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 ksholder I understand and agree with the your - your rights end at the tip of my nose argument. Shouting fire in ...

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 153
Like Tree110Likes

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

  1. #61
    Ex Member Array walleye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    erie PA
    Posts
    677
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    I understand and agree with the your - your rights end at the tip of my nose argument. Shouting fire in a theater is likely, as proven over time, to result in GBH or death to someone, therefore the right of free speech is limited. Further I agree that the three branches of the federal government were designed, buy the founders, to be co-equal. The fact that the Executive and Legislative have allowed themselves to be made inferior to the Judiciary has thrown this out of balance.

    Back to gun rights, you seem to agree (maybe you don't, but your post reads like you do) that the limitations the government has placed on guns are legitimate in light of the 2A. Clearly this was not always so as Heller and McDonald testify. Heller and McDonald prove that governments at some level, in this case, state (for lack of preemption) and local (for runnning wild with disregard for the 2A) violated the 2A; SCOTUS corrected them at least in part.

    Given that we have seen at least 2 instances where governments have put undue burdens on citizens relative to the 2A, where would you draw the line and how is that not arbitrary? How does my (infringed) right to carry in a government building harm you (generic you, not personal)? Same for school buildings? In fact, how does my carrying a weapon anywhere infringe on the rights of any citizen? To put it in the prior analogy, I have not reached your nose. These questions assume responsible carry, not wild brandishing, etc.

    Clearly my right to target practice ends when I use you or your property as the target - murder, assault or vandalism. Between that and simply not being allowed to carry because those in government don't want to be around a weapon (the apparent rationale for banning carry in government buildings) we have crossed a line where the rights of the public have been infringed. I am curious where you would draw that line.
    Yes they have, in these instances. As far as what the guidelines are, from Heller it would be anything, like DC's regulations, which prevented the exercise of the Basic Right, to own and have guns in a functional condition in our homes. It probably would extend to Carry as well, though I don't think that was stated outright in Heller, but it was mentioned as historically included in the meaning of "Bear". Some government would have to outlaw it and a petitioner approach the Court again, ultimately if he needed to, to have a specific ruling on Carry. But Carry, like possession in the home, could be subject to community regulation as both are now, which the decision went to pains to state and give examples of as not being part of that Decision and therefore continue to be legal.

    So, as long as it's possible to own guns and keep them at the ready, that currently is the bottom line - regulations cannot make it impossible to do this. But if a regulation is in place, that won't allow ownership to persons with backgrounds indicating violence, for example, that is permissible and within the community's right to protect it citizens from possible violence. It does not remove the the possibility of ownership by everyone else whose records indicate responsible law-abiding citizenship.

    Any future very thorny questions, that are important and that the lower court systems disagree with each other on indicating legal confusion, would eventually reach SCOTUS, who would rule on that.

    Right now, everything in place as far as community standards and firearms, is legal/Constitutional.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #62
    Member Array true grit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    133
    Tzadik, Magnum and ksholder like this.
    Laus Deo

    Those who are willing to trade freedom for security will have neither.
    You alone are responsible for your defense.

  4. #63
    Senior Member Array Tzadik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Suffolk, Virginia
    Posts
    608
    Quote Originally Posted by true grit View Post
    Excellent speach

  5. #64
    Distinguished Member Array 4my sons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Out side of Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,635
    Originally Posted by 4my son
    I never said I was not part of the government, I said to remain non dependent on the government.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Well I really don't know what that phrase in bold means, and I think a discussion of it quite off topic. Is dialing 911 for help dependence or non-dependence on government? Is driving on I-40 cross country independence or dependence from...?
    You couldn't be missing my point any more. I'm not talking about refusing to interact with the government, or pretend the government does not exist. The people need the government, the government needs the people to exist. It's the balance that needs to be kept in check.

    I'm talking about not allowing the government to run our lives to the point that we can't live day to day without the government. The more Independence we keep in our lives, the less control the government has over us. Welfare for example, life long welfare recipients are at the mercy of the government and I'm guessing they could quickly be coursed into doing the governments bidding should they threat the welfare program being shut down. That's a lot of eyes and ears watching every thing you do at basically no additional cost to the government. You or I are less susceptible as citizens living free from government dependence. This may not be the best example, but it should give you the point of my statement. The old saying still holds, anything the government gives you, it can take away from you.

    The less we give them to take, the better off we are.

    As far as on/off topic, this is my belief as the intent of the 2A, to help keep us free from government dependence. Was the 2A a failsafe for reseting the government should it try to subjugate it's citizens. Maybe then. but today, unless the armed forces decide to disobey orders to disarm and subjugate its citizens, we don't stand a chance against our own military should they turn full force against us. That I believe is straying off topic and a discussion for another time.
    "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
    If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand

  6. #65
    Nix
    Nix is offline
    Member Array Nix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    315
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post

    Your notion that “militia” refers to the National Guard is poppy cock. The Militia Act of 1792 defined the militia as “each and every able-bodied male citizen” from age 18 to 45. If further stated that each one shall provide himself with a gun, ammunition and bayonet. This act provides us guidance of what the founders thought a militia was – it was not the National Guard.
    How is that not like the National Guard? The Guard combined with universal conscription? It seems that the Act in reference indicates a need for a military force to be called up as required by the Gov't. "Militia" doesn't refer to individuals, but to organized units with a command structure serving a common purpose--like putting down rebellions. A far cry from you and I owning a handgun for personal purposes.

  7. #66
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,885
    Quote Originally Posted by Nix View Post
    How is that not like the National Guard? The Guard combined with universal conscription? It seems that the Act in reference indicates a need for a military force to be called up as required by the Gov't. "Militia" doesn't refer to individuals, but to organized units with a command structure serving a common purpose--like putting down rebellions. A far cry from you and I owning a handgun for personal purposes.
    The primary reason this is not like the Guard is that the Guard is funded and armed by the government. Militia members provide their own weapons, training and funding.
    Magnum and shooterX like this.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  8. #67
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,593
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    He primary reason this is not like the Guard is that the Guard is funded and armed by the government. Militia members provide their own weapons, training and funding.
    And are illegal in 17 states. Should be in all. And The Supremes have ruled on this matter.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  9. #68
    OD*
    OD* is online now
    Moderator
    Array OD*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Coopersville
    Posts
    10,712
    I would recommend for reading, The Right To Keep And Bear Arms:
    Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, second session.
    If you can find a copy.
    "The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." ~ Jeff Cooper

    "Diligentia Vis Celeritas"

    "There is very little new, and the forgotten is constantly being rediscovered."
    ~ Tiger McKee

  10. #69
    VIP Member Array TedBeau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bay City
    Posts
    2,269
    From the article this quote was from the Philadelpia paper

    But the stakes are much higher, since making the right determination about who should - and should not - carry a gun is a potential matter of life and death to a degree unmatched by rules about who gets to slide behind the wheel of a vehicle.

    Obviously they have not seen any balsitics, kinetic energy numbers for a 2000 lb car travling at 60 mph!
    Pistology likes this.

  11. #70
    VIP Member Array TedBeau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bay City
    Posts
    2,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Where do you get the idea that you are not part of the government and need to be separate or independent from it? You are part of WE THE PEOPLE, whether you like it or not, or whether some of the rest of us like your participation or not--till you commit a crime of course.

    You are part of the government when you are summoned for jury duty. When you are subjected to conscription or register with Selective Service; still a requirement, btw.

    You are partaking of government when you vote? You support the government with every tax that you pay? You are not an independent actor on this continental stage. You are a one tiny part of a large nation, subject to the rules of society. Independent of it, no way.

    I really get a kick out of some of these milita types that are all anti-government. For example I'll chose the brother of convicted US terroist Terry Nicholes. Both he and his brother are from Michigan, not something I'm all that proud of. I remember when the news was breaking about Nicholes being sought in connection with the bombing in Oklahoma. A neighbor of the Nicholes boys was telling a news reporter how they often expermented with home made explosives. He also mentioned that they refused to get drivers license's or license plates for their vehicle because they refused to pay for the right to drive on the county roads. Then the guy says that Terry's brother James was just at a local township meeting complaining about the potholes in the road in front of their house!

    Wait a Minute! He doesn't want to pay road taxes, yet he has the nerve to complain about the roads! Who does he think should pay to fix those roads, and where should the money come from?

  12. #71
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,885
    Quote Originally Posted by walleye View Post
    Yes they have, in these instances. As far as what the guidelines are, from Heller it would be anything, like DC's regulations, which prevented the exercise of the Basic Right, to own and have guns in a functional condition in our homes. It probably would extend to Carry as well, though I don't think that was stated outright in Heller, but it was mentioned as historically included in the meaning of "Bear". Some government would have to outlaw it and a petitioner approach the Court again, ultimately if he needed to, to have a specific ruling on Carry. But Carry, like possession in the home, could be subject to community regulation as both are now, which the decision went to pains to state and give examples of as not being part of that Decision and therefore continue to be legal.

    So, as long as it's possible to own guns and keep them at the ready, that currently is the bottom line - regulations cannot make it impossible to do this. But if a regulation is in place, that won't allow ownership to persons with backgrounds indicating violence, for example, that is permissible and within the community's right to protect it citizens from possible violence. It does not remove the the possibility of ownership by everyone else whose records indicate responsible law-abiding citizenship.

    Any future very thorny questions, that are important and that the lower court systems disagree with each other on indicating legal confusion, would eventually reach SCOTUS, who would rule on that.

    Right now, everything in place as far as community standards and firearms, is legal/Constitutional.
    That is a heck of a lot of interpretation for 4 little words - shall not be infringed.
    Magnum and Pistology like this.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  13. #72
    Senior Member Array zamboni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    North of the Line
    Posts
    1,186
    isn't it the right for a women with hairy arm pits to wear a tank-top anywhere she so chooses too

    though it was time for a break from all this ,,, why so serious ness

    oh no wait that would be the right to bear arm-pits oops

  14. #73
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,593
    Quote Originally Posted by zamboni View Post
    isn't it the right for a women with hairy arm pits to wear a tank-top anywhere she so chooses too

    though it was time for a break from all this ,,, why so serious ness

    oh no wait that would be the right to bear arm-pits oops
    That's capital thread murder.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  15. #74
    Senior Member Array zamboni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    North of the Line
    Posts
    1,186
    ^^^^ sorry bout that

  16. #75
    Ex Member Array walleye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    erie PA
    Posts
    677
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    That is a heck of a lot of interpretation for 4 little words - shall not be infringed.
    Don't look at me, I didn't write it. Read HELLER - it was a lot of research and interpretation.

    But at the end, the four little words meant: regulations cannot remove the ability to have a functional gun in a residence.

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 123456789 ... 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.