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

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; 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 ...

Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 123
Like Tree84Likes

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

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    6,010

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

    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?


  2. #2
    Distinguished Member Array ericb327's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bellevue, Ky/Cincinatti
    Posts
    1,417
    Great question! I think it is implied. Keep meaning own, bear meaning on ones person. By definition " carry, bring or take."
    For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill. (Sun Tzu) The Art of War

    https://www.facebook.com/ninja312


    My food and product review blog
    http://trualitybarandgrille.wordpress.com/

  3. #3
    Member Array stroguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Spring TX
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by ericb327 View Post
    Great question! I think it is implied. Keep meaning own, bear meaning on ones person. By definition " carry, bring or take."
    This pretty much answers it, it is implied. A libtard would also pose a question like 'where in the 2A does it say you can carry at the grocery store'. 'Where does it say you can shoot a dog with a gun that is attacking you'? Don't slip to a libtards level.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Array yz9890's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado USA
    Posts
    1,131
    "shall not be infringed" means it's a right the founders felt we were born with. (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness etc). 2A doesn't grant it, it protects what was already there.

  5. #5
    Ex Member Array pir8fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Mooresville, NC
    Posts
    373
    The important thing is that it doesn't say we can't. Read your history. Our founding documents were written to specifiy limits on the government's restriction of our. If it isn't mentioned as a limt, there is no limit. The Bill of Rights was added to specifically protect freedoms.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Array CanuckQue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Maritimes Canada
    Posts
    1,173
    My impression that the 2nd Amendment is 'for' personal protection is something that was read into law by the recent Supreme Court decision. The coming generation of people will find it to be a natural reading, but it was actually placed into the interpretation via Common Law really recently. (and it implies that you could have your ownership rights taken away if you could not justify needing the gun for self-defense)

    I've always thought of it as ensuring that the citizens are armed, so that they could not be overpowered by the governments. i.e., is 'for' protecting the Americans from governmental oppression (and from the King of England!, natch). But I'm of the opinion that the 2nd Amendment means what it says, so these loopholes people want for ex-felons or non-citizens shouldn't apply. And there's no reason to infringe upon the purchase of very large, military-assault type weapons, either.
    tcox4freedom likes this.
    The only acceptable long-term outcome is to find a cure. It's an actual solution, requiring forward-thinking efforts.

    Until then, we're just arguing about who's pushing who.


  7. #7
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    3,397
    The short answer: it doesn't.

    The longer answer: Several founders, Jefferson being the most prominent that I can think of without doing a little scouring through my personal library, have stated that citizens should be able to bear arms to defend themselves.

    The right to keep and bear arms comes with no caveats about where, when, and why we can/can't, so I would assume that I don't need a reason (such as protection) as to why I am carrying a gun.
    tcox4freedom likes this.
    Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men -St. Augustine

  8. #8
    VIP Member Array JoJoGunn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    2,983
    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.
    "A Smith & Wesson always beats 4 aces!"

    The Man Prayer. "Im a man, I can change, if I have to.....I guess!" ~ Red Green

  9. #9
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,105
    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.
    tcox4freedom, W9HDG and Ransom like this.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  10. #10
    Senior Member Array RightyLefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    573
    Fighting off a potentially tyrannical government is 100% about personal safety. If someone could somehow see it isn't implied in the 2A, seems most if not all states guarantee it in their constitutions.

    State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions, by Date
    stroguy and CIBMike like this.

  11. #11
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    12,038
    Even though subsequent legislatures saw fit to trample it thoroughly, Ohio's Constitution is much more articulate than the US Constitution:
    "Bearing arms; standing armies;
    military power.
    4 The people have the right to bear
    arms for their defense and security;
    but standing armies, in time of peace,
    are dangerous to liberty, and shall not
    be kept up; and the military shall be in
    strict subordination to the civil power.
    (1851)
    http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/constitution.pdf
    "If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast."
    William T. Sherman

  12. #12
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,105
    If we were to accept the premise that the amendment was about one particular aspect of the use of arms it could be argued by some that it therefore does not protect/apply to this other use. If we were to say it is about personal defense then it could be argued that only weapons of certain size or caliber would qualify for protection. If we were to say it is to function as a check against unlawful use of military force against citizens it could be argued that it would not protect black powder muzzle loaders or anything not particulary suited to military service.

    A person who has religious prohibitions against using violence against another still has the right to keep and bear arms even if their sole purpose for him is punching paper or smoking clay birds.
    tcox4freedom likes this.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  13. #13
    VIP Member Array tokerblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    2,381
    It's next to the section that allows free speech on an internet forum.
    atctimmy, tcox4freedom and taseal like this.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote." ~ Benjamin Franklin

  14. #14
    Ex Member Array Ram Rod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fayetteville, AR
    Posts
    13,687
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    Are you a people?
    Since citizen organized militias are publicly non-existent....that takes away the commonality and makes it an individual right until your state government requires your able bodied services to protect it. In effect this means preserving yourself is necessary to the security of a free state.

    The 2nd Amendment was ratified on December 17, 1791. I was born on December 17.

  15. #15
    Member Array GeezerSquid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    25
    In the "right to keep and bear arms" and the "shall not be infringed" part!!
    tcox4freedom likes this.

Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast

Sponsored 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.