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; All of the Amendments are relative in permissible action - no one can pick a jury of all autoworkers who are 5'11 because they are ...
December 16th, 2011 02:42 PM
All of the Amendments are relative in permissible action - no one can pick a jury of all autoworkers who are 5'11 because they are and feel that is what a Jury of Peers means. No one can keep the authorities out of their homes if they manufacture meth and there is evidence of that, no one can vote without having been registered, currency can say "In God We Trust", and you can't march into people's homes calling for their death because of Freedom of Speech - and the 2nd A is the same. There is a difference between a Basic Right and an At-Will license to act whatever the desire.
That's the way it was and is and the Intent - you could as an alternative found a country with a population of one and have a ball. Please do that on another continent if at all possible.
Last edited by walleye; December 16th, 2011 at 07:41 PM.
December 16th, 2011 02:42 PM
December 16th, 2011 03:19 PM
The First Amendment:
Those that argue that the second amendment is exactly what it says and provides for the unlimited exercise of exactly what it says would have to support that an individual should have the unfettered right to stand outside of a kindergarten screaming profanities. That is a form of speech and the First Amendment says that there shall be no laws abridging that freedom.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I want to have my right to keep and bear arms protected, but I cannot be a hypocrite and offer that I believe the writers meant the literal meaning to the fullest extent of that right and then suggest that some limitations on any speech should be considered reasonable. I am not sure what the answers are. Intellectually I accept there must be some framework for the rights we are granted, such as certain speech in certain places at certain times. The challenge is that I know there are those making these determinations who hold different perspectives and views than I might.
I do know, you cannot apply the full and unfettered interpretation to one right and not to all without being hypocritical. I do believe, even within interpretation, I have the right to own and carry. The other details make my head hurt.
December 16th, 2011 07:44 PM
Originally Posted by CAS_Shooter
And you do have a Right to own and carry (though that wasn't part of Heller but sounded like it would be) because without that - especially ownership - the Basic Right of the Amendment would be violated. On the other hand, not permitting intoxication while armed is not taking away any Basic Right of the Amendment. You can own all the guns you want - you just can't be drunk when you use one. Not "Abridging a Right" is not the same as never Abridging an Action.
It's a bad term nowadays in the world of our politicians - but Moderation is the key.
(PLEASE GOD, GIVE US A MODERATE NEXT PRESIDENT WHO DOES MORE AND TALKS LESS).
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.