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

[Warpt762x39]

Originally Posted by Elmar

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.

The government not infringing on it part. The 2A plainly says "shall not be infringed". Well they've been infringing plenty for the last 80 odd years. So saying it shall not be infringed hasn't worked without all citizens stopping it.

There is a sadly small number of people who actually stand up for all rights and not just the ones they approve of. We need all Americans to stand up for all of their rights to stop all infringements of all rights.

[ScaredOnce]

Wow... a stroll down memory lane, eh?

The problem with this thread and the poll results is, that while I believe I understand the reasons that one would vote "No", it lends itself to spin by the general non-Pro-2A populace.

"Gun website can't decide if 2A gives RKBA..." Ya know?

But, I see the point. Any living thing can protect itself, given the means. A system of "rights" is a bit more complicated -and might require a guarantor of those "rights".

[BSH]

"God-given" or natural rights are inherent and inalienable. That is true.

But there is a separate question of whether governments recognize and protect natural rights, and more specifically whether our government does so.

I would say that the prevailing thinking in the country is that there are no natural rights, only those defined by the government (constititution). Certainly, many in the legal/government sector dislike natural rights because they tend to limit government action. But that's really the point.

I believe that no government can be moral or just if it does not recognize, abide by, and protect natural rights, and do so openly. Obfuscating a natural right, such as the right to speak ones mind in public, as a defined right, unjustly aggrandizes the government at the expense of the people, even if the practical application is the same.

[CHEMICAL]

i believe that the constitution only grants us the right to bear arms as a tangible legal written explanation of our natural rights of existence, the right to survive and defend ourselves. if guns were never invented it would be something else, knives, pitchforks, clubs, etc....no one can take away your survival instinct and the means by which you defend your very existence.

sure there are those out there that would take away your freedom, but you'd still be alive...those that want to change the constitution for their own agenda should be arrested for treason against our great nation.

[Bama Man]

Originally Posted by 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!"

The preamble to the Bill of Rights shows exactly what the 2nd Ammendment is all about.
" The conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting of the Constitution, expressed a desire, IN ORDER TO PREVENT MISCONSTRUCTION OR ABUSE OF IT'S POWERS, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:And as extendeding the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficient ends of it's institution."
This says to me that the right to own firearms was already a personal right before the Contitution was written, and the Government formed. Therefore the Government cannot take a right away from us that we already had before it became a government, and to try to do so would be a "misconstuction or abuse of it's powers".
The 2nd Ammendment is supposed to protect us from the government ever taking that right away from us.
The 2nd ammendment is supposed to be an order to the Government that it is not allowed to "infringe" upon that pre-existing right.