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 peckman28 What you don't understand is that the states have NO rights. Individuals have rights, and whether it is a state-level government ...

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 123
Like Tree84Likes

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

  1. #91
    Senior Member Array stanislaskasava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    1,104
    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    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.
    As you say, individuals have rights -- but you fail to understand that owning property does not make you king of your land. You can wish in one hand... The laws of your state legitimately apply on your land, whether you like them or not.

    If you want to buy your own country, then perhaps you can have the property rights that you've always dreamed of. It might be more realistic to change the laws of your state.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #92
    Senior Member Array rednichols's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    585
    Quote Originally Posted by PIMking View Post
    "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.
    I like it. But it might not be as we'd hoped, according to http://www.monticello.org/site/jeffe...arms-quotation, which states,

    "Note: This sentence is often seen paired with the following: "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." That sentence does not appear in the Virginia Constitution drafts or text as adopted, nor in any other Jefferson writings that we know of."

  4. #93
    Member Array USPatriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Charlestown, Indiana
    Posts
    33
    I did not read the full length of the thread so if what I'm about to say was already covered, my apologies.

    "Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say you can bear arms for personnel protection". Well it does & it doesn't. As was pointed out earlier in the thread, the part that says "shall not be infringed" implies it but let us take a deeper look at the times & what a militia is.

    During the mid to late 1700's, this continent was still a new land with the vast majority of it being unexplored. Colonists had to contend with hostile natives, highwaymen & foreign powers. All of this required the use of firearms which meant that virtually everyone had them. All of this was so common that there was no need to spell out the use of firearms for self defense in the 2nd Amendment because only a drooling moron would not know that. It was a common fact of life.Hunting too was an everyday occurence & again there was no need to spell it out.

    Now as for militias, militias are a citizen armies, armies composed of everyday folks like you & me & they are supposed to be organized by the state in which you live in. Some say the National Guard is the current incarnation of the militia but this is a falacy & I will demonstrate this momentarily. At any rate, the militia is supposed to be 'well regulated' meaning it should be disciplined & have adequate training. Since everyone had firearms, the idea was that every man in every state between certain ages (I do not recall off the top of my head) was to be a 'minuteman'. A well regulated militia composed of all able bodied men is a force to reckon with for any nation & it still would be today if we went back to it, which I believe we should.

    The militia was the guarantee against tyrannical governments, which we have today in our very own government, you only need look at the things our federal government does everyday to see. Our founding fathers would be ashamed of our cowardice as should we.

    Now the National Guard. First & foremost, I was in the Indiana Army national Guard & can tell you quite bluntly that we are sponsored by the federal government & are subject to be called up by the federal government as reserves. Militias are not sponsored by the federal government nor are they under any sort of federal control. They are state forces only. Thus they are not the inheritors of the Minuteman's legacy. That legacy has been dead for some time but in my opinion needs to be badly resurrected.

    I didn't mean to derail this thread & my apologies if it has gone slightly off topic but the truth is, we are in serious trouble in this country, our children are in trouble & our children's children are in trouble.

    U.S.Patriot

  5. #94
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,074
    Quote Originally Posted by stanislaskasava View Post
    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.
    If you read what I wrote and saw anarchy, you have no idea what that word even means and you certainly have no clue what I'm talking about. Come back when you've engaged in a lot more critical thinking. Your rights end where someone else's begin. The same principle applies with your use of your property. You cannot use it to destroy the property of someone else or otherwise commit aggression against them. Limitations that go beyond that (permitting, licensing, and other prior limits on your use of your property) are not justifiable and need to go away.

  6. #95
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,074
    Quote Originally Posted by stanislaskasava View Post
    As you say, individuals have rights -- but you fail to understand that owning property does not make you king of your land. You can wish in one hand... The laws of your state legitimately apply on your land, whether you like them or not.

    If you want to buy your own country, then perhaps you can have the property rights that you've always dreamed of. It might be more realistic to change the laws of your state.
    ...Which is pretty much what I've been saying should be done, while outlining what those laws should be changed to. I'm quite aware of the real world in which we live and what the laws are, I'm describing what they should be. Federal laws need quite an overhaul as well to restore our property rights to where they should be. The thousands of pages of gun laws alone need to go away, to say nothing of other forms of property.

  7. #96
    Senior Member Array The Old Anglo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Orlando,Fl
    Posts
    659
    Quote Originally Posted by JoJoGunn View Post
    What the ammendment does not say, shouts out to the hills what it it really says.

    We (citizens) have the right to keep & bear arms. Again, the right. Not the priviledge, nor the restricted ownership or any limitations whatsoever. It does not specify that arms cannot be used in certain situations, and that says all we need, that no restriction on firearm ownership and use is implied.

    It means we are free to keep firearms in our possession, we may "bear" them for what purpose deemed necessary and the Government "shall not" infringe upon that right.

    That's how I see, read and understand the Second Ammendment.
    Exactly how I see it too!!!. Somebody please remind Holder and Obonko of that!!.

  8. #97
    Senior Member Array hudsonvalley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    lower hudson valley ny
    Posts
    849
    Your life is a gift from God that should be protected....#1 rule....
    Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.
    ---Ronald Reagan

  9. #98
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Where in the 2nd amendment does it say the Federal Government can restrict them?

    Michael

  10. #99
    VIP Member Array Gene83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    2,220
    ......,the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    It's part of the Second Amendment and part of the Bill of Rights. I'm not reading that owning and carrying a firearm is a privilege granted by the government and subject to regulation. I'm reading that the only way you can revoke my right is to revoke my citizenship. Some folks may think that we need regulations for this, that or the other, but that's not the way that the amendment is written.
    "The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come." ~ Confucius

  11. #100
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    I do not see the amendment as saying that a citizen can or cannot do anything. What it does say is that the Government cannot do something.

    Michael
    CanuckQue and BurgerBoy like this.

  12. #101
    Senior Member Array stanislaskasava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    1,104
    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    If you read what I wrote and saw anarchy, you have no idea what that word even means and you certainly have no clue what I'm talking about.
    an·ar·chy/ˈanərkē/
    Noun:

    1. A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
    2. Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal

    You assert that society has no legitimate means of limiting your property rights. You do not recognize that authority. Do you believe in absolute freedom of individuals? At least, for property rights, you do. YOU are an anarchist, and you didn't even know it.

    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    Come back when you've engaged in a lot more critical thinking.
    Or else what? You're going to outwit me again? Not bloody likely.

    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    Your rights end where someone else's begin.
    Imaginary rights do not 'begin'. On the other hand, carrying firearms is a real right, -- it's even recognized in the U.S. Constitution. In my state (and many others) property owners have no legal means of banning firearms. Nor can they ban Ipods, lipstick, hot dogs, or tomato soup. That right does not exist. The right you appear to be thinking of is the right to 'trespass' someone who is on their property. You ask them to leave, and if they don't, you call the police (because your rights are being violated). That is a property right that you actually do have.

    You attempt to insult my critical thinking skills, so let's put yours to the test. What happens when someone like you thinks you have a right to ban firearms on private property? Let's say you catch a guest who has a gun, in your house. What can you do about it? You're not the police, so you can't arrest them. Let's say you call the police, and they come on down. You tell them "Officer, my buddy has a gun... and he knows darn well that I have banned firearms in my house. Arrest that man!" The officer will likely say "Did you already ask him to leave? Is he trespassing?" You mumble something about "No... but he knows I banned guns and he's a real jerk-face." Officer Friendly is then going to tell you "Ask him to leave. Don't call us again unless you've already asked someone to leave your property. We have things to do, other than enforce your imaginary rights."

    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    The same principle applies with your use of your property. You cannot use it to destroy the property of someone else or otherwise commit aggression against them. Limitations that go beyond that (permitting, licensing, and other prior limits on your use of your property) are not justifiable and need to go away.
    The majority of American society has long ago decided that property owners should simply have a right to ask people to leave their property instead of a right to ban things. Why? Let's think critically, here. What are you going to do with your property? Post a sign about every single thing that you want banned in your house? Make people sign a paper with a list of banned things before they enter your business? It's not practical to ban things on private property. Why? Because to enforce a ban, your guest has to be charged with a crime, and it must be provable in court. If you had a right to ban guns on your property, then I could be charged with a crime for violating your rights. If I cannot be charged with a crime for doing something, then I have a legal right to do so -- regardless of what you imagine your rights to be.

    The more practical solution, that most of society has agreed to, is the right to trespass anybody you don't want on your property. You tell them to leave, record the event on paper, and be done with it. If they come back, call the police, show them the paper and have the trespasser arrested/charged.

  13. #102
    Senior Member Array CanuckQue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Maritimes Canada
    Posts
    1,106
    Quote Originally Posted by Gene83 View Post
    I'm reading that the only way you can revoke my right is to revoke my citizenship.
    I do not see anything there about citizenship, in either the text or the vibe of the text. If it's a fundamental, inalienable right, then that's what it is. My reading of the 2A is that the US government is prevented from infringing upon anyone's right to bear arms.

    This is NOT to say that they have the self-appointed jurisdiction to protect foreign people's rights in this regards, because the US Constitution does not give jurisdiction over other independent states. But, the 2A (and the Bill of Rights) is a limitation on what the government may do, not a set of obligations. In other words, even though other governments may take away rights of their citizens, the US government may not seek to do so.
    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..


  14. #103
    Senior Member Array Bubbiesdad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    East TN
    Posts
    1,035
    What part of "keep and bear" is too hard to understand?
    Always remember that others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.
    Richard M Nixon
    Owning a handgun doesn't make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician.”
    Jeff Cooper

  15. #104
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    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?
    The prefatory clause stipulates militia duty, but that's not a restriction since once you're allowed to keep and bear for militia duty, being allowed to carry for all lesser lawful purposes (defense, hunting, sport, zombies) is necessarily the logical consequence.

  16. #105
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by CanuckQue View Post
    I didn't know Americans had unrestricted access to grenades.
    A grenade is not a firearm nor is it an 'arm' one would be expected to bring to militia duty.

    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
    ~snip~

    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."

    ~snip~

    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service--M-16 rifles and the like--may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

    FindLaw | Cases and Codes
    Pistol: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
    Rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
    Automatic rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
    Hand grenade: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
    Grenade launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
    Rocket launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
    Patriot missile battery: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
    Nuclear warheads: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.

    Tanks are not weapons. Tanks are vehicles weapons can be mounted on, but anyone with enough money to buy one can own a tank. That does not mean you can have a functioning cannon, 50cal machine gun, 2 saw machine guns, or grenades...it means you can have the tank and the tank only. You can own a black hawk helicopter, also...doesn't mean you can have the twin mini-guns.

    Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Criminals generally want easy targets. Having a gun makes you a harder target. When you're in a population which carries, you are safer even if you don't carry a gun yourself, because a criminal has no way of knowing if you're carrying concealed or not and doesn't want to risk finding out the hard way.

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 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.