalist Papers. I'm going back to how the 2A got in the BoR in the first place. It also provides the backstory for the 2As preamble.
But, yes, you're right. What I said was for background. What gets interpreted is what's actually written into the constitution.
Have you noticed that after the shooting in PA there has been almost no calls from the MSM or Democrats for more gun control. Of course with the Midterm Election only a week away that probably has nothing to do with them being quiet.
Only one agenda item at a time. They are too busy trying to sway an election and their low info base can only focus on one thing at a time. Just wait though, they will bring up gun control in due time.
Thanks for that. The SCt says it protects an individual right under the Constitution. That protection is fairly clear - although many argued for years about that very issue.
My intent was to focus attention on the protection of an individual right as opposed to the protection of a state’s right. That “individual” versus “state’s” right distraction derailed many conversations. We simply don’t need to go there.
Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will help straighten things out.
Note to self: Don’t clutter threads with gratuitous posts.
I'm sure we're all busy having "discussions" with leftists right now. Key points:
The Second Amendment secures a right that preexists _from_ the government. It does not give the government any powers, or let it "grant" the right to bear arms.
The Second Amendment is for ALL people, including minorities. Notably, it is for people who do not live in safe, gated communities, or wealthy areas with low crime. It is for anyone who does not wish to be a victim.
Believing that only the police and military should have guns, does not make you anti-gun. It makes you a statist and an authoritarian. If you're already a "democratic socialist," then with a state monopoly on the use of force, that's communism, comrade. Have fun at the pogroms.
"Like a bitter weed, I'm a bad seed"- Johnny Cash
"I'm a loner, Dottie. A rebel." - Pee Wee Herman
Rode hard, put away wet. RIP JHM
"You're a junkyard dog." - Lupe Flores. RIP
Again, you cannot regulate a right. It is a fundamental principle of law. The court may have used the word "right", but what they intoned was a privilege. It is a whole lot of mumbo-jumbo designed to placate the masses in a 5-4 decision that has little to no legitimacy. It hangs by a thread, and has been trampled on in CT, NY, MA, NJ, CA and other states.
Your unalienable right to Keep and Bear Arms is only valid when you decide to protect it with the force of law, and therefore the Founders also recognized the fact of Militia as the body to do so - Article 1, Section 8, Cls. 15 & 16. George Mason, author of the amendment, “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people.”
Another incident so the question is no longer Heller, but rather when the so-called pro-2nd community is going to become serious about the first 13 words of the Amendment? Let me repeat this, George Mason, author of the amendment, “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people.” That's you and me, armed and trained, but unencumbered by government "officials".
I have learned over the years of debating the issue that there is an unreasonable avoidance of the facts surrounding Militia from both sides of the argument. I understand the stance of those against an armed citizenry, but I don't understand the argument from those who claim to be pro-2nd.
A right regulated is permission. Permission can be denied.
I'm sorry, I'm thinking about the cats again...
Shootist - no offense intended but of course rights can be regulated - among other things look to the various time, place and manner restrictions set forth in decades of SCt jurisprudence.
Thank you for taking the time to post your thoughtful response but such sweeping inaccuracies can undermine credibility.
Tagged for future study.
From this reading I get the following - more trained militia, less crime. Large scale training, less tyranny.
Sometime back I was debating issues of law with a couple of very well placed attorney’s in the administration of the State. I realized after a bit that they had little knowledge of law, and had not studied any of the founding documents, nor did they understand the principle that the law is to be read as suits the words and their meaning as the Founders debated and understood them. I asked a friend, who is a scholar and has won some landmark cases what the heck were they teaching lawyers in school. His reply, “It’s not law”.
In response to what you think is the correct interpretation of rights vs privileges, here is an article you might like to read.
"Fire - Fire"
|Nature is full of |
Which of the Federalist papers should one read to get a background on the Second Amendment?
Too many words. Tyrants have little time for truth and logical sequences, let alone historical facts. Easier to repeat some fictitious platitude to justify why you should have less liberty than they.
I'm sorry, I'm thinking about the cats again...
Thanks. Interesting perspective. I had read that article previously.
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2|