close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

The Second Amendment does NOT give you the right...

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by Razorsharp, Jan 1, 2013.

  1. Razorsharp

    Razorsharp

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Messages:
    318
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    VATENNOLINA
    NOTE - I'm importing this essay from the "Political Issues" forum, so if you have already read it, I apologize. I'm just spreadin' the word. DAR
    _______________________________________________


    We often hear people say, “The First Amendment gives me the right to say…” or “The Second Amendment gives me the right to have…”

    Both statements are contradictory to the purpose of the Bill of Rights and the founding principles of America.

    America was founded under the principle that we, as citizens, were endowed with certain rights, unlike in other countries, where rights are dispensations from the government. It’s what makes America unique.

    Outside the realm of jurisprudence, The Bill of Rights does not confer any rights to the individual, nor does it empower the Federal Government any degree of oversight. Quite the contrary, each of the Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights is a stricture against the Federal Government, binding and limiting its power.

    The Second Amendment states:

    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.

    Many who oppose the ownership of firearms by private citizens make the claim that citizens are only permitted firearms when in service of the Militia. That’s a bass-ackwards reading of the Amendment. When the Amendment is properly read, it is obvious that it is the Militia that is dependent on the people’s right, rather than the people’s right being dependent on the Militia. Furthermore, from the words of the Amendment itself, it is also obvious that the right of the people to bear arms preceded any militia involvement and even the Constitution itself.

    Those who favor stricter gun-control legislation, point to the phrase, "A well regulated militia..." as license for the Federal Government to intervene and "regulate" the private ownership of firearms. This is a deliberate misreading perpetrated by those wishing to advance their agenda. The word "regulate", in respect to the Second Amendment, is more closely akin to "trained, equipped and disciplined", as affirmed in David McCullough’s historical novel, “1776”.

    "The day's orders form Sullivan deplored the disorter and unsoldierly behavior displayed in the camps in the eve of battle. Yet soldiers were here, there, and everyswhere, strollin about as if on holiday, some of them miles from the lines. "Carts and horses driving every way among the amry, " wrote Philip Fithian. "Men marching out and coming in... Small arms and field pieces continually firing. All in tumult."

    The contrast between such disorder and flagrant disregard for authority and the perfectly orchestrated landing By Howe's troops could not have been more pronounced.

    Arriving at Brooklyn, Washington was outraged by what he saw, and in a letter written later in the day, he lectured Old Put (Gen. Israel Putnam) as he might the greenest lieutenant. All "irregularities" must cease at once. "The distinction between a well regulated army and a mob is the good order and discipline of the first, and the licentious and disorderly behavior of the latter."
    (Simon & Schuster; page 161)

    Furthermore, to use "regulate", as in to "control the limits of" would be contradictory to the phrase, "shall not be infringed" that resides within the same sentence.

    And finally, the purpose of the "Bill of Rights", as intended by the framers of the Constitution, puts regulation of the private ownership of firearms out of the purview of the Federal Government.

    No, the Second Amendment didn’t give you the right, you already had the right. And barring an amendment to the Constitution, you’ve still got it.

    DARoberts
     
  2. Gallium

    Gallium CLM

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2003
    Messages:
    28,685
    Likes Received:
    17
    Amen, and pass the ammunition.
     

  3. gwalchmai

    gwalchmai Lucky Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Messages:
    25,683
    Likes Received:
    3,069
    Location:
    Outside the perimeter
    Good post, Razor, and a good point with which to start the new year. :thumbsup:
     
  4. Spiffums

    Spiffums I.C.P.

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2006
    Messages:
    9,386
    Likes Received:
    50
    The Bill of Rights grant nothing to We The People besides Protection FROM the government to trample on our inalienable rights. It is always funny when those who want to trample on our rights use the Bill of Rights as a basis for that trampling.
     
  5. Razorsharp

    Razorsharp

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Messages:
    318
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    VATENNOLINA
    Thanks!
     
  6. Bren

    Bren NRA Life Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    45,865
    Likes Received:
    15,628
    Location:
    Kentucky
    The "natural rights" view is certainly one point of view. However, I believe the reality is, all "rights" are legal rights. Your rights are what you are allowed to do, by those who command enough force to stop you. Natural rights is a nice poetic way of talking about it, but it isn't reality.

    Why do we have a bill of rights? Because a government can take away any rights it chooses, so our founders, at the beginning, decided to grant you those.
     
  7. packinaglock

    packinaglock John 3:16

    Joined:
    May 1, 2007
    Messages:
    6,226
    Likes Received:
    1,369
    Location:
    Loxahatchee Fl
  8. WmHBonney

    WmHBonney

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    23
    Location:
    CNY
    Nice post. Pretty simple when you put it that way. It's amazing how the gun control folks can twist this around to suit them.:steamed:
     
  9. Big Bird

    Big Bird NRA Life Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2003
    Messages:
    10,531
    Likes Received:
    2,189
    Location:
    Louisville KY

    The point you miss by doing so is to ignore the philosophical underpinning of our government--that rights are unalienable. That is they exist regardless of what a government may do to limit those rights.

    Its a big misconception many people have and how the language of government has been twisted by people seeking to limit freedom and impose tyranny.

    Notice in current political speech how the RIGHTS of government are expressed.. We have the RIGHT to tax. The RIGHT to search.... The RIGHT to regulate. This is wrong.... Governments possess no rights except in respect to one another. What the government DOES possess is POWER.... The POWER to tax. The POWER to search. The POWER to regulate. This is no small distinction and it belies how people have willingly handed over their freedom to the Tyranny of the Federal Leviathon. When the language no longer reflects the truth we are not far from true tyranny.

    Rights are inalienable....its a philosophical point. An ideal. Our government is imperfect and often falls short of recognizing the ideal. Indeed its in the process of ignoring it alltogether!
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2013
  10. fx77

    fx77 CLM

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2008
    Messages:
    3,032
    Likes Received:
    850
    Which brings u pa very interesting question--What if the dems had the guts to force an issue of RE-ammendimg the constitution to rescind the second ammendment as it stands?
    How far could it go?
     
  11. Bren

    Bren NRA Life Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    45,865
    Likes Received:
    15,628
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Like you said, a philosophical underpinning - a nice way of explaining, but not reality. There are no universal "rights" - only what WE believe should be universal rights, if we were in a position to grant or deny them. There are no "God given" rights, unless God is just really, really bad a guaranteeing them. There are only the rights you are allowed to exercise by whoever has the power to stop you and chooses not to do so.
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2013
  12. Bren

    Bren NRA Life Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    45,865
    Likes Received:
    15,628
    Location:
    Kentucky
    How far could it go? Al the way to a constitutional amendment, of course. However, I doubt they'd get the votes in congress or from the states...but I might be wrong.
     
  13. Razorsharp

    Razorsharp

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Messages:
    318
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    VATENNOLINA
    Mmmmm... that's the "rights are dispensations from government" viewpoint.

    You're incorrect. The founders did not decide to grant rights, they formed a government with the ideal of the people possessing inalienable rights. It's what made America unique.

    Many of the Framers of the Constitution objected to the idea of a Bill of Rights. According to the Framers, a Bill of Rights was unnecessary. Their intent was, if a power was not enumerated in the Constitution, then the FedGov had no jurisdiction. Thankfully, the Antifederalists were well aware of government's propensity to usurp powers not specifically denied it. This is why we are fortunate to have the Bill of Rights.

    Now, if we could only get them to observe it.
     
  14. Razorsharp

    Razorsharp

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Messages:
    318
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    VATENNOLINA
    As far as the next election.
     
  15. Gallium

    Gallium CLM

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2003
    Messages:
    28,685
    Likes Received:
    17
    Over time both the perception and reality of what "rights" we have, and any "rights" .gov have, has morphed into where we are today.
     
  16. Andy123

    Andy123

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2004
    Messages:
    1,501
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    NC and GA
    I think what Bren is suggesting is that as a practical matter, when you are sitting in the defendant's chair, your fate will be decided by a DA (govt employee) the testimony of an officer or officers (govt employees) with legal issues decided by a judge (govt employee) and defended by an attorney (who is probably being paid for by the government). Only the jury is independent of that corruption.

    Of course most cases do not go to a jury (maybe 5%). In the other 95% of the cases, your outcome depends on the decisions and actions of the government workers. I guess one could pray that the creator would come to the jail or courthouse and preserve your rights.

    In the end, the least complex explanation is that the law is an exercise of power and force. Everything else is window dressing.
     
  17. fella

    fella

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    0
    Excellent post.

    I'd offer, in addition, that the concept of Liberty, a cornerstone of the foundation of the republic, was outlined by the "founding fathers" as (to paraphrase):

    All freedoms possessed by the citizen, so long as his actions do not infringe upon the liberties of others


    I believe this concept applies to our issue at least as much as second ammentment interpretation.
     
  18. FullClip

    FullClip NRA Benefactor CLM

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,801
    Likes Received:
    325
    Location:
    On The Lake in The Maine Woods
    If the moon-bats in DC do indeed try to pass some crazy gun-control registration, will the individual state constitutions have any weight in the implementation?

    In Maine Article 1 of The State Constitution, Declaration of Rights, in section 16 states. "To keep and bear arms. Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned."

    Not too sure about other states, but while the production and sale of new units are under fire from the Libs, I hope this "right" either granted or defined by the State of Maine, depending on how you look at things, is a back-up plan if Obama and his federal cronnies go for a gun-grab plan.
     
  19. Bren

    Bren NRA Life Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    45,865
    Likes Received:
    15,628
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Yep, that was the ideal. Yet if they hand't written freedom of speech or religion in there, or they hadn't written that you have a right against unreasonable searches and seizures, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT TODAY.

    Therefore, the rights were very easily "alienable" by no more than the founders agreeing not to write them in the bill of rights. So, by including each right, they "granted" it. A right is only a matter of law - nothing but law grants a right and a right is no more or less than the law says it is. Even then, it is only a right as long as the law granting it can be backed up with enough force to preserve the right.
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2013
  20. tarpleyg

    tarpleyg

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2002
    Messages:
    3,153
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Gunfacts.info has a pretty good section on the breakdown of the 2nd Amendment.