You don't believe me? What does that mean?
An amazing case for reducing gun ownership in America
- Thread starter Wez
- Start date
You don't believe me? What does that mean?
I imagine this is going to prompt a defensive response, but you do understand that no one can give you rights. By the very definition they are inalienable to you?
While the second amendment however is part of the Constitution. Which was document written in a way that expressly says these rules are written and granted by the Federal Government of the United States. And can be changed by the Federal Government. It even gives instructions on how to do so...
You actually agree with me.
My rights are "inherent", as i have posted multiple times today.
The second amendment is a restriction on government.
My concern is with those trying to eliminate those protections.
I have posted a lot today. What part don't you believe?
Well I don't necessary disagree. At this point I'm not sure I understand your argument because you conflating inalienable rights and rights granted under rule of the Constitution. I think the Bill of Rights lists Life (i.e. the list of "inalienable" rights), Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.
The Second Amendment is a good insight into the Founding Fathers minds on the issue of guns, and certainly that carries a lot of weight. However, The Founding Fathers also made slavery legal, so let's not pretend they were batting a 1000 on every issue.
What's the name of your militia unit again?
The second amendment does not grant any rights.
Those rights are inherent.
The second amendment restricts the government from infringing on those inalienable rights.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Get over it.
Read this, TD.
Obviously not... the Constitution says the constitution is malleable with a 2/3's vote in the Senate.
If it were written as thought it were granting you natural rights, then why do they include instructions on how to make changes?
You stated earlier that rights were inalienable.
Do you believe that or not?
Do you actually believe the government grants you rights?
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are in the Declaration of Independence. The D of I, interestingly is not referenced anywhere in the US Constitution or its many amendments.
We do, however, have these lofty goals to pursue --
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
And that came after years of a near-suicidal war and hopelessly ineffective government under the Articles of the Confederation.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=127
If the 2nd Amendment were repealed tomorrow, how many of your guns would you lose?
I get your point. But I think we live in a Democracy that has a lot of elasticity written into our rule of law.
Moreover, self-granted rights isn't an excuse to avoid using common sense.
The second amendment is a restriction on government.
If it were repealed tomorrow, they could do whatever they wanted in regards to private gun ownership.
My personal situation is of no concern to you.
We live in a republic, and its a republic precisely because our founders had good sense.
So, just as I thought, no change.
The second amendment restricts the government.
It does not grant rights, it defends them.
It is a protection against tyranny.
It is not a regulation on the citizen.
It does not grant rights, it defends them.
It is a protection against tyranny.
It is not a regulation on the citizen.
And a republic run as a democracy, at that.
Has anyone here been disputing that?