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; Originally Posted by suntzu Before you start accusing me of being an anti I am only posing this question because of another thread going on ...
I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."
The correct question to ask would be where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal Government can regulate weapons. The powers of the Feds are enumerated, not your rights.Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say you can bear arms for personnel protection?
The founding fathers were not perfect. I believe in the right to be armed and, fortunately, my government largely agrees.
The founding fathers did not believe we should have a standing Army in peacetime. It was widely believed that an Army in peacetime would endanger liberty. The belief was that militias could provide a level of defense. This thinking was shown to be wrong.
I try not to see rights coming from documents, but that our rights exist whether it is documented or not. For example, it is commonly believed we have the right to defend ourselves and innocent persons. It logically follows that the means to achieve self defense is also a right. It could be a knife, sword, gun or whatever.
...The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
And before you go saying that the right only applies to unreasonable searches and seizures... think about this... there's a comma in the second amendment, as well... if you say that my right to be secure in my own home applies only to searches and seizures, then you must say that arms are to be kept and borne not as an individual right, but as a "corporate" right as part of a (or the) militia.
Now, there is some evidence that in the founding era carrying a weapon concealed was widely considered to be the act of an assassin... not a citizen who was prepared to protect himself, rather one who was going looking to use the weapon by surprise and deception. (but then, those were the days of duels)
Politicians, take note of Colorado 9/10/2013."You are elected to service, not power.
Your job is to "serve us" not to lord power over us."
Do you "Believe" Do you Vote? Please Read:
LEARN something today so you can TEACH something tomorrow.
Dominus Vobiscum <))>(
"A well regulated militia, for the security of a free state..." is an emphatic declaration of the constitution that the right to bear arms is entirely for self defense. It does not say that a well regulated hunter or plinker...it states without equivocation "A well regulated militia...", and what is the purpose of a militia if not for defense of self and others.
What you don't understand is that the states have NO rights. Individuals have rights, and whether it is a state-level government or federal, or local for that matter, the principle of infringement is the same. Each level is just a different amount of people shoving their definitions down the throat of the property owner, and none is legitimate. The right to do whatever doesn't harm someone else is a fundamental pillar of freedom, and is not some "imaginary" nonsense like your little "states have the right to dictate how you will use your property in whatever manner they choose" idea. Time for you to think the implications of what you say all the way through, because, once again, it is the same exact principle as gun rights fall under, since they are just one form of property.There are 50 states to choose from -- don't go trying to force your imaginary rights down the throats of people who have designed the laws of their state as they please.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2008 (Heller) that the Second Amendement was a preservation, not a grant, of a right that was bestowed with the English Bill of Rights a hundred years before Independence. It ruled that it was an INDIVIDUAL right as a form of protection against government, and that the latest military weapons were contemplated.
The Court's opinion is not an 'opinion' as you and I know it; under our system, Constitutional questions are decided by the Court and become a rule of law; as it did in Roe v. Wade.
Then, in 2010 (MacDonald) the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment made the Second Amendment apply to the States as well as to the Feds.
If you can make yourself read the opinions (you can find them online) as I did, everything falls into place, and gives you the foundation to understand why and how the Second Amendment allows us to carry weapons for personal protection.
Heller - http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content.../06/07-290.pdf
MacDonald - http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
But you have to be willing to read it, to 'get' it. I find that, here in Oz, I need this knowledge for my OWN 'personal protection', as when they hear my accent (I talk to thousands of Aussies annually) guns in America tend to come up, and the locals, having a very different history from Americans, don't like American gun ownership (I know - what business is it of theirs?).
After you read the opinions, spread the word!
Red (Richard) Nichols
Holster designer-maker to the world since 1958
"I am a man who has lived an adventure". Enzo Ferrari
Show me where it says we cannot have guns.
Vietnam Veteran - 1966-1970 USASA
Bersa Thunder 9 Ultra Compact Pro - My Daughter Wanted It And Took It Away From Me.
New. Bersa Thunder 9 Ultra Compact Pro Duotone - My carry gun.
Politicians should be limited to 2 terms - One in office and one in prison.
The phrase "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" is surely one of the most misunderstood or misused that I have seen. You attempt to prove your point, but you actually prove mine. Let me explain. I think we can both agree that I have a right to keep and bear arms. If you actually had a right to ban firearms on your private property (in my state, you do not), then me carrying on to your property would be analogous to swinging my fist into your nose. If you don't have a right to ban firearms on your property, then I can swing that fist 'til the break of dawn and your nose remains uninjured. In fact, your nose isn't anywhere near my fist, nor can it be, because you don't have that nose.
Here is a great quote to fight the 2a haters that want to ban it
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.The Strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" - Thomas Jefferson.
Sweet, to the point, and well hopefully any idiot can understand. (not calling you an idiot)