Constitutional Right To Carry?

[youngda9]

To bear arms in public is a privilege. You don't need that to bear arms in a dwelling.

The constitution says nothing about limiting "where" you can bear(carry) your firearms. It says the right to bear "shall not be infringed" Where do you come up with this stuff?

 

[Benny]

bear arms means to have. Not necessarily carry. Shall not be infringed is pretty clear cut though.

First results when Google searched:

Bear - definition of Bear by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

To carry from one place to another; transport.

carry - definition of carry by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

To hold or support while moving; bear

 

[Benny]

So "to keep and bear arms" means "to have and to have arms"?

You don't like having arms while you have them?

 

[Hoosierdood]

First results when Google searched:

Bear - definition of Bear by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.



carry - definition of carry by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

But, but... ummmm, that just means that you can transport from the place of purchase to your home. Ya, thats what our founders meant by it. It has to be, because it's the only explanation that doesn't throw my whole argument completely out the window.

 

[beararms1776]

I think most people have a tougher time with the meaning of "Shall not be infringed"

 

[Effingham]

It does say a "well regulated militia"...

I eat plenty of fiber, thank you.

 

[Stschil]

I think most people have a tougher time with the meaning of "Shall not be infringed"

So glad you're not part of "Them"

 

[Effingham]

The amount of stupid in these comments makes my brain hurt. Even when confronted with indisputable proof that you are incorrect, you choose to ignore the truth and defer to your own incorrect preconceived ideas. That is no different from what the antis do.


How about what esrice said above? Keep and bear arms means "to have and have arms"?

Hoosierdad, I wish I could rep+ you even more.

 

[Wwwildthing]

"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."

Militia (noun) - (1). a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies. (2). a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers. (3). all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service. (4). a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

Arms (noun) - implements of war, munition, weaponry, especially firearms.

Infringed (verb) - to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.

 

[ATM]

Shall not be - the opposite of shall be.

 

[mrjarrell]

The militia clause is irrelevant to the 2nd, just as the press clause is irrelevant to the 1st. Bringing it up does nothing but muddy the waters and gives the antis one more bludgeon to hit us with.

 

[Taylorz71]

And everything that I have read from our founders would indicate that the right to protect ourselves was more to do with a tyrannous government(like we are starting to see again)that say criminals. The had lived with it and wanted true freedom from it. Although defending ones self, family or property is important, the real threat will be the government as they saw it then and we are seeing now.

 

[armedindy]

2a

And everything that I have read from our founders would indicate that the right to protect ourselves was more to do with a tyrannous government(like we are starting to see again)that say criminals. The had lived with it and wanted true freedom from it. Although defending ones self, family or property is important, the real threat will be the government as they saw it then and we are seeing now.

what he said

 

[Expat]

I will never understand how our brother gun owners are so ready to kowtow to the antis and accept their party line. Just like that sportsmen for obama group last election. Just like some of the old NRA farts that don't think anyone needs a gun that has more than 5 cartridge capacity. We must all hang together and we will surely hang separately.

 

[Smokepole]

Agreed. In the event our country was invaded then our Constitutional right would be to bear arms. At least that's what they are teaching kids. I wasn't around when they came up with the Bill of Rights so I can't say to what the founders meant by it but then again no one can. I only know what is being taught now.

Doty, you are soooo wrong here. There is so much from our Founding Fathers that if we only look there is really no doubt as to what they meant. Remember, in their time writing was the only form of non-verbal communication. No TV, radio, computer, email, telegraph, etc. Almost everyone kept journals and letters of correspondence (most famously the correspondences of Jefferson and Madison over the decades until their deaths).

Most of the Founders were delegates, commissioners, Governors, etc from their respective states and as such there are hundreds of volumes of their speeches, declarations, correspondence, etc. Almost all of which are documented and in the Library of Congress. The rest are in private collections.

We also have the notes that were kept of the Constitutional Convention, The Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers, etc.

One of my favorite quotes is from Thomas Jefferson:

[FONT=&quot]"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the[/FONT][FONT=&quot] time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested[/FONT][FONT=&quot] in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in[/FONT][FONT=&quot] which it was passed." [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Complete Jefferson, p. 322.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]The Bill of rights became necessary because six states refused to ratify the newly drafted Constitution. The reason they gave was that they did not feel the it did an adequate job of protecting certain rights of the individual. And that the only way that they could ratify was if it were to adequately provide the protection of those rights. Four of the states agreed to ratify with the promise of the changes and they would rescind their ratification if the changes did not occur.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Quote:
[/FONT]"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the rights of the people at large or considered as individuals ... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has the right to deprive them of." Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society,
October 7, 1789.


There is no lack of information whatsoever as to what our Founding meant when they drafted the Constitution and the BoR. There is no possible way to honestly argue that the any of the rights listed in the BoR are anything other than belonging to the individual, except where the tenth names the states.

A few years ago, noted Harvard historian Lawrence Tribe was quoted as saying that upon a close and honest study of the Constitution and the BoR, one could only conclude that the SA is a right of the individual and not the State or Federal Gov't. He said he wished that was not the case, but he could come to no other conclusion. (this is not a direct quote)

You see, there is ABSOLUTLEY no lack for information as to what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. One only needs to LOOK.

 

[youngda9]

Smokepole

The Federalist papers is an OUTSTANDING collection of works that details out EXACTLY what the founding fathers were thinking at this time. There are many Jefferson quotes that explain exactly what the 2A is all about.

 

[beararms1776]

WTF?

Please Sir, show us in the 2A where it says anything of the sort.

Who is mixing your Koolaid, Nancy Pelosi?

Show me where it says I need a permit to bear arms in the dwelling.

 

[beararms1776]

So glad you're not part of "Them"

I would never, in any way, shape or form as a citizen, infringe on the right of another legally armed citizen to protect themself. It isn't my job and I don't get paid to do it. Other citizens may participate in that liberty but I wouldn't.

 

[beararms1776]

The amount of stupid in these comments makes my brain hurt. Even when confronted with indisputable proof that you are incorrect, you choose to ignore the truth and defer to your own incorrect preconceived ideas. That is no different from what the antis do.


How about what esrice said above? Keep and bear arms means "to have and have arms"?

Have
Bear
Keep
Carry
Sometimes words can sound the same but have different meanings, sometimes they're spelled the same with different meanings but these are all words that sound different, spelled different and all 4 have different meanings.

 

[beararms1776]

I disagree. "Keep" means "to have". Why would they use 2 different words to mean the same thing? Bear means "to bring, convey, to hold up". A simple glance at a dictionary will tell you what bear means. It's not rocket science.

They don't. Two diff. words mean two diff. things. Keep means, not give up. Have would be, like posession.
Bear is, to hold, support, and rocket science is the study of rocketry.