The RIGHT.

This is a discussion on The RIGHT. within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by kansastom 2A absolutely DOES mean what it says. So, when it says that "the right of the people to keep and bear ...

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 75

Thread: The RIGHT.

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,226
    Quote Originally Posted by kansastom View Post
    2A absolutely DOES mean what it says. So, when it says that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it means that we (Individuals, the People) can Purchase, Own, and Possess Arms, without infringment (of any kind?.....I think not, as others have said.....yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is NOT a free speech Right). That is our Right. How we are allowed to "possess" these arms is debatable, because the 2A says "bear arms", not OC or CC.
    What folks never seem to get is that it has nothing to do with the second amendment. But if you are going to go that route, the US Constitution doesn't GIVE us any rights. It merely limits what the GOVERNMENT cannot do.

    For those who want to argue limiting "rights" particularly the ones that deal with arms, see the Declaration of Independence. It spells it out quite clearly.
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
    I bolded LIFE for a reason. The ownership and use in any manner we choose is a direct corollary to the right to LIFE. Why? Because a right to life means diddly without the means to protect said life. I have that right because I exist, because I am human, not because some 200 yr old document says I do. I have and will always have the right to any and all means possible to defend that life outside of the immoral initiation of force.

    Also, how exactly are we to "alter or to abolish it" if we allow the government to limit what we can and can't do in our own defense?

    edit:
    The problem it seems to me is that you've been raised of the mindset that I can only do what I'm told or what I'm told I'm allowed. When in reality it should always be the other way around. It should always be, I am my own, am in charge of my own, and am not my brothers keeper. I should be free to do or not do whatever I choose with my life as long as that doesn't involve the immoral initiation of force to violate the rights of another man.
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the **** out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    VIP Member Array rottkeeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    3,194
    Quote Originally Posted by kansastom View Post
    Nowhere does 2A indicate that OC or CC is either allowed or denied, in those specific terms. It simply says this Right (of the Individual, to Keep and Bear Arms) "shall not be infringed." To "Keep and Bear Arms", therefore, is a Right. How we are "allowed" to exercise this Right has been, is, and will always be debatable. To me, personally, "bearing" means to Own, keep in my Home (and, many States extend this to my car, as well), and "possess" (carry, in some form, which to me indicates OC).

    It's not about what you personally think, it's about what the writers of the constitution MEANT.

    I admit that this is Strictly MY opinion, based on MY reading of 2A and other writings related to 2A. To me, it is logical.
    Couldn't be any more illogical.
    For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the son of man be. Mathew 24:27

    NRA Member

  4. #18
    VIP Member Array rottkeeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    3,194
    Quote Originally Posted by packinnova View Post
    What folks never seem to get is that it has nothing to do with the second amendment. But if you are going to go that route, the US Constitution doesn't GIVE us any rights. It merely limits what the GOVERNMENT cannot do.

    For those who want to argue limiting "rights" particularly the ones that deal with arms, see the Declaration of Independence. It spells it out quite clearly.


    I bolded LIFE for a reason. The ownership and use in any manner we choose is a direct corollary to the right to LIFE. Why? Because a right to life means diddly without the means to protect said life. I have that right because I exist, because I am human, not because some 200 yr old document says I do. I have and will always have the right to any and all means possible to defend that life outside of the immoral initiation of force.

    Also, how exactly are we to "alter or to abolish it" if we allow the government to limit what we can and can't do in our own defense?

    edit:
    The problem it seems to me is that you've been raised of the mindset that I can only do what I'm told or what I'm told I'm allowed. When in reality it should always be the other way around. It should always be, I am my own, am in charge of my own, and am not my brothers keeper. I should be free to do or not do whatever I choose with my life as long as that doesn't involve the immoral initiation of force to violate the rights of another man.
    For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the son of man be. Mathew 24:27

    NRA Member

  5. #19
    Member Array kansastom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SW Kansas
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by rottkeeper View Post
    Couldn't be any more illogical.
    Why?
    "Leave the gun. Take the cannolis."
    NRA Member
    SIG SAUER P220 Elite Stainless & P238
    Glock 23
    S&W 431PD

  6. #20
    VIP Member Array rottkeeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    3,194
    Quote Originally Posted by kansastom View Post
    Why?
    Are you reading anything being posted or just trying to not see the truth?
    For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the son of man be. Mathew 24:27

    NRA Member

  7. #21
    Distinguished Member Array BigStick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    1,455
    As just stated, one of the unique things about our constitution is that it doesn't grant us rights, it lays out what rights we naturally have that the government can't take away.

    While I have no problem with getting the proper training and license to carry concealed, I do not think we should have to. The problem with allowing the government to regulate and restrict our rights, is that they will continue to strip away our right. It is the nature of man and government. They want power, and they have to get it from somewhere. Since the power comes from the people, the government will inevitable (out of good intentions or not) attempt to gain more power by taking it from us(restricting our rights).
    Walk softly ...

  8. #22
    VIP Member
    Array atctimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NSA Headquarters
    Posts
    6,368
    Quote Originally Posted by rottkeeper View Post
    Are you reading anything being posted or just trying to not see the truth?
    Mark Twain:
    The government is merely a servant -- merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a
    patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.

  9. #23
    Member Array kansastom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SW Kansas
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by rottkeeper View Post
    Are you reading anything being posted or just trying to not see the truth?
    Yes, I am/have been reading that which has been posted. And I can certainly see some argument for the "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." position, in that, "a right to life means diddly without the means to protect said life. I appreciate most of the postings in this thread, as some are thought provoking (some are not).

    Are you going to post responses like "Couldn't be any more illogical.", without explaining your position?
    "Leave the gun. Take the cannolis."
    NRA Member
    SIG SAUER P220 Elite Stainless & P238
    Glock 23
    S&W 431PD

  10. #24
    VIP Member Array rottkeeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    3,194
    Quote Originally Posted by kansastom View Post
    Yes, I am/have been reading that which has been posted. And I can certainly see some argument for the "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." position, in that, "a right to life means diddly without the means to protect said life. I appreciate most of the postings in this thread, as some are thought provoking (some are not).

    Are you going to post responses like "Couldn't be any more illogical.", without explaining your position?
    It has been explained time and time again, just look at the quote and answer above that line along with all the other explanations that have been offered.

    It sounds like you are arguing for the anti gun crowd. JMHO
    For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the son of man be. Mathew 24:27

    NRA Member

  11. #25
    VIP Member
    Array CopperKnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Spokane area, WA
    Posts
    6,741
    We are just trying to figure out what piece you are reading that would indicate open carry is a right and concealed carry is a privilege. If that's how you want to carry, fine. But... usually when someone presents a statement "... shall not be infringed..." and an opinion "...open carry is THE right..." he/she usually makes the connection of how the opinion is connected to the statement. You didn't do that and we are trying to figure out where that connection is being made.
    eschew obfuscation

    The only thing that stops bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. SgtD

  12. #26
    Member Array natticarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    cincinnati
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by CopperKnight View Post
    We are just trying to figure out what piece you are reading that would indicate open carry is a right and concealed carry is a privilege. If that's how you want to carry, fine. But... usually when someone presents a statement "... shall not be infringed..." and an opinion "...open carry is THE right..." he/she usually makes the connection of how the opinion is connected to the statement. You didn't do that and we are trying to figure out where that connection is being made.
    agreed, "bear" simply means to have. There is no indication if other people are able to see or tell you are "bearing" in the definition of bear. It could also mean a large hairy mammal in which case we are all very mistaken on the 2nd amendment and the founders needed to work on their grammar.

  13. #27
    Member Array kansastom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SW Kansas
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by CopperKnight View Post
    We are just trying to figure out what piece you are reading that would indicate open carry is a right and concealed carry is a privilege. If that's how you want to carry, fine. But... usually when someone presents a statement "... shall not be infringed..." and an opinion "...open carry is THE right..." he/she usually makes the connection of how the opinion is connected to the statement. You didn't do that and we are trying to figure out where that connection is being made.
    Thanks, CopperKnight. At least I Think I can understand where you are coming from (as opposed to where rottkeeper is coming from). So, I will try to answer.

    First of all, I should NOT have stated MY opinion, that OC was the Right, and CC was a Privilege. This IS my opinion, but I should have figured out a better way to start the discussion.

    In the OP, I tried to indicate that the Right "to ....bear arms", in no way specifies HOW arms are to be "beared", in order to exercise this Right. Of course, when talking about "bearing arms", the only two options, as far as Carrying, are OC and CC. My OPINION was, and is, that OC is the "how" (not counting being able to purchase and keep arms in my home and vehicle, vehicle being an "extension" of my home, maybe), in so far as the Right of "bearing" is concerned. Others, here and elsewhere, disagree with my OPINION. That's ok. I am interested in others opinions as to HOW we are able to/have the right to "bear arms", in direct relation to the 2A. Do we have the Right to OC? The Right to CC? Both? And, the reasoning behind the opinions would help me to understand one's position/opinion. I thought I was opening up some discussion on, specifically, whether CC was a Right or a Privilege....that was what I was Trying to do/Intended to do (unsuccessfully, apparently).

    One example of someone who has the Opinion that CC is a Privilege, instead of a Right, is Massad F. Avoob, in his book "In the Gravest Extreme: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection". So, in starting a debate/discussion, I developed the opinion, based on the Assumption that Avoob was correct (don't know if he is or not) that "bearing arms", as a Right, Could Be interpreted as OC. Not that it IS interpreted that way, obviously, but that it Could Be interpreted that way. I say "obviously", since it is clear that several of the posters here Obviously interpret that the Right exists whether OC or CC, making no distinction between the two.

    Hope that makes it a little clearer as to my intentions. I am looking for Input, based on the exact wording of the 2A, as well as what you and others have read/understand, as to how the "right to keep and bear arms" Could Be interpreted. I would especially like to see some Legal expertise address this. I am Interested!

    I am pro-gun (have several), and I am a recent CCL holder.

    So, can we start again? Is the RIGHT to "bear arms", in YOUR (and everyone elses here) opinion, a RIGHT to OC? To CC? Or Both? And WHY?

    Thanks.
    "Leave the gun. Take the cannolis."
    NRA Member
    SIG SAUER P220 Elite Stainless & P238
    Glock 23
    S&W 431PD

  14. #28
    Distinguished Member Array BigStick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    1,455
    Kansastom, good clarification, and way to diffuse the sittuation.

    To answer the intended question then, my opinion would be that "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear. The government can not prohibit, restrict, regulate, etc... our right to bear arms. In practice I don't think it is bad to have licensed cc and require some instruction, but what concerns me is that if we let them regulate that, what will they regulate next? The 2A was written to protect us from governments, foreign and domestic, and when we give up part of those rights, we lose part of our protection.

    The bottom line for me is "shall not be infringed"
    Walk softly ...

  15. #29
    VIP Member
    Array CopperKnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Spokane area, WA
    Posts
    6,741
    Quote Originally Posted by kansastom View Post
    ...
    Is the RIGHT to "bear arms", in YOUR (and everyone elses here) opinion, a RIGHT to OC? To CC? Or Both? And WHY?

    Thanks.
    The RIGHT is to carry whichever way you prefer. Each has an appropriate time and place, but once we say one way is a right and one way is not, where does the government stop restricting? Before long it is not just how you can carry, but where, what and when, too.
    eschew obfuscation

    The only thing that stops bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. SgtD

  16. #30
    Member Array kansastom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SW Kansas
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by BigStick View Post
    Kansastom, good clarification, and way to diffuse the sittuation.

    To answer the intended question then, my opinion would be that "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear. The government can not prohibit, restrict, regulate, etc... our right to bear arms. In practice I don't think it is bad to have licensed cc and require some instruction, but what concerns me is that if we let them regulate that, what will they regulate next? The 2A was written to protect us from governments, foreign and domestic, and when we give up part of those rights, we lose part of our protection.

    The bottom line for me is "shall not be infringed"
    Very good. I can understand you, AND can disagree with you, without screaming at you and calling you names.... That's a GOOD start.

    The key phrase, for you, is "shall not be infringed", and I get that. Now, if I may be so bold, the key WORD is "infringed". Maybe we can talk about "infringe", as well? Does "infringing" on our 2A Right include allowing the States (not the Feds) to Require Instruction, Training and a CCL? In other words, can the States "regulate" our Right to bear arms? In my opinion, Yes, but to a Limited extent. Can the States (individually) make such Regulations so stringent as to, effectively, deny us the Privilege (or Right, if that is your opinion) of getting such a CCL? In my opinion, NO, not according to the text of 2A. And here is where the States (individually) would be / could be "infringing" on our Rights, in my opinion. SCOTUS may rule on incorporation of 2A, in the States, but I think we're quite a long way from having SCOTUS deciding how much is too much "infringing".
    "Leave the gun. Take the cannolis."
    NRA Member
    SIG SAUER P220 Elite Stainless & P238
    Glock 23
    S&W 431PD

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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

ferderal jurisdiction and the concept of federalism

Click on a term to search for related topics.