The Whitw House description of 2A is wrongg. Help get it corrected.

The Whitw House description of 2A is wrongg. Help get it corrected.

This is a discussion on The Whitw House description of 2A is wrongg. Help get it corrected. within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; White House website describes the Second Amendment as giving us the right to keep and bear arms. That is not correct. The Right is unalienable ...

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16
Like Tree37Likes

Thread: The Whitw House description of 2A is wrongg. Help get it corrected.

  1. #1
    Distinguished Member
    Array 1942bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    SE PA
    Posts
    1,744

    The Whitw House description of 2A is wrongg. Help get it corrected.

    White House website describes the Second Amendment as giving us the right to keep and bear arms. That is not correct. The Right is unalienable and inherent. 2A does not give us the right. We had it before 2A. So there is a petition to correct the wording and it has to have 98,000 signers by July 27 for the WH to consider the it. So sign up and get others to sign up. The WH ought have it correct on its website.

    TheSign up at: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...ight-bear-arms

    Be sure to open the eamail after you sign to confirm your signing otherwise it wlll not count.

    This is one reason I support PA firearms Owners Against Crime. It pays attention.
    Last edited by 1942bull; July 20th, 2019 at 07:37 PM.
    USMC 9/59 through 9/69
    Vietnam June Ď66 to February Ď68
    MOS: 4641, Combat Photographer

    Memberships:
    Gun Owners of America
    Second Amendment Foundation
    Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Against Crime

  2. #2
    VIP Member Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Florida Twilight Zone
    Posts
    31,181
    If the White House acknowledges The People have the right to keep and bear arms--for whatever reason--that is a plus for me. That's a big improvement over what previous administrations have taken. Using "God-given, inherent, inalienable, or because the BoR says so" are reason enough for the government to respect that right.

    What bothers me more than the source of that right is the failure to understand that right is a restriction upon the governments, not upon The People.

    As for the petition, I avoid them as they usually require personal info I avoid giving out, especially to those who may use it for purposes to which I do not agree nor approve.
    Last edited by OldVet; July 20th, 2019 at 01:58 PM.
    airslot and PhaedrusIV like this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Curmudgeon on the loose.
    Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    5,884
    I would like to see the petition amended to show exactly what wording we would want. It's too vague. If you leave the new wording up to some staffer in the White House, there is no telling what you'll get. They could change it to just, "The Constitution does not grant citizens the right to keep and bear arms." While philosophically correct, I think that would be bad for gun rights. I would like it to say "The Constitution protects citizens' inalienable right to keep and bear arms."
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,221
    signed, even though the whitehouse doesnt understand the right, and that it shall not be infringed.
    Risasi likes this.
    We get the government we deserve.

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array maxwell97's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    9,780
    Well, I think itís fair to say that the 2nd gives people the legal right to bear arms; as opposed to the natural right, which everyone everywhere has. So in the context of discussion of the Constitution, I donít really disagree with the wording.
    BamaT likes this.
    "Lots of ways to help people. Sometimes heal patients; sometimes shoot dangerous people. Either way helps."
    - Dr. Mordin Solus

  7. #6
    Member Array entertainment72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    429
    You really expecting nuance and proper grammar out of this administration?

  8. #7
    Distinguished Member Array NECCdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    1,642
    Too many people putting a spin on what the 2A says. If the right to keep and bear arms is truly a right, then we don't need the 2A and all laws regulating arms are null and void.
    airslot likes this.
    Member NRA, SAF, GOA, NFOA, USCCA

    Microwave radio technicians are fully deviated.

  9. #8
    Ex Member Array Pohan21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    If the White House acknowledges The People have the right to keep and bear arms--for whatever reason--that is a plus for me. That's a big improvement over what previous administrations have taken. Using "God-given, inherent, inalienable, or because the BoR says so" are reason enough for the government to respect that right.

    What bothers me more than the source of that right is the failure to understand that right is a restriction upon the governments, not upon The People.

    As for the petition, I avoid them as they usually require personal info I avoid giving out, especially to those who may use it for purposes to which I do not agree nor approve.
    +1

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array sdprof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Near the Black Hills of SD
    Posts
    2,586
    As best I can find, via the wayback machine, the WH site first posted the Constitution page early in BO's reign. It appears today just as it did then.

    Maybe nobody in Pres. Trump's staff has noticed the poor wording. Or perhaps they really don't want it to say what it should, either.
    Risasi likes this.
    ~~~~~
    The only common sense gun legislation was written about 227 years ago.

    I carry always not because I go places trouble is likely, but because trouble has a habit of not staying in its assigned zone.

  11. #10
    Senior Member
    Array Risasi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Great Plains
    Posts
    595
    Quote Originally Posted by NECCdude View Post
    Too many people putting a spin on what the 2A says. If the right to keep and bear arms is truly a right, then we don't need the 2A and all laws regulating arms are null and void.
    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    Well, I think itís fair to say that the 2nd gives people the legal right to bear arms; as opposed to the natural right, which everyone everywhere has. So in the context of discussion of the Constitution, I donít really disagree with the wording.
    The 2nd just merely recognizes that it is an unalienable right.

    "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..." - Thomas Jefferson
    Because it is recognized as endowed by the Creator the US government (and therefore really anyone else) does not have the authority to remove those rights. You personally can relinquish those rights (though you may still demand them later). They can suppress your rights, but they cannot take them away. Perhaps you call that legal hair splitting. I call that moral high ground. Should the government try to suppress my rights then they are on legally shaky ground.

    The BoR is not telling me what is allowed, it's putting restraint on the evil totalitarian who would try to crush our God given rights and foist repressive laws upon us and weigh us down to the point we're crushed in lawfare.

    Since we're running through them, here is another one to keep in mind;

    Amendment IX;

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
    Just because it isn't in the BoR doesn't mean there are not other rights not listed that I cannot also demand as I deem fit. As long as it does not overshadow another's "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" (alternative definition; property) then no government entity has ability to demand otherwise less they be guilty of turpitude.

    Here is one. I demand the right to ignore all lame stream media, like CNN, ABC, NBC. I demand the right to refuse to put my kids through indoctrination in "jugend indoktrinierung" via the school system. I demand the right to refuse my services to those as I deem fit.

  12. #11
    Member Array retired badge 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Pueblo, Colorado
    Posts
    363
    Done.

    The Bill of Rights does not grant or convey any right; it exists to codify and guarantee rights commonly known and agreed to exist prior to the formation of the United States. Ratification of the (then new) US Constitution would never have taken place without the addition of the Bill of Rights, in which case there would have been 13 independent states without a functional central governing authority (as government under the prior Articles of Confederation proved impossible).

    Short version: Without the Bill of Rights there would be no US Constitution and there would be no United States of America.
    Risasi, 1942bull and PhaedrusIV like this.

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array PhaedrusIV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    6,633
    Quote Originally Posted by entertainment72 View Post
    You really expecting nuance and proper grammar out of this administration?
    Well, the previous administration gave us "Corpsemen." And "57 states." Just sayin'.
    BamaT, Havok, CWOUSCG and 1 others like this.
    - testing was halted after a brief kinetic episode -

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array wmhawth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Western Colorado
    Posts
    6,530
    Quote Originally Posted by entertainment72 View Post
    You really expecting nuance and proper grammar out of this administration?
    That's asking a lot.
    entertainment72 likes this.

  15. #14
    Distinguished Member
    Array 1942bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    SE PA
    Posts
    1,744
    Quote Originally Posted by entertainment72 View Post
    You really expecting nuance and proper grammar out of this administration?
    It is the statement that the Obama administration put in the website. Apparently the new crew does not know it is wrong. That is not surprising as they only give lip service to 2A.
    entertainment72, Havok and sdprof like this.
    USMC 9/59 through 9/69
    Vietnam June Ď66 to February Ď68
    MOS: 4641, Combat Photographer

    Memberships:
    Gun Owners of America
    Second Amendment Foundation
    Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Against Crime

  16. #15
    Distinguished Member
    Array 1942bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    SE PA
    Posts
    1,744
    I started this post to assist in increasing the numbers of petition signers who want our rights enumerated properly at the White House website rather than in the way the Obama administration worded it. Yes, it is a carry over from Obama that was not changed when the T admin took over. I am surprised to see what the thread turned into.

    @retired badge 1 made a vey defining statement in post #11. He gets it. I hope more here will get it too. If we ignore how our rights are cast in in public view, we have failed to defend when they are represented erroneously. An undefended right is a lost right.
    Havok and Risasi like this.
    USMC 9/59 through 9/69
    Vietnam June Ď66 to February Ď68
    MOS: 4641, Combat Photographer

    Memberships:
    Gun Owners of America
    Second Amendment Foundation
    Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Against Crime

Page 1 of 2 1 2 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
  •