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 RoadRunner71 It is the recognition of the Natural Right of all living beings to protect themselves, and by instinct or morality, their ...

Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 153
Like Tree110Likes

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

  1. #76
    Distinguished Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    1,987
    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).
    A substantial part of the right to bear is its definition of "bear" as defining arms that are bearable = carriable or wearable. It excludes cannon or .50 cal. machine gun because regular, pedestrian interaction doesn't accommodate carrying or wearing those weapons. 2A says that government may not infringe on the right of citizens to carry pistols and such small arms as one may regularly carry on the person or in the coat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I personally have absolutely no idea what 2a means; or what it meant, and to whom, back then, or today.
    It needs amending for clarity, badly.
    One has to understand one's rights to know when they are violated to redress grievance (also a right). To that end, I offer an historical perspective. From The Founder's Second Amendment by Sephen P. Halbrook
    [E]xhaustive textual analysis of the Second Amendment would never have been necessary in the nearly first two hundred years of the republic. It was only beginning in the second half of the twentieth centruy that the Orwellian view gained currency that "the people" means the states or state-conscripted militia, that "right" means governmental power, that "keep" does not mean to possess, that "bear" does not mean carry, that "arms" do not include ordinary handguns and rifles, and that "infringe" does not include prohibition.

    But the founders intended to, and did, word the Second Amendment in an easy to understand manner. Individuals have a right to have arms in their homes and to carry them, and the government may not violate that right. Recognition of the right promotes a militia composed of the body of the people, which is necessary for a free society.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I know, that leaves room for Congress to make the training requirement onerous, and I don't know how to get around that problem as I just don't like the concept of folks with no training whatsoever carrying outside the home.

    As to all the other emotional stuff folks come up with... to the extreme libertarian viewpoint that "I can do what I want and nobody is gonna tell me," I'm not in that camp.
    As Barry Goldwater, "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!" I camp peacefully because of a long line of defenders of liberty whose benefits I'm honored to inherit. IMO, it is a disservice to moderate liberty to a contemporary paranoia about guns.

    Some conflict in our nation's history of governance includes governmental orders to bearing arms versus citizens who conscientiously object or, OTOH, special "Black Codes" prohibiting the freedmen from arms they needed to defend themselves from the Klan.

    Libertarians are not targeting a specific societal outcome, quota, or training requirement. Libertarians respect the peaceful honest individual's right to liberty from expansive, heavy-handed government. Libertarians trust in liberty and seek to minimize government's power to infringe on liberty.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #77
    Member Array SamF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    49
    Hopyard, Jefferson does not agree with you. Speaking of the Shays rebellion he said,
    And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.
    ksholder likes this.

  4. #78
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,885
    Quote Originally Posted by walleye View Post
    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.
    My only point was that I doubt the SCOTUS opinion is faithful to the original founders intent of the 2A. It seems that when we put people in authority, they have to make things more complicated than they need to be to justify their position. In SCOTUS, this started with John Marshall and has continued since.

    BTW, I have read Heller and McDonald and others. That does not mean that I believe SCOTUS' rulings comport with the intent of the founders. Government begets bigger government. Big government begets even bigger government... Only the people can make this stop - VOTE America!!!!
    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.

  5. #79
    Distinguished Member Array Toorop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Midwest Area to be Precise.
    Posts
    1,231
    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).
    Does this include nuclear weapons? What about other weapons such as Sarin gas? Maybe a few canisters of anthrax? How far does it go?

  6. #80
    Member Array bolocanolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Miami Lakes Fl
    Posts
    138
    Before the constitution we can reasonably assume that every home in the thirteen colonies had at least one gun. This was used for hunting, which was a way of life, most importantly in defense of their homes. The second amendment was added in my opinion to legitimize this right, because the founders being men of faith understood that this was a G-D given right. In their quest to rid the colonies from the rule of the British crown, they understood that a militia of men would have to be organized into a standing army. It was not a coincidence that it became the second amendment, perhaps it was also adopted to give the "right to bare arms" some civility and is't role in society then. With that said and pardon the cliche' "at the end of the day" did they really need a document then and now to know that it was/is our G-D given right to defend our life, liberty and property? I suggest to you that they didn't and neither do I.

    No apologies made here for stepping on the toes of the liberals on this thread.

  7. #81
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,570
    Quote Originally Posted by SamF View Post
    Hopyard, Jefferson does not agree with you. Speaking of the Shays rebellion he said,
    Jefferson had a way of talking like that but acted quite the opposite when he was President.

    This part from your quote of Jefferson, "he people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive.

    Is factually correct and makes the point that I've been trying to make on this board time and time and time again. A great deal of the discontent expressed here is due to folks being either ill informed or misconceiving the information given to them; and in some cases the lies spewed forth from the 46 LCD talking box.
    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

  8. #82
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,570
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    My only point was that I doubt the SCOTUS opinion is faithful to the original founders intent of the 2A. It seems that when we put people in authority, they have to make things more complicated than they need to be to justify their position. In SCOTUS, this started with John Marshall and has continued since.

    BTW, I have read Heller and McDonald and others. That does not mean that I believe SCOTUS' rulings comport with the intent of the founders. Government begets bigger government. Big government begets even bigger government... Only the people can make this stop - VOTE America!!!!
    That is fine that you don't agree with the supremes, but that doesn't give you any right to substitute your own judgment and either engage in willful violations or encourage others to do so.
    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. #83
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,885
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    That is fine that you don't agree with the supremes, but that doesn't give you any right to substitute your own judgment and either engage in willful violations or encourage others to do so.
    Hop - what have you been smoking? Read the part below what you highlighted. I am encouraging people to make changes by voting. The rest of this thread has been on the meaning of the 2A. Opinions on that meaning, and its historical context is neither un-patriotic nor inciting civil disobedience.

    The OP asked for opinions on the 2A. Many here have given their opinion; you have not. You have only sniped at the others here calling them un-patriotic and insinuating they they are suborning treason. How about thinking about the OP's question and providing your opinion.
    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.

  10. #84
    Distinguished Member Array Doghandler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    West Branch
    Posts
    1,936
    The Second Amendment is a grand debate just like everything else I've ever read or heard.

    Any notion that we will ever reach some sort of indubitable understanding is missing Democracy.

    Practice your cause and be gracious, Ladies and Gentlemen.

  11. #85
    Ex Member Array walleye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    erie PA
    Posts
    677

    We Have The Founders' Intent

    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    My only point was that I doubt the SCOTUS opinion is faithful to the original founders intent of the 2A. It seems that when we put people in authority, they have to make things more complicated than they need to be to justify their position. In SCOTUS, this started with John Marshall and has continued since.

    BTW, I have read Heller and McDonald and others. That does not mean that I believe SCOTUS' rulings comport with the intent of the founders. Government begets bigger government. Big government begets even bigger government... Only the people can make this stop - VOTE America!!!!
    The intent of the Founders was in the writing of the Constitution - Amendments and all - that is what they did and what they intended. It is interpreted by the Supreme Court, 1792's and 2011's and, if we make it, 2031's etc., etc. - which is part of the Constitution. That's as good as it gets. If the intent of the Founders was other than the Constitution or if it did not describe their intent adequately, they wouldn't have written it. They would have written something else and voted and passed it. But they didn't, they voted and passed the one we've got. So this Supreme Court, invented by the Founders made the Decision it made on Heller. That was the intent.
    Last edited by walleye; December 2nd, 2011 at 02:30 PM.
    Hopyard likes this.

  12. #86
    Senior Member Array zamboni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    North of the Line
    Posts
    1,186
    pithy is out the window when disusing something as important as Our 2A

    First of all let’s get it right. The 2A isn’t The Right to Bear Arms, it is “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms”!

    So what does it mean to me? I believe that after our Country`s Founding Forefathers, finally fought the good fight, and in all of their collective knowledge and wisdom, they wanted to form a new, fair, and just government for all.

    They, the scholars and most prominent gentlemen, all gathered together and drew up The Constitution of The United States of America, and The Bill of Rights.

    The first Bill of Rights they drew up contains 10 Amendments; which they intended to protect, and guarantee the Citizens of The United States of America, our personal freedoms, and to pompously limit, our government`s powers over revoking, impeding on, or changing any of those, our guaranteed freedoms. Kind a like a contract between us citizens and our government.

    They started with what they thought was the most important one. The First Amendment; freedom of speech, allowing us to have a forum such as this to post our opinions without government intervention, freedom of the press/media to help keep us truthfully informed of what is going on around us and around the world without interface of or from any government agency, freedom of religion to worship God how we want and feel fit too without any outside or government interference, and freedom to peacefully assemble again allowing us to have a forum such as this to assemble and post our opinions freely without any government intervention.

    Now onto our OP’s intent; The First Amendment is most important as it is self explanatory, so it is the First one written. They, our Founding Forefathers thought that giving us “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms” was so important that it IS the second one written out of ten.

    Not the Seventh, not the Forth, not the Tenth, but THE SECOND! They held this to be a very important Right!!

    So what does it mean to me? Let us break it down by what their specific wordings define.

    The Second Amendment: “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms”

    The Right = something that is due to anyone which is found to be a legal law abiding and upstanding responsible citizen of The United States of America and that responsible person is totally due to everything as set forth by this legal guarantee, The Bill of Right’s 2A.

    to Keep = to personally hold or retain in one's possession and personal custody something to maintain in one's service for a future occasion permanently; forever for someone to hold something as secret or in confidential; as to keep a gun if shown to be a legal law abiding and upstanding responsible citizen of The United States of America

    and Bear = to warrant or be worthy of to have, to possess and be entitled to exhibit, show, or carry to wear; as to bear a gun, if shown to be a legal law abiding and upstanding responsible citizen of The United States of America.

    Arms = any aggressive weapons or instruments of offense or defense and their munitions.

    So “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms” means to me that we, as Citizens of these United States of America, Have the Right thru Guarantee of the 2A of The Bill of Rights, to Legally Own, Keep, Carry, and Have For Our Own Personal SD from Evildoers, and to Protect Our Country from Evildoers: Firearms and Their Ammunition's, along with Edged Weapons, AS LONG AS YOU ARE a law abiding upstanding responsible citizen of these United States of America, and for us to be able to do so for ever more!!!!

    And God Bless America !!!!
    HotGuns likes this.

  13. #87
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,885
    Quote Originally Posted by walleye View Post
    The intent of the Founders was in the writing of the Constitution - Amendments and all - that is what they did and what they intended. It is interpreted by the Supreme Court, 1792's and 2011's and, if we make it, 2031's etc., etc. - which is part of the Constitution. That's as good as it gets. If the intent of the Founders was other than the Constitution or if it did not describe their intent adequately, they wouldn't have written it. They would have written something else and voted and passed it. But they didn't, they voted and passed the one we've got. So this Supreme Court, inventing by the Founders made the Decision it made on Heller. That was the intent.
    If you assertion that the founders, and Congress by extension, put all their intent in a written document were correct, the courts would not need to examine the congressional record when evaluating laws. In McDonald, in particular, the SCOTUS examined the congressional record extensively. To find it unreasonable to examine the "founders intent" which is essentially the same as the congressional record of the time - well I don't get your approach. I would go on, but we would get far afield from the 2A an into a general discussion on the constitution and BOR.
    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.

  14. #88
    Ex Member Array walleye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    erie PA
    Posts
    677
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    If you assertion that the founders, and Congress by extension, put all their intent in a written document were correct, the courts would not need to examine the congressional record when evaluating laws. In McDonald, in particular, the SCOTUS examined the congressional record extensively. To find it unreasonable to examine the "founders intent" which is essentially the same as the congressional record of the time - well I don't get your approach. I would go on, but we would get far afield from the 2A an into a general discussion on the constitution and BOR.
    You can have as many questions as you want and examine the Founder's intent as much as you want. But you'll never find more than your opinion. That's my point.

    The Founders intent was to have a constitution that survived them, their time - so they set up a system that would continue through many and different times than theirs, the courts and the Supreme C. - a part of that system - created to address confusion over Law and the principles/structures set down in the document. When an Opinion is reached, (and the courts conduct research into history to form ideas of the Founders intent), that Opinion IS the Founders intent - for it follows the system they intended. Beyond that there is no secret book which gives their intents for our questions and answers them for our questions and controversies flow from our time. We to do the best with the system they spun into motion: that was the only intent.
    Last edited by walleye; December 2nd, 2011 at 04:18 PM.
    wjh2657 and Doghandler like this.

  15. #89
    Senior Member Array wjh2657's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lafayette, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,166
    Walleye, put in absolutely accurate and correct words!
    Retired Marine, Retired School Teacher, Independent voter, Goldwater Conservative.

  16. #90
    Senior Member Array zamboni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    North of the Line
    Posts
    1,186
    The Chinese seem to be/are credited with the invention of gun powder which their first intent was to use it as an antibiotic? Then they figured out it can blow stuff up, so gun powder was born.

    Then the first gun is thought to be made by the Chinese around the 10th century and it propelled an arrow? Not to be confused with canons, which started showing up around the 13th century. Next came a crud handgun around the 13th century and about that time a vaso showing up in Italy which I think also used spears not arrows made around 1326. Rifling came about around 1498 and thus it snowballed on. Gosh what would they all think if they could see a Glock today? Was that what they had in mind over some 1000 years ago?

    Which brings us here too our beloved by some, and dissolution's by others, the 2A. Whatever our forefather’s intent was, you can’t get inside someone else`s mind and know what they are thinking. Just like the antibiotic, turned explosive, turned crud firearm, turned into our explosive weapons of today.

    The court system as we most will agree is a bit goofy at times. They who rule regardless of what they may say, can cast their rulings upon us sometimes because of their own believes, I said sometimes, and not by how or what a laws interpretation should or could be. The color blue comes in all different shades. How do we all see the same exact shade of blue? If you can present your case convincingly enough and regardless of torts, the Judge will/could decide in your favor. Have enough case histories one way or another and you can swing the jury to guilt or acquit?

    If the glove don’t fit …. Does it look like a Mr. Chewbaca …. Ahhh the babysitter did it

    We all have our ways and thoughts of justifications one way or another. But unfortunately the way things go today majority rules and judges, politicians and such will do and say what ever it takes to get elected into office and once they are there … all bets are off??

    The best we can hope for is someone who will standup and support our efforts to be able to exercise to the fullest our 2A Rights.

Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... 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.