quote:

Originally posted by WCCPHD:

The amendments merely recognize rights inherent in being a citizen of the United States. It does not grant rights.

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.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheShootist:
I've studied the topic of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for years. The problem is that there are so few of us who actually know what the Founders gave us.

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.

quote:

Originally posted by FLhiker:
To be clear, as most all here understand - the 2A is an individual right.


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit

No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008


“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

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.

quote:

Originally posted by TSE:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
This is not entirely true. The Second Amendment exists to provide that states with a pool of self armed, and at least semi-self trained (they should know how to shoot) men from whom they could draw to form a militia to overthrow the national government if the states feel it's run amok. The difference is subtle but significant. The wanted the states to have this power not individuals.

quote:

Originally posted by bigwagon:
The 2nd amendment exists so that the people may be armed in event they deem it necessary to overthrow their government. Any other rights that emanate from it are secondary. Saying that out loud or in public apparently makes you seem like a wacko to a lot of people, but it's the truth.

It mentions states no where. Why would a government feel obligated to codify it's right to be armed? What government anywhere in the world at that time was unarmed?

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.

quote:

Originally posted by satch:
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.

quote:

Originally posted by TheShootist:

quote:

Originally posted by FLhiker:
To be clear, as most all here understand - the 2A is an individual right.


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit

No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008


“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

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.

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.

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.

quote:

Originally posted by FLhiker:

quote:

Originally posted by TheShootist:

quote:

Originally posted by FLhiker:
To be clear, as most all here understand - the 2A is an individual right.


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit

No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008


“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

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.

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.

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.

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.

quote:

Originally posted by FLhiker:
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.

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"

Which of the Federalist papers should one read to get a background on the Second Amendment?

quote:

Originally posted by TheShootist:

quote:

Originally posted by FLhiker:
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.

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"

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.

quote:

Originally posted by TheShootist:

quote:

Originally posted by FLhiker:
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.

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"

Thanks. Interesting perspective. I had read that article previously.