What the Second Amendment really means

[RugerNiner]

What the Second Amendment really means

The Constitution secures an individual’s right to bear arms, Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) and Jon tester (D-Mont.) said Thursday at The Heritage Foundation. They urged the Supreme Court to keep this in mind as they consider an important Second Amendment case.

http://www.myheritagemedia.org/galle...ch&text=020708

The high court will hear arguments next month about whether the District of Columbia’s effective ban on firearms violates the Constitution. The case, District of Columbia v. Heller , could result in the most important Second Amendment decision since 1939.

The issue at stake, tester said, is “about rights granted in the Constitution.”

Hutchison echoed the sentiment and dismissed critics who argue that the right to bear arms is collective, not individual. “The simple fact that [the right to bear arms] is located in the Bill of Rights and not Section 8 of the Constitution shows the Framers’ intent.”

Both senators cited the growing threat to this fundamental right. tester, for example, said he was appalled by the New Orleans gun confiscations which followed Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Heritage has been an effective advocate for a common-sense understanding of the Second Amendment. When District of Columbia v. Heller came before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Heritage legal scholars helped the winning side prepare its arguments.http://www.myheritage.org/Features/E...007/031307.asp
—Chris Albright

[awkx]

Originally Posted by RugerNiner

The issue at stake ... is “about rights granted in the Constitution.”

Argh! The right to freedom of speech, the right to keep & bear arms, etc., are not granted by the Constitution; they are recognized, protected, and guaranteed by it.

As the Founders said in the Declaration of Independence, "all men are ... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". The right to self-defense (against both common criminals and tyrants who usurp the power of government) is a natural ("God-given") right that exists even if it is denied by the government.

http://www.guncite.com/onething.html

"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." (United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875))

[sgser]

In our particular democracy it will take only five votes to strip us of our rights. Consider the following:

[The U.S.] solicitor general has just filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the D.C. v. Heller case arguing that categorical gun bans of virtually all self-defense firearms are constitutional if a court determines they are "reasonable" – the lowest standard of constitutional review.

For the entire article go to:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=55907

If this view prevails, a national ban on all firearms – including hunting rifles – could be constitutional, even if the court decides – on ample historical evidence – that the Founders intended the Second Amendment as an individual right.

[LastManOut]

Originally Posted by sgser

In our particular democracy it will take only five votes to strip us of our rights. Consider the following:

.

ARRRGH! We do not live in a democracy. The USA is a republic.

[josh]

Originally Posted by awkx

Argh! The right to freedom of speech, the right to keep & bear arms, etc., are not granted by the Constitution; they are recognized, protected, and guaranteed by it.

As the Founders said in the Declaration of Independence, "all men are ... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". The right to self-defense (against both common criminals and tyrants who usurp the power of government) is a natural ("God-given") right that exists even if it is denied by the government.

http://www.guncite.com/onething.html

"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." (United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875))

This is such a simple concept. Why is it that it seems daily we are barraged with people who just don't get it?
More victims of government education seems the only logical answer.

[TwistedCopper]

Originally Posted by awkx

"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." (United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875))

Excellent!!!

[Pyrotek85]

Originally Posted by LastManOut

ARRRGH! We do not live in a democracy. The USA is a republic.

This is a kind of a pet peeve of mine too. If I remember right its a democratic republic to be truly accurate.

[LastManOut]

Originally Posted by Pyrotek85

This is a kind of a pet peeve of mine too. If I remember right its a democratic republic to be truly accurate.

IIRC, it's a representative republic or a constitutional republic. A pet-peeve of mine too.
Similar to people saying one-hundred and one, three-hundred and twenty. When it's one-hundred one or three-hundred twenty. then there is Me and my friends??? I talked to Tara today and she was like, "How are you?" and I was like, "Fine."
Gun control when it's people control.

[josh]

Originally Posted by LastManOut

IIRC, it's a representative republic or a constitutional republic. A pet-peeve of mine too.
Similar to people saying one-hundred and one, three-hundred and twenty. When it's one-hundred one or three-hundred twenty. then there is Me and my friends??? I talked to Tara today and she was like, "How are you?" and I was like, "Fine."
Gun control when it's people control.

It is more than a pet peeve.

It is a totally different animal.

That would be like me shooting a cow and calling it a deer. They both have 4 legs and taste yummy but there is a big difference.

[sgser]

Originally Posted by Pyrotek85

This is a kind of a pet peeve of mine too. If I remember right its a democratic republic to be truly accurate.

I have to apologize for having written, “In our particular democracy it will take only five votes to strip us of our rights.” Not, however, because it was incorrect (more about that later) but because it took away from the point I was trying to make. That point being in regard to:

“[The U.S.] solicitor general has just filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the D.C. v. Heller case arguing that categorical gun bans of virtually all self-defense firearms are constitutional if a court determines they are "reasonable" – the lowest standard of constitutional review.” (Emphasis added)

I added double emphasis to the term “reasonable” because it crops up all too often to justify laws governing concealed carry and other 2nd Amendment rights.

It strikes me that “reasonable” is a completely subjective term that can be used at any time by the anti-Second Amendment crowd. That was my concern but it devolved into a discussion about our form of government which was most accurately described in replies as a constitutional republic. Unfortunately, the “What the Second Amendment means . . .” discussion was side-tracked.

As to my, as it turned out, unfortunate choice of the term “democracy,” I have to call attention to the adjective “particular” which modifies “democracy.” First, however, let me say that we do not have a totalitarian form of government or a monarchy. Neither are we an oligarchy (although sometimes I wonder). What is left, as a form of government, is the democracy. And our “particular democracy” is a representative form as opposed to a parliamentary form of democracy such as, for example, in France or the U.K. In our form two branches are chosen by the people to represent us but one branch is selected by our representatives. That third branch, the Supreme Court, is not answerable to the people. That, in my opinion, is where the problem lies.

Considering what I caused, I probably should have written something to the effect that the 2nd Amendment is clearly stated and if the framers, who knew what they wanted to say, would have added a phrase like “subject to reasonable limitations,” had they wanted it to be so. And, that, in our democracy we are governed by the few who usually ignore us, in this case the Supreme Court (The U.S. Supreme Court that is) My thoughts being that, in our particular democracy we are controlled by a majority as small a five individuals.

I gave some thought to not trying to explain what I meant but, as a number of you have indicated pet peeves, I too have a pet peeve. That being, it is too easy to diverge from the topic at hand and spend time on things not to the point.