Should we really refer to them as our "2nd Amendment rights"?

[righteousbarbarian]

Yes, it's inalienable, whether the government wants to recognize that or not. The question is not whether the government will recognize it or not though. It is whether it is just or not. Being allowed the means to defend one's self is just and that is that.

"Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils." - General John Stark

This is what I believe. Though honestly I would have trouble risking my life for the cause while my mother was still alive because she lost a child already and it was devastating to her. Maybe I don't have my priorities straight, i dunno...

[PAhunter]

Maybe this is only my point of view but, the Constitution is subject to change. The Congress together with the Supreme Court has the power to amend this document. That is why we must stay vigilant. Protect and preserve by being aware and showing it at the polling place.
Remember the Founding Fathers were trying to set in place the rights they felt belonged to everyone. After all, they had just fought for years for these freedoms from the British.

Just my .02, Jack

[LastManOut]

Originally Posted by PAhunter

Maybe this is only my point of view but, the Constitution is subject to change. The Congress together with the Supreme Court has the power to amend this document. That is why we must stay vigilant. Protect and preserve by being aware and showing it at the polling place.
Remember the Founding Fathers were trying to set in place the rights they felt belonged to everyone. After all, they had just fought for years for these freedoms from the British.

Just my .02, Jack

The U.S. Constitution has been called a "living document" by some "progressives". While it is true that the Constitution can be amended, it is by design, a difficult process requiring ratification by 2/3 of the Congress and 3/4 of the states.
The Supreme Court MAY NOT amendment the Constitution.
Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

[PAhunter]

LastManOut,
Thank you for setting me straight about the Supreme Court. I was under the misconception they somehow became involved with the amendment process.

Jack

[knight0334]

The right to keep and bear arms pre-existed the Constitution. The 2A limits the government from infringing upon that right. If you read it, it doesn't grant a right - it refers to something that is protected, for it to be protected it had to be recognized as existing prior to the writing of the Bill of Rights.

Whether you believe in God, Allah, IamthatIam, Buda, etc, or not - the right is fundamental and existed prior to the writing of the Constitution.

Yes, the Constitution is subject to change - however our government is subject to change as well. The government cant take away something that it doesn't have the authority to take, nor take something that it didn't grant. The Constitution is what formed the government, it is not an actual being but rather an empowered entity.

[nlcrsn]

It doesnt matter which way we see it! The politicians will do what they want! They are afraid of us being armed & they will continue to fight to remove this from possibility!!! Is God real, should we be able to discuss him? The politicians done a pretty good job of removing any such notion of God being spoken anywhere but Sunday church service and the politicians have allready started trying to tell the church what they can say while in there churches! ie trying to speak against homosexualism as hate speech, the politicians have allready pushed that agenda and believe it they're coming for the guns

[mrpaiste]

As I recall from history, there was a great debate over whether the Bill of Rights was even necessary. The argument was that the very rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were preexistant. To enumerate them would imply conveyance and possibly even limit the scope of those preexisting rights that our founders felt were conveyed by a higher power. Ultimately, they chose to add them to the Constitution to ensure protection from those too blind to accept their existance.

So, I'd have to side with others who have stated that gun rights, or any other right listed in the Bill of Rights, are not actually granted by the Constititution . . . only protected by it. It tells the government, "these are among the many rights that belong to the people . . . don't go there!"

[Hawk]

I voted yes.
"Inalienable rights" or "natural rights" are rights that apply to all of mankind regardless of the "laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity." The "right to bear arms" is some what unique in the world, and applies to U.S. citizens via the U.S. Constitution, It's definitely a right granted by law.

[JayBell]

I prefer to refer it as my "2nd aMendment rights"

words mean things, so spell them correctly.

[Elmar]

No, the right is inherent. The 2nd amendment merely protects that right by refusing the Federal Government the power to infringe on it.