The Supreme Court Ruling on the 2nd Amendment Did NOT Grant an Unlimited Right

[IndyDave1776]

I'm really shocked that people are shocked that members on here have that sort of view or stance regarding the 2nd. There have been quite a few that have come out saying (in the past) that they don't care to own semi auto rifles or military type rifles because they don't see the purpose. Same with semi auto handguns.

A clip I saw of Judge Napolitano made it pretty clear that he understood why the 2nd was in place and that it had nothing to do with sporting purposes unless you'd included the "hunting tyrants" thing.

I am with you. Given generations of public education and deliberate misinformation from most every source most people absorb, there is little justification for surprise. In my case it is more irritation. After a reasonably good explanation, it should be clear that the Constitution means exactly what it says.

For those who are surprised, I see some different elements coming together in most cases. Generally those people for whatever reason are disinterested in any weapons vaguely military and get defensive only of their Fudd guns while they are emotionally dependent on some form of 'This is American--that can't happen here' for their sense of security rather than seeing the contents of their safes as their due process when someone wants to get frisky with the secret indefinite detention portion of NDAA or else the SHTF (which, again, "can't happen here"). Take that in combination with not understanding the Constitution or how it has been distorted for nefarious purposes in the minds of most who are products of public education, and you have people who believe what they call rights to be de facto conditional privileges. At that point, we find ourselves starting from scratch as is the case with this thread.

 

[IndyDave1776]

That does not impact the Second Amendment in any way.

Are you familiar with the Bonus Army?

 

[ghuns]

It's the "kinda" part that doesn't really instill confidence

And who gets to judge?

I think forums can be self-reinforcing echo chambers. They skew our perception of reality

My perception is quite clear and different from many around here. It is simply this, I will not argue about what the 2nd Amendment does or doesn't mean anymore. We are all entitled to our opinions and most are unwilling to change theirs. The question to me is simple; do we have an inherent right to self defense? If so, any restrictions of arms and ammo, beyond those that are currently imposed on us are WRONG. The guns that are out there are out there. That means criminals WILL obtain them. Passing laws, like a new AWB, only serves to infringe on my right to defend myself and my family and does nothing to make you and your family safer.

 

[thatgtrguy]

Alright people. I'm one guy and there's a lot of arrows coming my way. Can you appoint a spokesperson or something? And if you make an argument; can you stick with that argument instead of changing tactics. Maybe save the new tactic for a new discussion?

Can you help a brother out a little? Just a little?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Once again. I'm not anti-guns. I own guns. I plan on buying more.

I think in the forum environment, it's probably more helpful if you tell me which part of the founding father's writings specifically pertain to this conversation than for me to try to guess.

here's an interesting writing

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:

"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;"

The spirit of this section is for the militia to be made available for the needs of the union. Not to rise up against the union as many here have suggested they are willing to do if an AWB is passed.

United States v. Timothy Emerson, Potowmack Institute, amicus curiae, Appendix I, Second Amendment, Gun Control

 

[Hoosier8]

The Supreme Court always tries to make a narrow judgement concerning the issue at hand. Heller was big because it incorporated the Second Amendment for the first time. What it did do is leave the door open for more court cases to define more limits based on the Constitution but harm has to be proven and a request to be reviewed by the Supreme Court has to be granted to get more defined.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think in the forum environment, it's probably more helpful if you tell me which part of the founding father's writings specifically pertain to this conversation than for me to try to guess.

Far from comprehensive, but a decent start:

What gives the Americans the right to carry a handgun

 

[Bunnykid68]

Alright people. I'm one guy and there's a lot of arrows coming my way. Can you appoint a spokesperson or something? And if you make an argument; can you stick with that argument instead of changing tactics. Maybe save the new tactic for a new discussion?

Can you help a brother out a little? Just a little?

Dave and I have given you 2 good links to start with.

 

[Cerberus]

But now we live in an era where we do trust our standing army. Can you go anywhere without seeing a "support our troops" bumper sticker or flag?

What a ridiculous line of thought. Cliche bumper stickers are just that. Half the population uses that statement every time they give our soldiers a disguised below the belt shot. The people of the country tend to praise our military personel when they are actively taking fire in their percieved behalf. When that is not the case they wish to have nothing to do with us. In my 20 years of service I saw both ends of that. Is that trust there? Somewhat, but only until the sacred trust is violated. And with the talk of some of our aclaimed generals lately, I'm not too sure when that trust will be put to the test.

 

[ghuns]

The spirit of this section is for the militia to be made available for the needs of the union.

OK, violation of my personal rule here not to debate 2A, but it just too easy...

and if that militia is called on by the Union and the people have been disarmed, are they supposed to use harsh language?

 

[Mango]

Once again. I'm not anti-guns. I own guns. I plan on buying more.

You aren't anti-*YOUR* guns, you seem to be anti-*MY* guns. That is where we differ.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Alright people. I'm one guy and there's a lot of arrows coming my way. Can you appoint a spokesperson or something? And if you make an argument; can you stick with that argument instead of changing tactics. Maybe save the new tactic for a new discussion?

Can you help a brother out a little? Just a little?

OK, from what you have said, I gather that you went through school being fed government propaganda, did a 4 year +/- hitch with the miltary being given a more specialized ration of government propaganda, and here you are with a very warped idea of liberty and the proper nature and role of government.

1. This is a republic, not a democracy. In other words, we have a very specific (albeit often ignored) binding contract between the government and the governed that was designed to allow the government to do only those things it is specifically authorized to do. This is limited government and under no circumstances should it be confused with its evil cousin democracy which is unlimited government--essentially tyranny by 51% vote. Significantly, under a constitutional republic you have not only limited government but also immutable rights honored by the government. Under a democracy, no rights are honored. You have what 51% say you have, subject to change.

2. The founders made it clear that their intent was for the balance of power to remain in the hands of the people. They were wise enough to understand that there is no such thing as benevolent government and that the two greatest threats were centralized banking and standing armies.

3. The Second Amendment is about the right to alter or abolish an unacceptable government as clearly described and has absolutely nothing to to with hunting, recreational shooting, or any other supposed 'sporting purpose' unless of course you consider hunting tyrants to be a 'sporting purpose'.

4. In the words of Franklin, those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither. You will also find that they have neither. If you don't believe me, go to a Constitution-free zone like Chicago, Detriot, or DC.

It may seem to you like we are switching up on you. This is because you are not looking at the big picture. The big picture is liberty, which is being severely abused. There are a hundred different ways to slice a melon, but when you finish, it is still melon. The same applies here. You have made some comments that indicate that you have a monumental amount of learning ahead of you. It would be a good starting point to quit arguing and start listening. If you want to learn, questions work a lot better than arguments especially when your argument betrays the fact that you don't have a clue about anything other than what the useful idiot mill told you to think. You need to set that aside. After doing so, you will be ready to learn.

 

[hammer24]

I think in the forum environment, it's probably more helpful if you tell me which part of the founding father's writings specifically pertain to this conversation than for me to try to guess.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -Benjamin Franklin


"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."-James Madison


"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country." -James Madison

"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty. " -Thomas Jefferson


"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson


Here are just a few that pretty clearly outline the thinking of the framers.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ THIS! ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

God said it, that's good enough for me. Good enough for the Fathers too, it would seem. μολὼν λαβέ!

I would point out that the Supreme Court does not grant anything. That is not its purpose nor is it delegated authority to do so. The right is granted by virtue of our existence, by our Creator as the authors of the Constitution addressed it. The Constitution merely acknowledges those rights and establishes that it is not permissible for the government to violate them.

 

[Liberty1911]

Great stuff here guys. I hope the OP takes it to heart and learns something. Usually it's just a waste of time, but he seems like one of the few who are capable of being educated.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Great stuff here guys. I hope the OP takes it to heart and learns something. Usually it's just a waste of time, but he seems like one of the few who are capable of being educated.

I hope he is not posting because he is reading some of the information that we gave him to read.

 

[thatgtrguy]

You aren't anti-*YOUR* guns, you seem to be anti-*MY* guns. That is where we differ.

Point taken. I'll have to chew on that.

Good points everyone. Gonna step back. Play with my 4 year old for a bit. And read up after he goes to bed.

Once again. I value your input and am learning a lot.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Point taken. I'll have to chew on that.

Good points everyone. Gonna step back. Play with my 4 year old for a bit. And read up after he goes to bed.

Once again. I value your input and am learning a lot.

We truly hope.

 

[nate1865]

Afghanistan vs. Soviet Russia
Al Quada vs. U.S.
Colonists vs. Great Britain

People grossly underestimate that power of a determined foe with the will to fight.

 

[TheWabbit]

1. We Wabbits don't like you all talking about us like this.

2. I knew this article would only talk about Heller. They want to ignore United States v. Miller (1939). ARs and AKs standard military rifles of our time and will be used by the Militia. The are specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment.

So basically you have faith that the military or government will never turn on the People. I guess US citizenship makes us magically different than the Turks, Soviets, Germans, Iranians, most of Africa, etc. Of the last 100 years.