I'm beginning to think that gun ownership is more of a privilege than a right. The second amendment is pretty vague. It's clearly about malitias, but it says nothing about the right to bare arms for self defense. If people who say it's a right want to end the debate once and for all then they should pass their own amendment saying the people "have the right to bare arms for self defense
( ... )
I once followed a debate on what makes something a "right" and while there were quite a few pretty good phylosophical definitions there was no one correct answer. Of course there were plenty who wouldn't elaborate beyond "it just is, you terrorist!" even though it wasn't about gun rights`, that one was used as an example and glommed onto.
I think a right is something that is fundamentally necessary for one to live and to function in a society. By fundamental, I mean the violation of which has consequences we can all see. When freedom of thought, speech and the capacity for one to build a life for himself are violated (or perceived to be in danger) there's something fundamental to our psychology which is being violated. There are a lot of things we can learn to adjust to, other things from which we can't. Of the latter, I think what those things are in each individual is Universal.
We are to have the right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves, and our property, from anyone. It's also a safeguard to allow us to overthrow the government when it no longer serves the populations best interest *cough like now cough*.
Protecting ourselves is in some state's constitutions. For example, the Washington State Constitution reads as follows: Section 24:
Right to Bear Arms.
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
Something I didn't know until just now, which is very interesting:
Either way, it is a bar to federal action only, because the 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated by the Supreme Court to apply to the states. This means that within its own constitution, a state may be as restrictive or unrestrictive as it wishes to be in the regulation of firearms; likewise, private rules and regulations may prohibit or encourage firearms. For example, if a housing association wishes to bar any firearm from being held within its borders, it is free to do so.
This is interesting because both SF and DC have been challenged on their right to ban handguns entirely. While I don't agree with the bans, it's not clear if they're actually unconstitutional.
Either way, it is a bar to federal action only, because the 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated by the Supreme Court to apply to the states.
Essentially that's correct - an 1830's SCOTUS decision was that states could violate the Bill of Rights because the bill only restrained the Federal Government. The 14th Amendment restrained the state some but stopped short of incorporating the entire Bill of Rights. It was done right by right. The 2nd amendment is the one of the last ones to be incorporated against the states. This is being tested right now regarding the 2nd Amendment, in the first ever application of case law to incorporate it against a state (California). But this is a district court opinion, currently under review by the Ninth Circuit, and may or may not end up at the Supreme Court (See Nordyke vs. King.) It'll be an interesting test!
The Constitution says nothing about "state-run" militias. 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.
That's the right to keep (own), and bear (carry) weapons. The Constitution says nothing about the type of weapon or when and where it should be carried. Liberals tend to believe that if the Constitution doesn't explicitly say you can do something, then you can't. So it follows that "keep and bear" should be restricted as much as possible. Constitutionalists believe the opposite: if the Constitution doesn't say you can't (with regards to rights), then the government can't restrict it. Thus "keep and bear" means people can carry whatever weapons they want, whenever they want. (Incidentally this is the same philosophy used by liberals to push for bigger government and more regulation everywhere, and by conservatives for the opposite position
( ... )
Comments 18
pretty simple words to understand.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Right to Bear Arms.
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
Reply
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html
Something I didn't know until just now, which is very interesting:
Either way, it is a bar to federal action only, because the 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated by the Supreme Court to apply to the states. This means that within its own constitution, a state may be as restrictive or unrestrictive as it wishes to be in the regulation of firearms; likewise, private rules and regulations may prohibit or encourage firearms. For example, if a housing association wishes to bar any firearm from being held within its borders, it is free to do so.
This is interesting because both SF and DC have been challenged on their right to ban handguns entirely. While I don't agree with the bans, it's not clear if they're actually unconstitutional.
Reply
Essentially that's correct - an 1830's SCOTUS decision was that states could violate the Bill of Rights because the bill only restrained the Federal Government. The 14th Amendment restrained the state some but stopped short of incorporating the entire Bill of Rights. It was done right by right. The 2nd amendment is the one of the last ones to be incorporated against the states. This is being tested right now regarding the 2nd Amendment, in the first ever application of case law to incorporate it against a state (California). But this is a district court opinion, currently under review by the Ninth Circuit, and may or may not end up at the Supreme Court (See Nordyke vs. King.) It'll be an interesting test!
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
That's the right to keep (own), and bear (carry) weapons. The Constitution says nothing about the type of weapon or when and where it should be carried. Liberals tend to believe that if the Constitution doesn't explicitly say you can do something, then you can't. So it follows that "keep and bear" should be restricted as much as possible. Constitutionalists believe the opposite: if the Constitution doesn't say you can't (with regards to rights), then the government can't restrict it. Thus "keep and bear" means people can carry whatever weapons they want, whenever they want. (Incidentally this is the same philosophy used by liberals to push for bigger government and more regulation everywhere, and by conservatives for the opposite position ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment