Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say you can bear arms for personnel protection?

This is a discussion on Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say you can bear arms for personnel protection? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; The way it is written, it only makes sense as an individual right. Anything that would require someone other than the individual to determine when ...

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 123
Like Tree84Likes

Thread: Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say you can bear arms for personnel protection?

  1. #31
    Member Array CPanther95's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    237
    The way it is written, it only makes sense as an individual right.

    Anything that would require someone other than the individual to determine when arms are appropriate could only mean that some level of leadership, or government would be making that determination. If that were the case, there'd be no point writing an amendment that prohibits the government from infringing on that right.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    Senior Member Array stanislaskasava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    1,104
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Before you start accusing me of being an anti I am only posing this question because of another thread going on about guns in the workplace. I personally think the right to bear arms and to protect oneself is a fundamental right we are born with and one which the government can not legislate away.

    So now the question is for you history buffs:
    Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say you can bear arms for personnel protection?
    I find the question to be a bit odd, as it seems to imply that the 2nd Amendment must say that you can bear arms for personal protection. You previously state that you think bearing arms in self-defense is a fundamental right which cannot be legislated away by government.

    I think you manage to miss the mark on both parts. How many countries have governments that restrict the natural right of self-defense and/or bearing arms? Many. America happens to be governed by its People, but membership in society requires playing by the rules of that society. Other countries may be ruled by dictators, but the effect is all the same. We trade freedoms for membership in society. Even 'fundamental' rights can and have been legislated away, in America.

    Secondly, in the American society, it is not necessary that the 2nd Amendment say that arms can be carried for personal protection. In America, anything that is not specifically illegal is legal. That is a basic premise of American freedom. Furthermore, government is restricted in numerous ways by Our constitution. Any law that infringes upon the right of the People to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional, and thus invalid, unenforcible, and altogether redundant. This constitutional restriction applies at every level, from President to meter maid, after the addition of the 14th Amendment (in part, "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."). For those who do not know, the words 'privileges or immunities' have a specific meaning (which is: all rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights, and others that are unenumerated.) They do not simply mean 'privileges' and 'immunities'.

    The problem is that We the People are not following through with our responsibility to protect Our freedoms. We allow unconstitutional laws to stand; we allow ourselves to be judged by nincompoops, even in the highest courts; we allow ourselves to be distracted by the same political smoke and mirrors, year after year; we forget that American government should exist solely to serve the American People -- instead We serve government more and more every day, until we find ourselves asking such questions as "Where in the _______ does It say you can ________?"

    What difference does it make if a right is a 'fundamental right', if you don't value it enough to protect it? It's merely a conversation piece for coffee and cigarettes.

  4. #33
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,787
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    I don't believe I missed the mark on anything. I asked the question more to generate conversation. This started with folks in another thread saying that companies are infringing on folks rights or denying them the right to protect themselves as employees or patrons of an establishment. I beleive that is wrong and that only the government can deny rights and that we have free will to choose what level pf protections we want.

  5. #34
    Member Array azretired's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Posts
    203
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    It doesn't
    The second amendment is not about self defense. Just as the first amendment does not say we can publish a newspaper.
    The reason we keep or bear arms is irrelevant to the amendment. The amendment simply states that the government shall not infringe on that right.
    +1. One of the best explanations I have heard!

    Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2
    Livin the Life!
    Join and Support the NRA

  6. #35
    Member Array azretired's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Posts
    203
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    I don't believe I missed the mark on anything. I asked the question more to generate conversation. This started with folks in another thread saying that companies are infringing on folks rights or denying them the right to protect themselves as employees or patrons of an establishment. I beleive that is wrong and that only the government can deny rights and that we have free will to choose what level pf protections we want.
    Are you saying then that you do not have the right to tell someone not to bring a firearm into your home?

    Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2
    Livin the Life!
    Join and Support the NRA

  7. #36
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,787
    Quote Originally Posted by azretired View Post
    Are you saying then that you do not have the right to tell someone not to bring a firearm into your home?

    Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2
    Of course a person has the right to tell someone no guns on their property or their business. And they always should. That is not denying them a right. The person has a choice to come to my house or work. Only the government can deny you a right.

  8. #37
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    25,734
    Quote Originally Posted by azretired View Post
    Are you saying then that you do not have the right to tell someone not to bring a firearm into your home?
    Sure, a person may ask. Of course. Property rights assure a person has a say as to who's present on his/her property.

    Such rights coexists with the other's right to remain armed if that person chooses. But that doesn't allow a person refusing to exit when demanded by the property owner, for whatever reason he was asked to exit ... including the owner's preference to not have armed people present, foul-mouthed heathens present, or whatever else turns off, scares or disgusts the property owner. It is what it is, and none of it disarms the person desiring to remain armed.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  9. #38
    Senior Member Array CanuckQue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Maritimes Canada
    Posts
    1,106
    It's obvious (to me) that if you're not a fan of the SCOTUS nickle-and-diming, that an actual additional amendment is needed. Honestly, the right to bear arms should be somewhat infringed - because having it completely uninfringed strikes me as being unreasonable.

    It must be possible to get consensus on this front, and actually amend the constitution to something sane. Some pro-carry folks are a-okay with ex-felons not being allowed to have guns, for example (though it clearly is 'infringing'). Honestly, I'm actually okay with having people do some paperwork before being allowed to buy stingers or LAWs (even though that's clearly 'infringing', too).

    Handguns, hunting rifles, and even assault rifles would not protect against the King of England (if you'll forgive the schtick). The 2A clearly allows the purchase of weapons that would be useful in such a defensive scenario. But, honestly, I wouldn't mind a bit of paperwork if someone wanted to have a suppressed .308 in their car's trunk all the time.

    IMO, the current language is to unreasonably permissive, and that the current nickle-and-diming should be replaced by an additional amendment. Let a politician run on that platform, and I'd think them honest. And actual amendment would change the law. Sure, there're some people who want to be able to mount AA weaponry on their cabin rooftop, but if the process for changing the law was actually used, then they'd be outvoted the way the Framers intended.
    Our current plan for Universal Iron Lung coverage, just sayin'.
    Wisest. Retirement. Plan. Ever.
    Good thing the March of Dimes worked. How, why?

    Alternately, for those with a tool shed, ideas, or creative loved ones to tell..


  10. #39
    OD*
    OD* is offline
    Moderator
    Array OD*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Coopersville
    Posts
    10,593
    Quote Originally Posted by CanuckQue View Post
    But, honestly, I wouldn't mind a bit of paperwork if someone wanted to have a suppressed .308 in their car's trunk all the time.
    You don't need any paper work to own a suppressed weapon in Canada? We do here in the States.

    IMO, the current language is to unreasonably permissive...
    Fortunutly, the current majority of U.S. citizens do not hold your opinion.
    baren likes this.
    "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

  11. #40
    Senior Member Array CanuckQue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Maritimes Canada
    Posts
    1,106
    Yes, we require a massive amount of onerous paperwork to own a suppressor. Nevermind wanting to drive around with a suppressed rifle in the trunk - I, uh, have no idea if it's even possible to do that legally. I'd love to own a suppressor, because I think it would make the sport more pleasant but also mitigate some of my deafness worries. But, honestly, I don't mind that some paperwork is required. Maybe less than now, for people like me, but at least some.

    Quote Originally Posted by OD* View Post
    Fortunutly, the current majority of U.S. citizens do not hold your opinion.
    Really? I mean, really? "Shall not be infringed"! I just don't know if I agree with you about the majority opinion. How many here are okay with ex-felons being denied access (with at least some interfering paperwork)? I honestly don't think the 'majority' your neighbors would be okay with normal people being able to own grenades.

    The current majority might be somewhat okay with the currently diluted version, where the Constitution says one thing, and local laws say another. But that's not what I'm talking about, where the law has been diluted with local laws and by judges into "the right to bear arms is entirely situational, good luck!"
    Our current plan for Universal Iron Lung coverage, just sayin'.
    Wisest. Retirement. Plan. Ever.
    Good thing the March of Dimes worked. How, why?

    Alternately, for those with a tool shed, ideas, or creative loved ones to tell..


  12. #41
    OD*
    OD* is offline
    Moderator
    Array OD*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Coopersville
    Posts
    10,593
    Really, I mean really! I was replying to your remark, "IMO, the current language is to unreasonably permissive..." Nobody said anything about felons owning weapons, they can't now, so it isn't too permissive.

    I honestly don't think the 'majority' your neighbors would be okay with normal people being able to own grenades.
    Guess you didn't know Americans can own grenades.
    "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

  13. #42
    VIP Member Array BugDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast of Florida
    Posts
    9,315
    It says we have the right to keep and bear...I would take that to mean for whatever purpose you may need it.
    Know Guns, Know Safety, Know Peace.
    No Guns, No Safety, No Peace.


    Guns are like sex and air...its no big deal until YOU can't get any.

  14. #43
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    10,030
    Quote Originally Posted by CanuckQue View Post
    Yes, we require a massive amount of onerous paperwork to own a suppressor. Nevermind wanting to drive around with a suppressed rifle in the trunk - I, uh, have no idea if it's even possible to do that legally. I'd love to own a suppressor, because I think it would make the sport more pleasant but also mitigate some of my deafness worries. But, honestly, I don't mind that some paperwork is required. Maybe less than now, for people like me, but at least some.



    Really? I mean, really? "Shall not be infringed"! I just don't know if I agree with you about the majority opinion. How many here are okay with ex-felons being denied access (with at least some interfering paperwork)? I honestly don't think the 'majority' your neighbors would be okay with normal people being able to own grenades.

    The current majority might be somewhat okay with the currently diluted version, where the Constitution says one thing, and local laws say another. But that's not what I'm talking about, where the law has been diluted with local laws and by judges into "the right to bear arms is entirely situational, good luck!"
    The firearms I carry all day every day in compliance with federal and state laws here aren't even legal to own in Canada. Thanks, but I'll keep the system we currently have in place here, and will continue to avoid travel to places like Canada where my right to possess firearms is non-existent.
    OD* and oneshot like this.
    "When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk."
    Tuco

  15. #44
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,074
    Quote Originally Posted by CanuckQue View Post
    Really? I mean, really? "Shall not be infringed"! I just don't know if I agree with you about the majority opinion. How many here are okay with ex-felons being denied access (with at least some interfering paperwork)? I honestly don't think the 'majority' your neighbors would be okay with normal people being able to own grenades.

    The current majority might be somewhat okay with the currently diluted version, where the Constitution says one thing, and local laws say another. But that's not what I'm talking about, where the law has been diluted with local laws and by judges into "the right to bear arms is entirely situational, good luck!"
    Key is "ex-felon". A fugitive from justice or a mental institution escapee is where it should end. If society has deemed your debt to have been paid and you've been lawfully released from prison, all your constitutional protections should apply. This should give some pause to those in charge of our "revolving door" prison system, and if logically followed, should ensure that people who have actually vicitimized others go to prison, not those who commit idiotic "victimless crimes" such as drugs or prostitution.

    I feel every bit as comfortable with your average citizen owning a grenade as our incompetent and arrogant government being allowed to own them. If the government can do something, you should be able to do something. This basic principle would result in most laws being repealed as unjust and ridiculous, which they clearly are. The 2A being rewritten is something I couldn't possibly oppose more, it is a terrible, miserable excuse for an idea and should never be allowed to happen. It should be enforced as written. No ATF, no class 3, nothing.
    OD* and oneshot like this.

  16. #45
    Distinguished Member Array GunGeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,249
    IMHO it's about the "Life,Liberty & The Pursuit of Happiness" thing. We don't need the government to list ways to go about these things. Guns are a tool. No different than any other tool, and when used properly will help secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Woe to those who attempt to prevent us from using tools for doing so would make us no better than the animals in the forests. Using tools is one of the factors that identifies us as human beings. Why would we need a government that restricts our being human?

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... 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

2 amendment don't say guns

,

2nd amendment grenades

,

2nd amendment quot>:..;lllllll/...........................[-'-=p;;[ 8i/

,

does 2 amendment say anything about protecting yourself

,

photo quotes about my rights to bare arms

,

second amendment biological weapon

,

second amendment comma placement

,

the second amendment allows me to bare arms,how about a hand grenade

,

was miller first person to fight for right to bare arms

,
were does it say that the right to bear arms it to protect oneself from the government
,
where dies it say private citizens can have same weapons as military
,

which amendment allows a person to bear arms

Click on a term to search for related topics.