Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say you can bear arms for personnel protection? - Page 6

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; 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 ...

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 123
Like Tree84Likes

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

  1. #76
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,837
    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?
    Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You have a right of "life".
    It gives you the "right to bear arms" .... it doesn't specify needing any reason at all to do so. None... what-so-ever. There are NO qualifiers.
    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."


  2. #77
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say you can bear arms for personnel protection?
    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.

    Michael
    oneshot likes this.

  3. #78
    Senior Member Array stanislaskasava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    1,121
    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    Property rights are not legitimately limited at all.
    In America, there are untold thousands of limitations on property rights. Perhaps you cannot have a business in a residential zone; or paint your house that special shade of purple; or cut down that tree that you thought you 'owned'; or park your motorhome in your side yard, or whatever -- the list is literally endless, and growing every day. If you want to argue that these limitations are illegitimate... that's a discussion for another day.

    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    The right of someone who PAID FOR THEIR OWN PROPERTY to do with it whatever they want, and dictate its terms of use however they want, trumps whatever you think you should be able to do on SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY.
    Unfortunately, simply paying for property does not allow you to do whatever you want with it. We're all stuck with the laws of the states we live in. That's the beauty of the concept of individual states -- we can all choose to live in the society that we like best. In my state, it's not possible to ban firearms on private property. The right does not exist here (and in many other states). It doesn't matter if you paid for the property. What does matter are the laws of the state in which the property is located.

    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    If you don't like it you can legitimately choose to avoid their terms and stay off their property.
    You seem to think that someone who chooses to own property in a state that specifically does not give property owners a right to ban firearms has a more 'legitimate' claim to an imaginary right than the people of that same state whose right to keep and bear arms actually is mentioned in law. Wouldn't it be wiser to simply own property in a state which does allow banning of firearms on private 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    Any laws passed to the contrary are a violation of natural law and are just as immoral and unjust as idiotic permit requirements or the EPA showing up to tell you that you have to destroy all your structures yesterday because they've arbitrarily deemed YOUR property to be protected wetlands. All of the former examples follow the same sorry line of thought, and violating someone's property rights just because it's promoting your pet cause is completely unjust.
    Natural law? Some might say that natural law makes a property owner king on his own land. For example, if I catch you stealing my horses, I'll string you up without a trial. If I catch you cheating in my casino, I'll hide you in a hole in the desert, under some sagebrush. If I catch you carrying a gun in my saloon, I'll keep your gun and throw you out the same swinging doors you walked in through. Natural law is easy to understand... but we don't use natural law in The United States of America. We use the laws of the state that we are in. That's the payment we make in exchange for membership in society.

  4. #79
    Member Array ScottieG59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    65
    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.

  5. #80
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,480
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    ... 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.
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    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.
    suntzu... you are saying two diametrically opposed things here... "A person has the right to say no guns on my property vs. only the government can deny you a right. I understand that you may be dealing with the nuance of... 'he has the choice to come in unarmed or not come in at all.. he has the right to bear his arms, just not on the property holder's property.' The property owner is not denying you the right "at large," only on HIS property.

    Quote Originally Posted by stanislaskasava View Post
    Property rights are limited by society. In my state, there is no 'right to ban guns on private property' (or business). There is, however, a right to carry guns -- even while on private property (or a business). This is the way we like it in my state, and in many other states.

    Once again, you miss the mark: Rights do not magically disappear when you cross a private property line. Also, you repeat your odd, contradictory way of thinking. On the one hand, you think that property owners have the right to tell others 'no guns on my property', and on the other hand you state "Only the government can deny you a right."
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    I of course have the right to deny you access to my property and/or putting a condition on you entering my house/property/business. If that means I say no guns, then you have a choice, stay and abide by my rules or don;t stay. If you don't understand that too bad. If you don't understand my choice of words too bad.
    When I talk about the government denying you rights it is is by force or legislation. Like NO ONE can have a gun. Or the government decides it can invade your house and take your arms by force.
    Quote Originally Posted by stanislaskasava View Post
    The real trick is knowing whether I have a gun when I enter your house/property or business. 'Rules' do not supercede rights.

    I don't know what you mean by "too bad", but it also does not supercede rights.
    "Rules" DO supercede rights... if those rights infringe on the rights of another... "your right to swing your fists ends at my nose." Your right cannot infringe on mine. I have the right to be secure in my person under the fourth amendment. which states:
    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)
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  6. #81
    Senior Member Array dV8r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    829
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    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.

    Michael
    Exactly!

    The degradation of our government's interpretation of our Constitution is one of the factors that prompted my theory that in most people: "Education and common sense are inversely proportional."
    LEARN something today so you can TEACH something tomorrow.
    Dominus Vobiscum <))>(
    Where is the wisdom that we have lost in knowledge?" T.S. Elliot

  7. #82
    Ex Member Array lizjimbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    157
    "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.

  8. #83
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,095
    Quote Originally Posted by stanislaskasava View Post
    In America, there are untold thousands of limitations on property rights.
    When I said no legitimate limitations that is exactly what I meant. Obviously there are all kinds of limits that are placed on us, what I said is that the vast majority of them are not legitimate. Unless your use of your own property damages the person or property of someone else, there is no legitimate reason to limit it. To try and characterize what I said as somehow "shoving my definition down your throat" shows that what I said went right over your head. YOU have NO legitimacy in telling ME what do do with MY property. Trying to tell me anything else is YOU shoving your definitions down MY throat. You're endorsing the same logic as the gun controllers with this, and you wonder why they've gotten so far with their idiotic laws already.

  9. #84
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,095
    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.
    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.

  10. #85
    Senior Member Array rednichols's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    604
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    So now the question is for you history buffs:
    Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say you can bear arms for personnel protection?
    Much of the carrying on that I see in the above posts comes from the posters not having READ (not 'about') the most recent Supreme Court decisions (called 'opinions') on the Second Amendment.

    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

  11. #86
    Distinguished Member Array BurgerBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Western Kentucky
    Posts
    1,892
    Show me where it says we cannot have guns.
    Vietnam Veteran - 1966-1970 USASA
    Carry Pistol. Gen 3 Glock 23, .40 Cal.
    Carry Pistol. Gen 3 Glock 19, 9mm.
    Bersa Thunder 9 UC Pro, 9mm. Gave To Daughter To Carry.
    Give me a minute before I post again.

  12. #87
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by BurgerBoy View Post
    Show me where it says we cannot have guns.
    The anti's claim that its in the Commerce clause.

    Michael
    BurgerBoy likes this.

  13. #88
    Senior Member Array stanislaskasava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    1,121
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    "Rules" DO supercede rights... if those rights infringe on the rights of another... "your right to swing your fists ends at my nose." Your right cannot infringe on mine. I have the right to be secure in my person under the fourth amendment. which states:
    ...

    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)
    Can you give an example of a rule superceding a right? I think not.

    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.

  14. #89
    Ex Member Array PIMking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    226
    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?

    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)
    DPro.40 likes this.

  15. #90
    Senior Member Array stanislaskasava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    1,121
    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    When I said no legitimate limitations that is exactly what I meant. Obviously there are all kinds of limits that are placed on us, what I said is that the vast majority of them are not legitimate. Unless your use of your own property damages the person or property of someone else, there is no legitimate reason to limit it. To try and characterize what I said as somehow "shoving my definition down your throat" shows that what I said went right over your head. YOU have NO legitimacy in telling ME what do do with MY property. Trying to tell me anything else is YOU shoving your definitions down MY throat. You're endorsing the same logic as the gun controllers with this, and you wonder why they've gotten so far with their idiotic laws already.
    I think you missed the part about paying a price for membership in society. It's a legitimate trade. You don't get to have your cake and eat it, too. I think you've confused America for an anarchy.

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 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.