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

[gnbrotz]

Originally Posted by JayBell

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

words mean things, so spell them correctly.

Fixed (two years after the fact).

[LittleRedToyota]

the right to effective self-defense...and, thus, the right to bear arms...is a natural right. just because many governments refuse to recognize it and trample on it does not actually make it not a natural right.

however, i do think we should refer to it as our "2nd amendment right" (as in the right guaranteed, not granted, by the 2nd amendment).

calling it the 2nd amendment right, rather than "gun rights", will help bring people who support the bill of rights in general to our side. in fact, i think it is actually critical that we get people to use the term "2nd amendment rights" rather than "gun rights" for this very reason.

so, my answer to the actual poll question is "No" (the right is not granted by the BOR, it is natural), but my answer to the question in the post title is "Yes" (we should refer to the as our 2nd amendment rights).

[ErSwnn]

While we're all in agreement that, whether granted or protected by the COTUS, the American people can retain our ability to be defensive of our lives and country. As many have posted, we also need to remain vigilant of our means to do so. As I see things, we've given up much of that ability already through labyrinth gun control laws that either through design or flaw are disaming us. We've already let some of our right be suppressed. Now all that remains to be seen is how much more are we willing to cede?

I thank sites like this one and people like many of you for teaching me this reality. And giving me a means to do my part to combat the erosion. How do I rep the whole damn lot of you!?

[YBNORMAL]

Tough question, other posters are right to say that it doesnt "give us our rights". It enumerates (describes) them and the states would not ratify without SOME of them written, but our rights are not limited to what was written down, just what was needed by the states to trust a federal .gov.

The natural right the 2A describes is not nessesarily the right to bear arms though, its the right to defend one's life. Thank God it was written during a time of widespread firearm use, or we may only have swords to defend ourselves.

Firearms are just the best/most common way (then and now) for a citizen to defend himself from tyranny/crime. Hense the "keep and bear arms" wording. Lack of education of our government, human rights,and history of the world is why people don't get that citizens need to be armed, IMO.

[Warpt762x39]

Originally Posted by Elmar

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

And we see how well that's worked out for us so far. Too many have become too apathetic for too long. The vast majority of laws should never have been written. We need to get this country back in order but it's gonna take a lot of time and effort to do that.

[str8shooter]

I voted yes, but I thought it would have been better had the option been worded "guaranteed the right", not "grant the right." It might seem like a matter of semantics, but to me a guarantee that you can keep what you have is much different than being granted a right which you don't have. I guess this isn't much more than a variation on a theme which many responses already stated in various ways.

[Willtallica]

Idiots think that a piece of paper will protect their right to hold something in their defense.

The constitution isn't there for our law makers. It's there to encourage us to be reserved with anger, armed once and for all, because peace will come from security only.

[mak47]

No, they are not actually "Our 2nd Amendment rights". They are our God-Given rights, or in the words of the founders, rights endowed by our Creator.


To really understand the basis of the rights enumerated in the Constitution one must look at both the Constitution (to find the list of enumerated rights) and the Declaration of Independence (to find the intent and basis for claiming those rights)

The opening of the Declaration reads:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The founders, based on what I'm reading, believed that "rights" are endowed by God and that all men, being equal, are entitled to them.

The Constitution, being the basis of all law in the new nation simply guarantees that those unalienable rights are guaranteed within our borders.

[ErSwnn]

Man, this would be so much easier if someone would just appoint me King. No more of this debate on rights and such. No Congress either. Just do what I say and that's the end of it. Now come on, admit it, it sounds so much better than all this democratic republic stuff. No worries my friends, all will be well.

[Elmar]

Originally Posted by Warpt762x39

And we see how well that's worked out for us so far. Too many have become too apathetic for too long. The vast majority of laws should never have been written. We need to get this country back in order but it's gonna take a lot of time and effort to do that.

The state of existence of our rights being internal has absolutely no bearing on well those rights are defended. I'm not sure where you think we disagee.