The RIGHT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rottkeeper

Show me where in the second amendment it states anything about method of carry or restrictions of carry and maybe I will agree. Until then I affirm we have the right to OC or CC.

---

This is exactly what the 2nd Amendment means.

Two many people have allowed the government to twist the meaning of the 2nd Amendment so that today it means almost nothing.

Thank God that we are turning this around - though it is happening one court case at a time.

Luke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corwin

The SCOTUS claimed a power the Constitution did not grant it. Neither that decision nor Lincoln's war settled the matter. This country was founded on Rule of Law, not Might Makes Right...

---

Did you read the Wiki article? In that article it is clear that historical precedent allows the court this authority.

Historical precedent is what EVERYTHING is based on. For instance, how did the framers get the authority to actually draft the Constitution? Did they go around and ask everyone before they did it? Or, were they "appointed" by their respective State representatives?

In the first situation, where did the people get the authority to ceed their rights to someone? I mean can you actually GIVE AWAY your rights? And, if so, do you actually HAVE the right to create a government in opposition to the existing government? If you think you do, where does that right come from?

If it's the second situation, where did the State representative get their power in the days prior to the Constitution and BoR to create draft an opposing government? CAN YOU even do that under your authority as a representative of the existing gov?

Realize that every time you make a claim to authority, there are two requirements that MUST exist at that time. 1) the authority, and; 2) the ability to seize that authority. Without both, you cannot claim to have the authority. In this instance the historical record shows that the court DID have the authority of judicial review. That authority came from historical precedent and the Constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rottkeeper

Show me where in the second amendment it states anything about method of carry or restrictions of carry and maybe I will agree. Until then I affirm we have the right to OC or CC.

---

Amen!! The 2nd Amendment does not define carry, keep, bear, conceal, open carry or weapon. It provides no definitions. The Constitution does not define what the government can do. It defines what the government cannot do. The 2nd Amendment says that the government shall not infringe on the cititzens' right to keep and bear arms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kansastom

The Second Amendment guarantees our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. To me, this means that I have the Right ...

I do NOT have the Right to Carry Concealed. That is a Privilege ...

---

My $0.03.

The People decided to be free, in 1791. They decided individuals should be armed. They did NOT grant the ability to restrict that right to publicly-visible carry only; that was taken from us. They did NOT grant the ability to restrict that right to only firearms, or only arms A, B but not C; that was taken from us. And to my knowledge there isn't a legally justifiable statute or act of Congress that supports those denials of the RKBA.

I believe the "pillars" (aka, the core, foundation, "hands-off" type rights in the Constitution) are all of this nature. Where, exactly, did they get cut so full of holes as to bleed out to ineffectiveness? Beats me, other than the houses of power (a) looking the other way and (b) deliberately desecrating the foundation rights.

Quote:

---

Let the flaming begin!

---

Differing opinion isn't a "flame." It's merely different.

Quote:

---

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.

---

I find it very ironic that 27 words have generated volumes and volumes of interpretative discourse, written, spoken, intelligent, not so intelligent, educated and ignorant, and still, over 200 years later, we still struggle and argue as to exactly what those 27 words mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divebum47

... over 200 years later, we still struggle and argue as to exactly what those 27 words mean.

---

It is appalling.

The following two books should be required reading for anyone seeking to have a decent understanding of the RKBA, the 2A and the original intent:

• The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms, by Stephen Halbrook; and
  
• That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, by Stephen Halbrook.

IMO, the historical documents and simple, lucid arguments presented make it patently clear that the people (a) had a right to be armed, (b) never intended to give away any rights to be armed, and (c) were fearful of unscrupulous and evil persons in future would at some point seize power and take away the ability to be armed. They had very nearly failed to survive lack of arms in the face of tyranny. They wanted to ensure that would never happen again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob P.

Did you read the Wiki article? In that article it is clear that historical precedent allows the court this authority.

Historical precedent is what EVERYTHING is based on. For instance, how did the framers get the authority to actually draft the Constitution? Did they go around and ask everyone before they did it? Or, were they "appointed" by their respective State representatives?

In the first situation, where did the people get the authority to ceed their rights to someone? I mean can you actually GIVE AWAY your rights? And, if so, do you actually HAVE the right to create a government in opposition to the existing government? If you think you do, where does that right come from?

If it's the second situation, where did the State representative get their power in the days prior to the Constitution and BoR to create draft an opposing government? CAN YOU even do that under your authority as a representative of the existing gov?

Realize that every time you make a claim to authority, there are two requirements that MUST exist at that time. 1) the authority, and; 2) the ability to seize that authority. Without both, you cannot claim to have the authority. In this instance the historical record shows that the court DID have the authority of judicial review. That authority came from historical precedent and the Constitution.

---

Did you read it? I'm with Jefferson. They do mention his opposition to it, as well as others. This argument has been going on for over 200 years. We're not going to settle it in this thread.

Again you seem to be arguing for "might makes right". I am not personally claiming authority. I am reiterating the authority of the people over the government, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. I do agree that right needs might on it's side if it is to prevail in this hostile environment, though.

The Constitution enumumerates specific powers that are granted to the federal government. There is even an amendment in the Bill of Rights that spells this out: Amendment X "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "

Many federal laws are unconstitutional, including about 99% of the Federal Criminal Code, yet the Supreme Court continually upholds these laws. The fact that they do so does not magically make these laws constitutional. Historical precedent is meaningless when it is so blatently out of sync to the written text of the law.

The Federal "Justice" system in this country is nothing but a charade, from the lowest district court all the way up to the supreme court. I have seen this with my own eyes. I don't need some internet dude to tell me how the courts are the final arbiter of what's constitutional or what my rights are. There is no legitimacy there.

"...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [securing our rights], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." -Declaration of Independence

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks."
--Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. ME 5:85, Papers 8:407


GunCite-Second Amendment-Original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment


:urla9ub:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob P.

Your views are your views. I am just pointing out that your views are not held universally. In fact most of your views have been discredited and are only held by a few "fringe" believers. Seriously, you don't really know what you're saying even though you like to throw out phrases that "sound" like you know something.

1) You need to learn a bit about what "law & equity" means. The SCOTUS has the power to use "law & equity" to make decisions about anything that lawfully comes before them under the limits of the Constitution. This is their SOLE function. Under your view the Constitution is unable to be interpreted by ANYONE because only "the people" have that authority. Yet, nowhere in the Constitution is there a provision for "the people" to do this (other than the right to vote). In fact, it is CONGRESS which has the authority to amend the Constitution through the ratification process and it is the job of the SCOTUS to act as a "check and balance" to the other 2 branches of our government. Not your nebulous "the people." Further, if "the people" were the only ones with the power to decide what is and what is not allowable, then the Constitutional grant of power to the SCOTUS is meaningless. And I'm pretty sure that the continental congress would not just throw a meaningless section into the Constitution. I'm fairly certain that they meant what they wrote. If so, then your interpretation is clearly wrongheaded.

2) The phrases you use are meaningless. For example: Your comment that "When they are sent to fight and die in wars that are unjust, they become victims of a sick perversion of justice."

This is exactly what I mean by "meaningless." "Justice" did not send any of our military members anywhere. There are no "victims" in our military. And justice has not been "perverted" by their service or by the fact that they have been called to serve and have been deployed.

You may disagree with the decision of those who ordered the deployment of our military forces. That is your right and it is obvious that this is your position. However, your statements make no sense because the things you cite as the basis for your beliefs are figments of your imagination. You'd be better off just sticking to "no war for oil" or some other slogan. The one you're using is just not credible no matter how much emotion you try to plug into it.

More enlightened thought, less hyperbole.

3) I'm not "accusing" you of anything. Your world view pits your beliefs against the majority view of what the Constitution really says. So, rather than understand that you may not be as up to speed on this as you think, you believe that YOUR VIEW is the one which rules over the others. And, of course, YOUR VIEW happens to put your personal beliefs and welfare in front of everyone else's. And to support your claim to superiority, you claim that no one has any authority to counter it. Sort of proclaiming yourself king and denying the truth about who really is king.

4) Your position on "general welfare" makes no sense. "Promoting the general welfare" requires that government pick and choose which programs they will fund that will reach the most people and will do the most good. Thus, "promote the general welfare" meant the same then as now.

If you are referring to modern day "entitlement programs" these are programs which were enacted by CONGRESS and signed into law by the President. As such they are laws made under the powers granted to the legislative and executive branch of our gov. So long as Congress lawfully exercises its powers then the laws are Constitutional. But, supposing that the exercise of power wasn't done lawfully, under your view, no one would be able to determine if the law were Constitutional or not because the SCOTUS (under your view) would not have the power to do so. Thus, the chore would fall onto the heads of the individual citizens.

Which is where we get to anarchy. If individuals believe that the laws have no power over them and that they can disobey the laws with impunity; then anarchy reigns. Under your view this is the end result.

---

Regarding my "meaningless" statement... It means a lot to me. Unjust is to be "characterized by injustice". I agree with you that "Justice" did not send our troops to these UNjust wars; it was INjustice that sent them. You may not like the word victim, but when anyone is wounded or killed to fullfill unjust means, I think the term fits.

I have no idea how my views put my "personal beliefs and welfare in front of everyone else's." I think my views would provide a level playing field, where everyone has the same equal rights and protection. I do not claim any superior rights or protection or authority over anybody else. I do, however, proclaim that I am King of myself and of no one else!

I believe that by "promote the general welfare" the founding fathers meant to benefit the general population. However, today's welfare is not "general" at all; it picks out very specific portions of the population to benefit.

We may just have to agree to disagree. I believe that we have inherent, unalienable rights that can not be taken away, and that any law that violates these rights is unjust. At the risk of misspeaking for you (I regret this already), it seems you believe that a majority (in Congress or the Supreme Court) can take our rights away as long as they follow the proper procedure, and since they have the power to forcibly do so, it is further justified.

While I have enjoyed the discussion, I don't think there is much common ground here!

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Keep - to own or pocess. to have something in a place.
A. I keep my wallet in my pocket. I also own my wallet. I can keep it where I want it.
B. I keep money in my bank account. I may choose to also keep money in my wallet, which I keep in my pocket.
C. I keep my carry gun concealed in my clothes.
D. I keep my other guns in a safe at my house.

Where I keep arms shall not be infringed.

Bear - to carry, show, use - to endure - to undertake
A. I bear the responsibilty of my actions
B. I will bear arms if I, or a loved one, is threatened with immiediate severe bodily harm or death.

Simply put, where and how I keep my guns is my right. CC or OC.

If however, someone is keeping, and or bearing their arms which is threatening to another (actual threat, not just because someone feels threatened to see a gun) the threatening person is in violation and must be dealt with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by packinnova

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?:rolleyes:

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.

---

:congrats:

Earlier in this thread, there was discussion about it being a "good thing" for Training, before granting a CCL. The issue with Manditory training vs no required training, is "Where do you draw the line?" How much training is "enough"? How often (refresher training)? Even More of an issue, "Who draws those lines?". I agree about Training being a "good thing", just not sure I like the idea of DC "drawing the line".

I agree, training is a good thing. In a free society, those who wish to help others are free to do so.

If you want people trained, offer it to them or give away gift certificates to training classes. There will always be those who refuse but who are we to force them?

If it comes with limitations, it isn't a right, it's a privilege. It is 'The Bill of Rights', not the 'Bill so some stuff the government will allow you to do today, but maybe or maybe not tomorrow'. Any forces from Washington, D. C. that do not agree with this are NOT our legal, Constitutional government, but are criminal elements that are holding our legal government hostage. Decent citizens must fight them!!

Rights with Responsibilities, sometimes with the heavy burden of learnin' with body and brain strain to avoid lawsuits and pain, while representing the best of us and the rest of us with mutual understanding and trust. A fellow ex-cop gun guy and I saw this great "Edge of Darkness" Mel Gibson movie, so I wanna carry a gun in public and I don't need no stinkin' license to carry it! See any problem with this? At least with some of the people we have heard and seen?