It Is Simple And Basic.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The government is forbidden to infringe upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The right itself is without limit. All power delegated to the government is derived from the inalienable rights of the people. If the right of people to keep and bear arms contained any limits, the people could not delegate power to the government for it to keep and bear up unlimited arms to defend the nation. In any scenario, the government cannot limit the people's right to arms to any lesser degree than the power of that government to possess arms as is delegated to it by, and from, the people. In delegating power to our government to keep and bear arms to defend our nation, we do not surrender any of the right from which that power is derived. To surrender, or even simply deny any portion of the right exists, is to also deny the same derived power to the government.

Without that central or a state government, we would have to defend our land ourselves and would have every right to access, create, bear, and deliver any weapon necessary to that end. We simply delegate some of that power to the government out of convenience. We did not surrender any of that power to the government, either. Purposefully, Article I, Section 8, begins, "Congress shall have power;" and not, "Congress shall have the power;". We still have as much right to any and all weapons as we have delegated power to the government to have.

It follows, then, that should the government(by the actions of those chosen to run the government) wish to limit in any way the fashion in which we so choose to bear our arms, it can not do so without infringing upon the right. In that the right is inalienable, not even we the people can divest ourselves of it, therefore, we can not delegate power to the government to limit our keeping and bearing of arms. We can share our right to keep and bear arms with the government as a power delegated to it, but cannot surrender any of it to the government. The bottom line is that the government is, and is of, us. It cannot do to us anything we cannot do to ourselves.

Go read the Preamble to the Constitution. WE ordained and WE established the Constitution. WE had(and still do have) the RIGHT to do that, would you not agree? We have the right to govern ourselves. We exercised that right to establish(construct) the Constitution and ordain(to appoint) it as the foundation for our government. All power delegated to the government is derived from our right to govern ourselves. The power of the government is inferior to any right or rights we the people have. It is the same no matter what the right might be. Just as the government has no power, nor could it ever have the power, to control my right to think, it does not, nor could it ever have, the power to control how I choose to bear my arms. It is that simple.


Woody

"We the People are the government of this land, we decide who writes our laws, we decide who leads us, and we decide who will judge us - for as long as We the People have the arms to keep it that way." B.E.Wood

 

[Devonai]

You're preachin' to the choir, friend. The question is what are you gonna do about it?

 

[Kodiaz]

You preaching to the choir and we say AMEN!

 

[RealGun]

Gun control is partly an excuse for not using the death penalty aggressively and for turning violent felons out into the streets. Let's pretend we can prevent them from having guns.

 

[antsi]

I always wonder about the "unlimited" interpretation of RKBA - the idea that it cannot be infringed ever, under any circumstances. What about someone who is in the act of committing a crime with a firearm? Surely that is a circumstance in which it is acceptable to disarm the individual. What about someone who is being incarcerated/punished for committing a violent crime? What about someone who is criminally insane?

It seems clear to me that there are some limits on the right to keep and bear arms. The limits I believe are very minimal (in other words, the right is very expansive), but surely there are some limits as suggested above. It would seem to me more helpful to define the actual boundaries, than to simply assert that they do not exist.

 

[Maxwell]

The government is forbidden to infringe upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

You would think its that simple, woulndt you?
Whats happend is constitutional law became seen as outdated.
Never mind that its a law or that we cant get the votes to amend it, all we have to do is claim we are now advanced enough to know better!

Then people can say whatever they feel it should mean instead of whats actually on paper.
Hell, read it for yourself:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=second
The Second Amendment Today

In the 20th century, the Second Amendment has become an anachronism, largely because of drastic changes in the militia it was designed to protect. We no longer have the citizen militia like that of the 18th century.

Today's equivalent of a "well-regulated" militia - the National Guard - has more limited membership than its early counterpart and depends on government-supplied, not privately owned, firearms. Gun control laws have no effect on the arming of today's militia, since those laws invariably do not apply to arms used in the context of military service and law enforcement. Therefore, they raise no serious Second Amendment issues.
-
-
The rights guaranteed by the Constitution have never been absolute.

Too bad I cant claim their right to free speech or owning property was not absolute, and go shoot a hole in their web server. The other funny thing is these are the same kind of people who say we can never win in Iraq because of... well... their militia.

Sad fact is they dont have to change the constitution. They just need to write enough smaller laws and override it. Take their reasoning on limiting free speech for example.
The old "what do you do if someone shouts fire in a crowded theater?" scenario.

Instead of jailing the miscreant for a false alarm, enciting panic or public disturbance (any of which can get you a reasonable chill out session in the slammer), you jail them for shouting "Fire!" because then you can write a law overriding free speech.
From there you just claim that if that argument works for fire, it can work on every other word. Its the same thing they do to firearms. Dont bother to punish people for their crimes, punish everyone else for having a freedom.

What about someone who is in the act of committing a crime with a firearm?

Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

\\...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If their obviously commiting a crime, shoot them.
If their guilty, prove them guilty.
If someone has committed a crime with a firearm then prosecute them for the crime.
Dont threaten me, the innocent citizen, with legal action because I want to own a gun.

I believe in the original rkba within reason because things seemed to be doing just fine before we all got "smart" and started to turn someones unproven theory into laws we never asked for.

 

[bigj8550]

AMEN

You're preachin' to the choir, friend. The question is what are you gonna do about it?

What to do about it start off by getting a small law suite going in a small community that has a gun ban or license law, on the grounds of unconstitutional. Spend about ten years and close to somewhere around ten million in lawyer fees :banghead: to get it to the supreme court. Which if they interpret the law the way you do then you now have precedence to go after the larger laws. It can happen if you have enough people and enough money behind the action. I myself would start it but I don't have the money or the law degree to do it. I will however support anyone who will try.

Second just to play devils advocate. If I read what you typed correctly. Then i could have a howitzer in my front yard and it would be legal. So that begs to have this question asked if our rights to bear arms are "unlimited" then what do you do about arms escalation in neighborhoods? You know ,hey my Neighbor has a fully automatic AK-47 I now need a m-50 all the way up to nukes??? How do we take care of that?

 

[Alex45ACP]

I always wonder about the "unlimited" interpretation of RKBA - the idea that it cannot be infringed ever, under any circumstances. What about someone who is in the act of committing a crime with a firearm? Surely that is a circumstance in which it is acceptable to disarm the individual. What about someone who is being incarcerated/punished for committing a violent crime? What about someone who is criminally insane?

It seems clear to me that there are some limits on the right to keep and bear arms. The limits I believe are very minimal (in other words, the right is very expansive), but surely there are some limits as suggested above. It would seem to me more helpful to define the actual boundaries, than to simply assert that they do not exist.

Philosophy of rights is that you have the right to do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on anyone else's rights. So as soon as you use your RKBA to infringe on someone else's rights, you lose your RKBA.

 

[LeoC]

Then i could have a howitzer in my front yard and it would be legal. So that begs to have this question asked if our rights to bear arms are "unlimited" then what do you do about arms escalation in neighborhoods? You know ,hey my Neighbor has a fully automatic AK-47 I now need a m-50 all the way up to nukes??? How do we take care of that?

Mutually-Assured Destruction

 

[antsi]

--------quote-----------
Philosophy of rights is that you have the right to do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on anyone else's rights. So as soon as you use your RKBA to infringe on someone else's rights, you lose your RKBA.
-------------------------

Personally, I think this is reasonable. However, it becomes a big debate when you ask exactly how long one loses one's RKBA after violating someone else's rights.

Another limitation I would consider is people who are mentally ill to the point that they have been legally declared to be not responsible for their own actions. It seems that with any RKBA, you have to be talking about competent adults.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

bigj8850

You wrote:

"Second just to play devils advocate. If I read what you typed correctly. Then i could have a howitzer in my front yard and it would be legal. So that begs to have this question asked if our rights to bear arms are "unlimited" then what do you do about arms escalation in neighborhoods? You know ,hey my Neighbor has a fully automatic AK-47 I now need a m-50 all the way up to nukes??? How do we take care of that?"

Our biggest potential enemy, those of us in our governemnt, have already escallated the level of arms to the nuclear stage(and who knows to what level beyond!).

Your neighbor is not the entity to be feared. He is most likely your ally. Foreigners and your own government elected officials, minions, and bureaucrats are the ones to be feared and prepared to defend against.

Woody

"Knowing the past, I'll not surrender any arms and march less prepared into the future." B.E.Wood

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Devonai

You wrote:

"You're preachin' to the choir, friend. The question is what are you gonna do about it?"

I'm doing a little bit more than preaching to the choir. I'm adding a tune for them to sing to the congregation.

I'm also arming myself to the point of being a deterrent to those in government who would further attempt to disarm the militia or refuse to uninfringe our rights. Those in government need to know We the People can reach them beyond the protections of their minions and jack-booted thugs. Those in government, or who would like to serve in government, must be made aware there is no place to hide nor anyone to hide behind if they choose to run afoul of their bounds or fail to remove the unconstitutional bounds placed upon our rights by their predecessors. There is no "compelling government interest" beyond securing our rights, freedoms, and personal sovereignty. It's their job. The government is not there to serve itself or for us to serve it.

Woody

You all need to remember where the real middle is. It is the Constitution. The Constitution is the biggest compromise - the best compromise - ever written. It is where distribution of power and security of the common good meets with the protection of rights, freedom, and personal sovereignty. B.E.Wood

 

[beerslurpy]

Woodcdi, I think your view is a little simplistic and probably under-informed as well.

Consider this: if you do not have the stomach for politics, what makes you think you have the stomach for guerilla war? If you are willing to risk your life fighting a guerilla war against your own government for presumably political ends, why arent you willing to expend a 10th of that effort towards influencing society and governent in more effective ways?

Also, if you study guerilla war, you will learn that it is just politics with slightly more killing than usual. There is a huge overlap in characteristics between a successful political movement and a successful guerilla movement. If you cant succeed at ordinary american politics (where there is even the quaint notion of playing fair), you sure as hell arent going to judo-flip the entire system by violence. More likely, you would just end up alienating the public and get labeled as a terrorist.

 

[RealGun]

There is a huge overlap in characteristics between a successful political movement and a successful guerilla movement.

Armed revolts are followed by dictatorships. George Washington graciously declined to be King.

 

[Molon Labe]

Consider this: if you do not have the stomach for politics, what makes you think you have the stomach for guerilla war? If you are willing to risk your life fighting a guerilla war against your own government for presumably political ends, why arent you willing to expend a 10th of that effort towards influencing society and governent in more effective ways?

Can't speak for woodcdi, but I've done my share of politics. Used to be very active with helping candidates - been there, done that. But I came to my senses and realized it's a big waste of time. I now operate a very active militia group, and we focus on training and perpetration. Trust me, I have the stomach for guerrilla warfare.

Also, if you study guerilla war, you will learn that it is just politics with slightly more killing than usual. There is a huge overlap in characteristics between a successful political movement and a successful guerilla movement. If you cant succeed at ordinary american politics (where there is even the quaint notion of playing fair), you sure as hell arent going to judo-flip the entire system by violence. More likely, you would just end up alienating the public and get labeled as a terrorist.

I look at it another way... if you're unsuccessful in the arena of "normal" politics, then it is time to move on to radical politics.

 

[Maxwell]

If you do not have the stomach for politics, what makes you think you have the stomach for guerilla war?

It works both ways.
Those involved deeply in politics often cannot stand the sight of blood.

We dont need our weapons for armed revolt so much as the realistic threat of armed revolt. Enough guns, heavy weapons, and ammunition in the public hands that military planners simply scratch their heads and admonish the leadership against trying to win their way by force.
As a side bonus, it prevents other natiosn from planning invasions and helps people feel more secure in their homes.

The goal of armed revolt shouldnt be revolution so much as restoration. Taking an unwanted leadership out of power and bringing the nation back to something more like the original outline.
Its the backup plan to insure a change in leadership if the government decides to stop counting votes.

 

[RealGun]

Taking an unwanted leadership out of power and bringing the nation back to something more like the original outline.

The US is better off now than it used to be. Only the anarchists, bigots, and other little dictators, pretending to be patriots, are unhappy. There is no reason why any needed changes can't be done by voting. If there are essential problems, it is ignorant or emotion based voters and a steady stream of leftist propaganda from the media, the entertainment industry, cyberpunks, and educators. We have not yet learned to deal with mass media, but I think internet forums and bloggers will make a difference. But if everyone gets caught up in negativism and political polarity, ignoring reasons for their prosperity, nothing good will come of it.

 

[bigj8550]

The US is better off now than it used to be. Only the anarchists, bigots, and other little dictators, pretending to be patriots, are unhappy.

No, I do not belive this to be correct. Am I ready to thow away all the good leadgeslation that we have at an armed attempt at getting rid of the bad? No!! That is like tearing down a house to fix a leaky faucet! I am not an Anarcist, bigot, or other little dictator. But I cannot belive that with the current goverment is not without problems. Can this large over complicated goverment be fix with out scraping the whole thing? I believe yes!!!!

With the use of the court system to suspend laws that conflict with the bill of rights and constuition we can eventully get there from here with dilegents and support. Some days it can feel like it will never happen :banghead: but it can work with the support of the American People AND THAT MEANS YOU. I am not saying hey run for president eventhough if we could get a pro gunner in the oval office that would be great. But look at things in the perspective of a horse fly. If you bite the big horse in the a#@#$% enough times it will have to do something about it swat it's tail or whatever. With enough flys biting one horse you can get the horse to move where you want it to.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Beerslurpy

My, My! Where have I written that I don't have the stomach for politics? To date, 99.99% of all my efforts to unfetter our rights have been in the political arena, education, and the arena of ideas and inspiration. And, the poor prospects of a guerrilla war against the most powerful government and military in the world is not the way to secure our rights. Our problem is not our system of government. It is with those of us who have led it astray and with those who have failed to repair the damage. It is a matter of those in government, not the government itself. These people need to be voted out and constitutionalists voted in.


But, seeing as how our government is overrun with these anti-constitutionalists for the time being, until we do educate the electorate in the ways of the Constitution, those anti-constitutionalists still there in our government need to be put on notice. The limits placed upon the government have been exceeded and every law abiding citizen in this country has been stripped of a great deal of power to defend themselves and the nation. We will not suffer any more degradation of our rightful powers without resistance. We must not suffer any more degradation of our rightful powers without resistance. If it takes saber rattling to get the point across, so be it. RATTLE, RATTLE, RATTLE!


There are those in government capable of issuing orders to jack-booted thugs of the like who raided Waco, Randy Weaver, and "Poor Little Elian". None of these people who were raided raised an arm to the government. The government raised arms against them. No trial. No conviction. No "due process" at all! Just orders from the Geheime Staatspolizei. And, when that same gestapo-like action is ordered against the likes of me because I point out the unconstitutional actions of those in government, I'm gonna' shoot back! I'm not going to go after them like a bloodthirsty, indignant, militant assassin. They will have to show their hand and come after me.

On that same token, though, should it become necessary to implement a military movement in this country to the end of re securing our rights and setting the course of this country back to strict constitutional adherence, I'll be there. In my opinion, we are not far from that at all. Look at the resistance of everyone in our government to secure our borders! Why? Does it make any sense to you? They want our guns, but won't stop the flow of foreign nationals crashing our borders! We fight a war against terrorists, and yet half of those in our government want us to quit! We have the forces and resources necessary to secure our borders, yet no one will give the command. Are they waiting for the next Santana Anna? The next Napoleon? Hitler? The likes of you and I can't take that chance. We are (or will be) on the front lines, poorly armed. If it will take killing my fellow countrymen who are limiting my access to the means of defense, so be it.

No, we must not relinquish another iota of our rightful powers. Should we do or allow that, then WE are to blame. Do not capitulate to any more infringements. Do not accept any placations. Support only like-minded politicians. Make enough noise to attract like-minded politicians. Encourage like-minded politicians to run for office! Support individuals fighting infringements in court.

Writing your Congress critters is a good way to express your desires and to threaten to pull your support if they run afoul of your rights, but it is a far better thing to support someone who actually runs on a platform that coincides with your rights and the Constitution. If the guy or gal there now must be persuaded, their mindset is in the wrong place to begin with. Most likely, they misrepresented themselves to get elected. As a consequence, they misrepresent you in Congress. They took and oath. Hold them to it.

Woody

"It is up to We the People to decide if and when we shall revolt. It is not up to those in government to prevent it, it is up to those in government to see that revolution never becomes necessary." B.E.Wood

 

[Maxwell]

The US is better off now than it used to be.

What happens when it gets alot worse than it is?
Words on paper, without enforcement, will burn easily. We see examples of that all the time. It would be pretty foolish to think the US is immune from an internal takeover.

The constitution has a gun to enforce itself, your gun. If the law is successfully taking that away then its a short step to everything else.

I would agree that the second best protection is to only elect those who are for enforcing the constitution and your right to bear above everything else.
If they arnt for the basic law of the land, they are unusable no matter what other view they might have.
The root of our troubles has been electing politicians based on lesser issues. Food stamps and immigration over rkba and your basic freedom.

It dosnt matter if someone holds a view of abortion that agrees with yours. If their for creating tyranny then all these other issues wont mean a damn thing.
If they can get your vote by misleading you into thinking some other issue is more important than constitutional rights, I guess its our own fault what happens.

 

[Art Eatman]

"The right itself is without limit."

No.

The people who argued that there should be a Bill of Rights didn't see it that way, and wrote to the contrary.

See The anti-Federalist Papers.

Art

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

OK, Art, I'll Take That Challenge.

Specify for me what you would consider a legitimate limit, or limits, on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Secondly, please point out in the Constitution where any such power to place any such limit has been granted to the government.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. If that doesn't convince you to take a stand and protect your inalienable rights and freedoms, nothing will. If that doesn't convince you to maintain your personal sovereignty, you are already someone else's subject. If you don't secure your rights and freedoms to maintain your personal sovereignty now, it'll be too late to come to me for help when they come for you. I will already be dead because I had to stand alone. B.E.Wood

 

[Molon Labe]

The people who argued that there should be a Bill of Rights didn't see it that way, and wrote to the contrary.

So what? I really don't give a crap what Hamilton, Jay, and Madison have to say about my inalienable rights. They are not the source of my rights, nor do they define them.

 

[RealGun]

So what? I really don't give a crap what Hamilton, Jay, and Madison have to say about my inalienable rights. They are not the source of my rights, nor do they define them. - Molon Labe

Take your little militia to Canada, England, or Australia and see what happens.

 

[hugh damright]

If the right of people to keep and bear arms contained any limits, the people could not delegate power to the government for it to keep and bear up unlimited arms to defend the nation.

A people have a collective right to defend their free State, and this power is delegated to a military which has nukes. But that does not mean that every individual must have a right to bear nukes before we could delegate such a power. Nukes are owned collectively, not individually.

In the days of muskets, if everybody had a musket, then everyone was equal and collective rights were secured. But if somebody has a nuke, that does not make everyone equal, it makes one person equal to many, and that is not necessary to the security of free government, it is a threat to free government.

WE ordained and WE established the Constitution.

Yes, We the States. The US Constitution is a compact between the States. No individual has the power/right to ordain and establish a Constitution (unless of course he is the King). This, like the right to bear nukes, is a collective right.