armoredman
Member
edited, no proof linked
Last edited:
If it only said keep that would be true, but it also says bear.According to you, no one is allowed to CC, OC, or go to a range.
If you truly believe that any and all weaponry should be legal for citizens to own then start lobbying your elected representatives. But I would have to oppose that notion. I believe there needs to be some limits. We just need to decide where those limits fall.
BTW- If you feel all weapons should be legal, how about all drugs? Abortion on demand? Euthanasia? Public nudity? Gay rights? A true libertarian would support total freedom, not just when it applies to guns and many of these things could be argued as protected by the Bill of Rights.
If it only said keep that would be true, but it also says bear.
Yes, I do upkeep my arms. Rebuilding a gun as a gunsmith does, is a manufacturing process, not an issue of upkeep.
Me said:It Is Simple And Basic.
The government is forbidden to infringe upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The right itself is without limit. All power granted 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 grant 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 granted to it by, and from, the people. In granting 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 grant some 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 granted 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 what arms and the fashion in which we so choose to keep and bear them, 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 grant 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 granted 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 union. All power granted or 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 what arms I choose to keep and how I shall bear them. It is that simple.
Now we live in a world where a militia standing against a modern professional army is even more of an epic fail than it was in 1812. Please note, that a militia, as the FF conceived of it, was not a guerrilla movement or an insurgency. A militia was expected to fight on the conventional battlefield like professional soldiers; all they actually did was run away or die.
Now we live in a world where a militia standing against a modern professional army is even more of an epic fail than it was in 1812.
YupIf you truly believe that any and all weaponry should be legal for citizens to own then start lobbying your elected representatives. But I would have to oppose that notion. I believe there needs to be some limits. We just need to decide where those limits fall.
BTW- If you feel all weapons should be legal, how about all drugs?
That, tooAbortion on demand?
As in assisted suicide? Absolutely!Euthanasia?
Depends on who's nude...Public nudity?
Sure, why not?Gay rights?
A true libertarian would support total freedom, not just when it applies to guns and many of these things could be argued as protected by the Bill of Rights.
Man, some of you sound like intellectual pansies. The Constitution is not all that hard to understand and they said what they meant. The 2nd Amendment says we have a God-given right to keep and bear arms and that that right will not be infringed. That means the government is supposed to keep their greedy, power hungry fingers out of that part of the Bill of Rights! Period!
I frankly doubt they envisioned cannons as a weapon to be owned by individuals, as the cost of a rifle at that time was quite a bit compared to the yearly earning of a common man. Perhaps collectively as a village owning such a piece of hardware. And frankly, even as a second amendment advocate, I'd fear some of the gun owning public having access to rockets, high explosives, etc. I'm sure we all know of gun owners who are a bit scary even having regular firearms.
BTW- If you feel all weapons should be legal, how about all drugs? Abortion on demand? Euthanasia? Public nudity? Gay rights? A true libertarian would support total freedom, not just when it applies to guns and many of these things could be argued as protected by the Bill of Rights.
SaxonPig said:Ask any jurist and he will tell you there are no absolutes in the law.
SaxonPig said:If you truly believe that any and all weaponry should be legal for citizens to own then start lobbying your elected representatives. But I would have to oppose that notion. I believe there needs to be some limits. We just need to decide where those limits fall.
It's not that these things are protected by the Constitution, it's that Congress doesn't have the power to act in those areas. Those are areas reserved for the several states and the people thereof to act as they see fit. The realm of arms is one of the very few areas enumerated in the Constitution that are protected from government infringement.SaxonPig said:A true libertarian would support total freedom, not just when it applies to guns and many of these things could be argued as protected by the Bill of Rights.
danprkr said:Drugs - Check, just don't come running to me when you fry your brain out, and can't feed yourself or in any other way be a productive member of society. Please go to an out of the way place and starve.
Abortion on demand - check, just as long as there is no heart beat stopped. For me the heart beat is the indicator of life. After that you have had your right to choose, and made your choice. To stop the heart beat is to murder.
Euthanasia - Check, assuming the person wanting to be euthanized is of sound mind to request it.
Public nudity - check, we all have one of 2 sets of plumbing what's the big deal. Granted I ain't going out looking like I do, and you should be happy about that. Trust me.