Just what is this 'Right to bear arms?' - Page 10

Just what is this 'Right to bear arms?'

This is a discussion on Just what is this 'Right to bear arms?' within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by ctr Many states have Militia members - these are not the same as National Guard troops, but rather common folk who get ...

Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 67891011 LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 153
Like Tree110Likes

Thread: Just what is this 'Right to bear arms?'

  1. #136
    Member Array maat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by ctr View Post
    Many states have Militia members - these are not the same as National Guard troops, but rather common folk who get together and drill together today.

    I'm in the camp that believes 2A means the same thing today that it did when it was written. It covers every citizen of the United States. I think there is a good argument to be made that every federal gun law is unconsitutional.
    And states.


  2. #137
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,885
    Quote Originally Posted by shooterX View Post
    No doubt in my mind they are unconstitutional
    If gun restrictions are illegal, at least in terms of citizens whose rights have not been forfeit (which I will leave to a different discussion), and the 2A has been declared as being binding on the states, how do areas like Chicago enforce their draconian, and apparently illegal restrictions? Clearly there must be some amount of force behind it. Why does a higher, or more authoritative or powerful force not overrule them?

    Edit: I am asking here. This question does come up from time to time: how do these "Peoples Republics" hold power to that which is illegal?

  3. #138
    Ex Member Array walleye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    erie PA
    Posts
    677
    Quote Originally Posted by maat View Post
    There is no such charter or document that supersedes the Constitution. The 2nd amendment is the law of the land. It is specific in its wording.

    Again, I have no problem with there being an amendment that provides reasonable exemptions, yet they do not exist. I see no moral or ethical reason why I cannot carry a gun in Chicago. If I were to take my case to the Supreme Court, I should have 0 chance of loosing.
    This is all la-la land. The Supreme Court just gave many examples of the lawful right to restrict arms as examples of what Heller did not cover:

    "III
    Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). ............nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
    Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008)
    55 Opinion of the Court arms.
    26 We also recognize another important limitation on the
    right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
    ............
    "We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25"


    Quite a lot of restrictions are lawful - and of these (that are but examples) - others not named but that would fall in a sub-group of any of these main "categories of lawful restriction" are also lawful.

    No Amendment gives unrestricted Right to all activities that relate in any way to the subject of the Amendment.
    That isn't freedom, it's narcissistic anarchy, everyone going around acting anyway they want and calling it a "protected-right"; not exactly what the Founders had in mind. Got a problem with a law: Petition through the Courts as to its Constitutionality like Mr. Heller.
    THAT'S your Right - running amuck as per your own supreme-court-decision in your head isn't.
    Last edited by walleye; December 10th, 2011 at 01:29 PM.

  4. #139
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,913
    This is all la-la land. The Supreme Court just gave many examples of the right to restrict arms as examples of what Heller did not cover
    .

    That doesnt make it right. The Supreme Court has countless examples of rulings that are contrary to the Constitution, the only law that they are paid to follow.

    Its has been decades since they eliminated the one standard that all things should be judged by and that is the written law of the land. Instead, they warp,pervert,misinterpret,fabricate and make up stuff as they go. Some have even publicly stated that we need to abide by the "World Court". They have become activists rather than Judges and are derelict in their duties.

    The Supreme Court that some bow to and worship as the authoritys of all things, is responsible much of the redefining of the English Language to mean what they say it means and all else be damned.To be appointed for life is to remove any small perception of self restraint that one might have possessed before taking office, and it encourages coruption.

    Perhaps it time to limit their time of service.

    It wont happen though, instead this country will continue to self destruct.
    noway2 likes this.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  5. #140
    Ex Member Array walleye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    erie PA
    Posts
    677
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    .

    That doesnt make it right. The Supreme Court has countless examples of rulings that are contrary to the Constitution, the only law that they are paid to follow.

    Its has been decades since they eliminated the one standard that all things should be judged by and that is the written law of the land. Instead, they warp,pervert,misinterpret,fabricate and make up stuff as they go. Some have even publicly stated that we need to abide by the "World Court". They have become activists rather than Judges and are derelict in their duties.

    The Supreme Court that some bow to and worship as the authoritys of all things, is responsible much of the redefining of the English Language to mean what they say it means and all else be damned.To be appointed for life is to remove any small perception of self restraint that one might have possessed before taking office, and it encourages coruption.

    Perhaps it time to limit their time of service.

    It wont happen though, instead this country will continue to self destruct.
    What's "right" is an everlasting myriad of different opinions on What's "right"?. There are 300 Million people here. If each was "right" EVERYTHING would be right. You can't found a country based on that, so we have court systems, laws, petitions, representatives - starting with everybody having Basic Rights, out of which flow relative rights of action.

    "What Is Right" as a subjective-philosophical affair is a different animal than 'What Is Right" socially and politically: a country has to operate in the latter.

  6. #141
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,913
    You can't found a country based on that, so we have court systems, laws, petitions, representatives - starting with everybody having Basic Rights, out of which flow relative rights of action.
    That is correct.

    When we cease to agree on what the right thing to do is because the meaning of "right" has been watered down to the point that no one can discern or define it, then THAT starts the slipperly slope to destruction.


    "What Is Right" as a subjective-philosophical affair is a different animal than 'What Is Right" socially and politically: a country has to operate in the latter.
    see above.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  7. #142
    Ex Member Array walleye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    erie PA
    Posts
    677
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    That is correct.

    When we cease to agree on what the right thing to do is because the meaning of "right" has been watered down to the point that no one can discern or define it, then THAT starts the slipperly slope to destruction.
    see above.
    Courts discern Rights.
    Laws define actions.

    Plenty of clarity there.


    We vote for the people who are making the laws and, indirectly or directly, sit on Courts. Or we end up being there because some vote for us. And we also generate millions of opinions (like yours) which no one can touch.

    Good system in my book.

    Bye

  8. #143
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,913
    Actually...actions define laws.

    A law is nothing but ink on paper if it not enforced by action. Ask any LEO.

    Also...one of the first things that anyone going through law school hears is this question..."what is the Law?" The answer is..."whatever the Judge says it is".

    That is my opinion. For myself.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  9. #144
    Member Array maat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by walleye View Post
    This is all la-la land. The Supreme Court just gave many examples of the lawful right to restrict arms as examples of what Heller did not cover:

    "III
    Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). ............nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
    Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008)
    55 Opinion of the Court arms.
    26 We also recognize another important limitation on the
    right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
    ............
    "We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25"


    Quite a lot of restrictions are lawful - and of these (that are but examples) - others not named but that would fall in a sub-group of any of these main "categories of lawful restriction" are also lawful.

    No Amendment gives unrestricted Right to all activities that relate in any way to the subject of the Amendment.
    That isn't freedom, it's narcissistic anarchy, everyone going around acting anyway they want and calling it a "protected-right"; not exactly what the Founders had in mind. Got a problem with a law: Petition through the Courts as to its Constitutionality like Mr. Heller.
    THAT'S your Right - running amuck as per your own supreme-court-decision in your head isn't.
    Ever heard of Prohibition? What is the difference? This is how you deal with amendments. You do not just bypass the process for the sake of expedience.

  10. #145
    VIP Member
    Array ctr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley in Virginia
    Posts
    2,351
    Quote Originally Posted by noway2 View Post
    If gun restrictions are illegal, at least in terms of citizens whose rights have not been forfeit (which I will leave to a different discussion), and the 2A has been declared as being binding on the states, how do areas like Chicago enforce their draconian, and apparently illegal restrictions? Clearly there must be some amount of force behind it. Why does a higher, or more authoritative or powerful force not overrule them?

    Edit: I am asking here. This question does come up from time to time: how do these "Peoples Republics" hold power to that which is illegal?
    The majority of the people in these jurisdictions are ignorant of their rights and obligations as citizens, fail to participate in the political processes as designed by the state government, and the federal government. What is permitted is promotted.

  11. #146
    VIP Member
    Array ctr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley in Virginia
    Posts
    2,351
    Quote Originally Posted by walleye View Post
    This is all la-la land. The Supreme Court just gave many examples of the lawful right to restrict arms as examples of what Heller did not cover:

    "III
    Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). ............nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
    Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008)
    55 Opinion of the Court arms.
    26 We also recognize another important limitation on the
    right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
    ............
    "We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25"


    Quite a lot of restrictions are lawful - and of these (that are but examples) - others not named but that would fall in a sub-group of any of these main "categories of lawful restriction" are also lawful.

    No Amendment gives unrestricted Right to all activities that relate in any way to the subject of the Amendment.
    That isn't freedom, it's narcissistic anarchy, everyone going around acting anyway they want and calling it a "protected-right"; not exactly what the Founders had in mind. Got a problem with a law: Petition through the Courts as to its Constitutionality like Mr. Heller.
    THAT'S your Right - running amuck as per your own supreme-court-decision in your head isn't.
    Wow, just wow.

  12. #147
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,885
    Quote Originally Posted by ctr View Post
    The majority of the people in these jurisdictions are ignorant of their rights and obligations as citizens, fail to participate in the political processes as designed by the state government, and the federal government. What is permitted is promotted.
    Thank you for the reply. Your answer makes sense. Interesting how the demographics of many of these "people's republics" regions, aka Washington DC, Chicago, NY, etc, are also what one typically would call "inner city". One predominant characteristic of "inner city" being poor schools and a populace with little education. Without education, one can not reasonably or effectively participate in the political process. Interesting how that works.

  13. #148
    Member
    Array NETim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally Posted by RoadRunner71 View Post
    It is the recognition of the Natural Right of all living beings to protect themselves, and by instinct or morality, their offspring, using tooth, claw, club, spear, sword, or gun (and whatever else comes to hand).
    Yep, that about sums it up.
    Don't try to be fancy. Shoot for the center of mass. The world is full of decent people. Criminals we can do without. -- Jeff Cooper (1920–2006)

  14. #149
    New Member Array GoldenEagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Fort Worth/Keller/Alliance area
    Posts
    8
    A tank-top long enough to cover my 40 S&W.

    Every citizen is part of “We the people”. IMO if the 2nd Amendment were really being adhered to there would be no laws restricting guns from felons and the NFA would be ruled unconstitutional. There would be no licensing required and no background checks. There would be no NICS check and dealers would not need to keep a “Book”. There would no extra tax and background checks for full automatics.

    So do you really want the full implication of the 2nd Amendment? Or are do you think convicted felons have no business owning guns? That is the question you need to ask yourself.

    I personally can see the need for some amount of restrictions, and I think most reasonable people do. The bigger question is… where the line is, and who gets to pick.

    I would like to see all gun laws removed unless they are approved in a general vote by “We the people”, not a bunch of under the table dealing politician. And don’t fool yourselves. The Republicans are just a bad as the Democrats about tell you one thing and do something completely different.

  15. #150
    Senior Member Array wjh2657's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lafayette, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,168
    The solution is simple. When the forefathers wrote the Second Amendment, convicted violent felons were not a problem. They hanged them. Dead men don't carry guns. As long as we allow convicted murderers to return to society and roam free, we will have to restrict their ability (notice I said ability not right) to carry a weapon of any kind. This will not stop them from obtaining a weapon but it will give justification to incarcerate them again.
    ctr likes this.
    Retired Marine, Retired School Teacher, Independent voter, Goldwater Conservative.

Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 67891011 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

definition of right to bear arms for kids
,

emily litella right to bare arms

,

gilda radner right to bear arms

,

how many people has abused the right to carry

,
litella bare arms
,
pictures of kids bearing arms
,
right to bear arms definition
,

right to bear arms forums

,

right to bear arms pictures

,
the right to bear arms definition for kids
,

the right to bear arms for kids

,
unalienated right to carry arms
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors