Keaner
Member
OK-- This came up the other day in another one of my 2vs 30 gun arguments the other day. My partner in this argument against the facists in my dorm made a severely interesting argument that left me silent the rest of the night thinking about it. I thought you would like to have this shared:
His point was that due to the wording of the 1st and 2nd, that the 2nd amendment is actually much more powerfully worded than the 1st.
His main point had to do with these lines:
1st: Congress shall make no law respecting ...
2nd:...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Basically, his argument was that the 1st only protects the people from laws of congress (and such the government). This means that an employer etc or private owner of property could stop you from speaking as you wish.
Now, compare that to the wording of the 2nd amendment "shall not be infringed". To me (him actually), this means that under no condition can someone stop you from owning/carrying an arm. So basically, NOONE has the right to keep me from bearing arms, so, it is my right under the 2nd amendment to carry wherever and whenever I wish, and it is illegal under the constitution for any individual to "infringe" this right.
In conclusion, the argument is: The first amendment's purpose is only to keep the government from revoking freedom of speech, whereas the 2nd amendment keeps EVERYONE from infringing any right to bear arms.
PLEASE correct us if our train of thought is wrong. I just wanted a more definative point on this argument.
His point was that due to the wording of the 1st and 2nd, that the 2nd amendment is actually much more powerfully worded than the 1st.
His main point had to do with these lines:
1st: Congress shall make no law respecting ...
2nd:...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Basically, his argument was that the 1st only protects the people from laws of congress (and such the government). This means that an employer etc or private owner of property could stop you from speaking as you wish.
Now, compare that to the wording of the 2nd amendment "shall not be infringed". To me (him actually), this means that under no condition can someone stop you from owning/carrying an arm. So basically, NOONE has the right to keep me from bearing arms, so, it is my right under the 2nd amendment to carry wherever and whenever I wish, and it is illegal under the constitution for any individual to "infringe" this right.
In conclusion, the argument is: The first amendment's purpose is only to keep the government from revoking freedom of speech, whereas the 2nd amendment keeps EVERYONE from infringing any right to bear arms.
PLEASE correct us if our train of thought is wrong. I just wanted a more definative point on this argument.