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

[gnbrotz]

My own personal interpretation of the US Constitution is that we are not granted the right to keep and bear arms by the Constitution, but rather that it falls under the 'inalienable rights' of man, which include life, liberty, and the preservation of both of these. The Constitution recognizes this inalienable right, and protects it's infringement, but does not grant it to us.

[TaePo]

I whole heartedly agree with your logical conclusion. It can also be seen in the Federalist Papers and other writings.

One can also argue by straight logic that it starts out, "The right of the people...shall not be infringed."

This indicates that the people already have the right and that the government is not to control this right, either directly or indirectly.

[mauser]

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.

In my interpretation, it clearly states that the right shall not be infringed. That to me means that the right exists with or without the Constitution. You can't infringe upon something that isn't there.

[LastManOut]

If one believes the Constitution GIVES us the right, then it can REMOVE that right. No it is unalienable.

[Hokkmike]

Constitutional - YES.

Unalienable - NO.

The right to bear arms is, like it or not, transient and we must work to protect and keep it. Those of you who believe that somehow it is "god given" to all men had better not sit at ease and assume that no matter what you are going hold on to yours as if some kind of unwritten guarantee applies.

When push comes to shove, and god forbid, the 2nd Amendment is ever compromised, the "cold dead hands" promise will NOT apply. Most gun owners will acquiesce and give up their weapons. A few will protest and be dragged out - their firearms removed by force, and a tiny few - will fight it out, and lose.

Lose any air of confidence that this false notion of an unalienable right status might give you. We should all be a little nervous, and therefore vigilant, about protecting our rights as gun owners. I am asking this of all of you for our common interest.

[gnbrotz]

Originally Posted by Hokkmike

Constitutional - YES.
Those of you who believe that somehow it is "god given" to all men had better not sit at ease and assume that no matter what you are going hold on to yours as if some kind of unwritten guarantee applies.

Obviously, I'm one who does believe I have this right regardless of my government's position on the issue. This certainly does not mean that I believe I have an 'unwritten guarantee' in the matter.

Originally Posted by Hokkmike

When push comes to shove, and god forbid, the 2nd Amendment is ever compromised, the "cold dead hands" promise will NOT apply. Most gun owners will acquiesce and give up their weapons. A few will protest and be dragged out - their firearms removed by force, and a tiny few - will fight it out, and lose.

It will apply to some, though I agree with you that the vast majority will give no resistance. To quote Patrick Henry, "Give me liberty or give me death." I hope I never see the day that I'm remembered as part of the "tiny few".

Originally Posted by Hokkmike

Lose any air of confidence that this false notion of an unalienable right status might give you. We should all be a little nervous, and therefore vigilant, about protecting our rights as gun owners. I am asking this of all of you for our common interest.

No confidence of perpetual government protection, but confidence and motivation to remain vigilant in protecting these rights by constantly reminding my representatives that their recognition of these rights must continue. I do not and will not ask them for 'permission' to defend myself.

[Turbinesaint]

It's important to understand why the ammendments to the constitution were created. They were meant to give the basic human rights to people so they can speak out, defend themselves, not be unduly imprisoned, etc. They were written in to protect the people from government control, especially in light of the recent revolution. The framers didn't have to put these ammendments into the constitution, they chose to put them in for the betterment of the people. They are man-made and need to be protected. They were not "god-given" in the sense that they had the option to choose to put these in (not something that previously existed and can't be questioned). Imagine how different our country would be today if not for the foresight of the founders to provide and protect these liberties.

[LastManOut]

Originally Posted by Turbinesaint

It's important to understand why the ammendments to the constitution were created. They were meant to give the basic human rights to people so they can speak out, defend themselves, not be unduly imprisoned, etc. They were written in to protect the people from government control, especially in light of the recent revolution. The framers didn't have to put these ammendments into the constitution, they chose to put them in for the betterment of the people. They are man-made and need to be protected. They were not "god-given" in the sense that they had the option to choose to put these in (not something that previously existed and can't be questioned). Imagine how different our country would be today if not for the foresight of the founders to provide and protect these liberties.

It's The Bill of Rights not The Bill of Privileges.
It was written not to give the citizens' the privilege of freedom of speech, worship, self-protection, the press, justice, etc. It was to remind the government it has no juristiction in these areas.

It was only written as an "afterthought" since most citizens at that time understood these Rights and felt, originally, it was not necessary, it was redundant, to spell these Rights out. So some more level-headed with foresight insisted on writing out these Rights.

Government schools want to tell students they are not unalienable. All you have to do is read the Preamble.

[FUNDAMENTALS]

I am no Constitution Scholar nor an Attorney, However if you review the
following case, United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. Timothy Joe
Emerson, Defendant-Appellee. No. 99-10331. United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit, October 16, 2001.
That this case was so well researched that upon appeal, the U.S Supreme
Court refused to hear the appeal and let the 5th Circuit Decision Stand. This
showed that the Right of the People to Keep & Bear Arms, is an Individual
Right. I have the entire 73 page decision by the 5th Circuit. Showing the
historical background of the individual States coming together for the
CONSTITUTION OF THE U.S. . Our forefathers new exactly what they were
doing when it came to individual rights, and spelled it out.

[MOUNTAINORACLE]

I am no history professor or scholar, but if I remember my history 101 from over 50 years ago. The Bill or Rights, First Ten Amendments, or whatever you want call them were drafted to get the 13 Colonies to vote on and ratify the US Constitution.



oracle