Screw the 2nd Amendment

[addicted2freedom]

/begin rant

I'm so sick of hearing about the 2nd Amendment. It was the intention of the founding fathers to enumerate SOME of our inalienable rights in the Bill of Rights (see 9th amendment). The problem is society believes the Bill of Rights grants us these rights. By constantly referring to the 2nd amendment, I believe the latter is reinforced in this kindergarten country of ours.

Since the Constitution is but an after thought these days, I'd love to here the issue rephrased as an inalienable right to defend our property. But then again maybe we don't really have rights if we have to beg government to give them to us and beg them not take them away from us.

We hold the Constitution sacred, but really it's a limitation when it comes to individual rights. Would we still have slavery if the Constitution wasn't amended to abolish it? Would we not have civil rights? Would we not have voting rights?

Screw the government's 2nd amendment privilege. I demand the government keep its hands of my inalienable right to defend my property and my country!

/end rant

[hawk87]

Sadly, it ended up with the name "Bill of Rights", when in reality it should be the "Bill of Restraints" as what it really does is spell out what the general government cannot do to you, not what actual rights you have.

As you said, rights are inherent, and the right to defend yourself, your loved ones and your property against aggression is the most fundamental human right, whether that aggression is in the form of street thugs, or costume-wearing government thugs. Aggression is aggression, period...

[jerkin]

But no one is trying to take your rights away, all rights have limits just like you can't yell fire in a movie theater. You can feel free to own all the flintlocks you want, the same as our forefathers. Nobody needs an ar15 for hunting, if you can't hit a deer in 3 or 4 shots you need more practice. We have to start somewhere and military type assault rifles with high capacity bullet clips are made for one thing, killing babies. The US needs to change, it has one of the highest firearms death counts on the planet, England only had 37 gun murders last year. We need to strive to be more like them. If you want to play with a military weapon join the Army.

Did I miss any????

[BestDefense=StrongOffense]

Did I miss any????

Don't forget...if you want to keep people away after an earthquake, buy some shotgun shells

[jerkin]

Don't forget...if you want to keep people away after an earthquake, buy some shotgun shells

Well that one hasn't been around long enough to be considered a classic yet, lol.

[Gun]

Sadly, it ended up with the name "Bill of Rights", when in reality it should be the "Bill of Restraints" as what it really does is spell out what the general government cannot do to you, not what actual rights you have.

As you said, rights are inherent, and the right to defend yourself, your loved ones and your property against aggression is the most fundamental human right, whether that aggression is in the form of street thugs, or costume-wearing government thugs. Aggression is aggression, period...

And again rights are confused with liberty, and with instincts. Survival is an instinct that causes one to either defend what is theirs, or to run away when the odds are stacked against them. Rights only keep the government from restricting liberties of the people. Laws are created to keep society civilized, based on those rights. Imagine hanging someone if they stole your car. Well, that happened if you stole a man's horse way back when. So what is the difference?

Our 2nd amendment was written because defending ourselves from not only foreign invaders, and domestic threats such as a tyrannical govt., but right down to the common miscreant, was essential in the pursuit of life, liberty, and some sort of happiness (what ever that may be).

Yes, it is right to protect our liberties, but within the laws that make us civilized, but those rights have to be recognized first, as they don't happen instinctually.

[addicted2freedom]

But no one is trying to take your rights away, all rights have limits just like you can't yell fire in a movie theater. You can feel free to own all the flintlocks you want, the same as our forefathers. Nobody needs an ar15 for hunting, if you can't hit a deer in 3 or 4 shots you need more practice. We have to start somewhere and military type assault rifles with high capacity bullet clips are made for one thing, killing babies. The US needs to change, it has one of the highest firearms death counts on the planet, England only had 37 gun murders last year. We need to strive to be more like them. If you want to play with a military weapon join the Army.

Did I miss any????

You CAN yell fire in a movie theater. If there is a fire, you just saved lives. If there is no fire, you are responsible for the consequences caused by your free speech. Rights do not have limits. Exercising rights bears responsibility.

Guns are not solely used for hunting, they are used for self defense. You may not need an AR-15 to take out an unarmed deer, but other people do own them...

We have to start somewhere and military type assault rifles with high capacity bullet clips are made for one thing, killing babies.

So much wrong with this sentence. First 'military type assault rifle' are very difficult to purchase/own. High-capacity, is relative. Clips are not magazines. Our military is not in place to kill babies.

The US needs to change, it has one of the highest firearms death counts on the planet, England only had 37 gun murders last year.

England has strict gun control. Of course they had less gun murders. BUT they have more VIOLENT CRIMES! 2,000 crimes per 100,000 people, where the U.S. has 466 per 100,000. (2007: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...of-Europe.html)

Japan has less than 10 gun-related homicides per year, but their suicide rate is insane.

Mexico has 85% less gun ownership but 10% more firearm related deaths.

I agree the US needs to change. Needs to start with the culture of violence and instability first.

If you want to play with a military weapon join the Army.

Will do, but what's that have to do with my semi-automatic AR-15?

[Mitch10mm]

The post you quoted was meant to be satire

[addicted2freedom]

The post you quoted was meant to be satire

Oops didn't look at post count. Nice job getting all of the anti rhetoric spot on lol

[TaePo]

Look-up and read the Federalist (/Anti-Federalist) Papers #84. It is an essay by Alexander Hamilton and he hits it square on the head regarding why the Bill of Rights should not be enumerated at all.

Through this discussion, the reader becomes aware of the power intended by the 2A as given to the individual. Many people do not understand this fact as well as the fact the rights cannot be repealed (just because they are an amendment). One is only repealing the enumeration of that right, not its existence. The right will always exist outside of governmental (and societal) auspices.

Some would say it is only the business of the individual and their 'Maker'.

The founders used 'endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights' in the Declaration. In this case, Creator could mean God or a god, an ultimate soul, or even a process (sexual intercourse throughout the ages winding up with your DNA sequences). Whatever Creator means to each person, the rights are beyond the scope and reach of any government or society who would only try to prey upon the persons denied such rights. Denial of rights is a primary step necessary for subjugation. Demonizing beyond that allows for killing en masse (genocide) or even in wars (typically considered legal).

Read about slaves of any race or ethnicity, women, sometimes children and yes, soon to be added: gun owners.