The Simple Key To Understanding the Second Amendment and Gun Control

Status
Not open for further replies.
And I ask again, where in the Second Amendment or in any supporting documents does it say you have a right do DISCHARGE firearms?
Click to expand...

Okay, as I tried to state in my last post, the 2nd Amendment states that we have a right to keep and bear arms, and the security of a free state depends on that.

Once again: A well-regulated milita, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Look at the first phrase: A well-regulated militia...

What does that mean? Does it mean Gov't regulated? No. It means well-trained, proficient, and experienced.

How do we get well-trained, proficient, and experienced with firearms? WE PRACTICE. How do we practice? WE SHOOT.

So, if you mean that it isn't really spelled out in the 2nd Amendment, you're right. But it IS in there.

Wes
 
The problem is, the emphasis on a "well regulated militia" as LINKED to the RKBA is the same argument used by antis to read the Second out of the Constitution. Thus, if the point of the RKBA is solely to arm the regulated militia, then that's already covered by the National Guard and their training. Obviously, the RKBA cannot be linked solely with the regulated militia.

So if it is to be read as an individual right, you've got a tough time showing that there's also a CONSTITUTIONAL right to shoot linked with it. There are sound policy reasons for allowing shooting at ranges and so on, but it seems extremely obvious to me that the act of shooting a firearm has long been subject to extensive restriction. Thus, it cannot be a RIGHT because it is infringed all the time! Moreover, there are many very good reasons to restrict it.
 
Thus, it cannot be a RIGHT because it is infringed all the time! Moreover, there are many very good reasons to restrict it.
Click to expand...
This is just silly. If your rights are being infringed they do not cease to be rights, you are simply being oppressed. I find it a little disturbing that you would define what is and is not a right based on the level of infringement that right receives from the state. If you define your rights by what you are allowed to do, how would you define oppression? Seriously, Cos, define oppression for me.

The Bill of Rights does not list your rights. It is a final safeguard against a gov't that would seek to do exactly what you are suggesting: limit the rights of free men to only those listed on a piece of paper somewhere. Draw up a new piece of paper and BINGO! rights you had yesterday you no longer have. The Bill of Rights provides a final stopgap that leaves the people, who at this point are under serious oppression, a list of those things most vital to them retaining some ability to regain control of the gov't.

I think there is some confusion in this thread about what a 'right' even is. I most certainly have a right to discharge my firearm anywhere I damn well please - unless my actions infringe on someone elses rights. Like their property rights for instance, or their right to life.

- Gabe
 
a strict reading of the Second Amendment says nothing whatsoever about a right to shoot.
Click to expand...

A strict reading of the Second Amendment also says nothing whatsoever about a right to:

- purchase arms
- sell arms
- repair arms
- fondle arms
- paint arms blazing orange and hot pink
- twirl arms like a baton
- balance arms on nose while standing on one foot

I assume you also believe I do not have the right to do any of the above? :rolleyes:
 
Gabe--are you seriously saying that unless you actually hit someone you have a Constitutional right to cap off rounds whenever and wherever you please?!
 
- purchase arms
- sell arms
- repair arms
- fondle arms
- paint arms blazing orange and hot pink
- twirl arms like a baton
- balance arms on nose while standing on one foot
------

In order to keep and bear arms you must be able to purchase them and keep them in repair. Twirling, balancing painting are all part of keeping. You don't have to have the constitutional right to cap off rounds whenever you see fit. You have no such right.
 
Not only can the militia not be well regulated if it has no place to practice shooting, but the fact is you are guaranteed to have legitimate targets to shoot at...

"You have the right to remain helpless. Should you choose to waive this right, anything you do may be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an assailant. If you cannot find one for yourself, the court will release one for you." --Steve Munden (from Cooper's Commentaries)

The goal of a militia member seeking to practice with a firearm is merely to find his or her designated assailant or get one released by a court. :evil:
 
Possession IS all that really matters--that's the key. Let them regulate where they have always regulated--shooting. If it hits the fan none of those laws will make any difference anyway.

There are two militias, organized and unorganized. The organized militia has been transformed into the National Guard. I'm not worried about their RKBA. It's the right of the UNorganized militia that I'm worried about.
 
Originally posted by Cosmoline: So if it is to be read as an individual right, you've got a tough time showing that there's also a CONSTITUTIONAL right to shoot linked with it.
Click to expand...
There’s no such thing as a “constitutional right.†Our Federal Constitution is not the origin of our rights. (If you believe our Federal Constitution is the origin of our rights, then you must also believe Americans did not have rights before 1791.)

Originally posted by Cosmoline: In order to keep and bear arms you must be able to purchase them and keep them in repair.
Click to expand...
Not according to an “ultra-strict reading†of the Constitution, as you seem to advocate. What does keeping and bearing have to do with repairing?

Originally posted by Cosmoline: The amendment says NOTHING about using. So unless you want to write it in by fiat, it ain't there.
Click to expand...
Cosmoline, you seem to be of the opinion that a U.S. citizen doesn’t have a right unless it is explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. This is not the case! We have many rights that are not listed in the Bill of Rights. Examples include:

- The right to self defense
- The right to own property (assuming you have the means to purchase it)
- The right to travel freely
- The right to marry and have a family
- The right to start a business and make money
- the right to defend property

If you’re still unconvinced, read Amendment IX. What doe you think Amendment IX means?!

In a nut shell, the Bill of Rights is not a listing of our rights. In fact, it was never meant to be a listing of our rights, as our Founding Fathers knew it would be impossible to make such a list. (Even if it were possible to make an unabridged listing of our rights, it would be very unadvisable, since “listed†rights invariably become targets by the liberty-haters.) The Bill of Rights is simply a list of things the government can’t do. It does not limit the people; it only limits the government.
 
Originally posted by suijurisfreeman:Molo Labe,

I couldn't have said it better myself! My rights are natural, absolute, inherent and inalienable, I am a free Human Being!
Click to expand...
You are indeed a sovereign being.

My rights do not come from the Bill of Rights; it doesn’t have the authority. My rights do not come from the government; it doesn’t have the authority. My rights do not come from The People; they don’t have the authority. My rights do not come from our Founding Fathers; they didn't have the authority.

As a gift from God, I was born with these rights. And few things are more precious to me than my inalienable, God-given, natural rights.

Come and get 'em...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top