Firearm & Gun Forum -

Firearm & Gun Forum - (
-   Legal and Activism (
-   -   Dangerous Dicta: What part of “shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand? (

KalashnikovJosh 09-12-2012 04:36 AM

Dangerous Dicta: What part of “shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand?
Found a very excellent article discussing the federal governments overreach in enacting "gun control".

Dangerous Dicta by Laurence M. Vance


"Most people misconstrue the nature of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment confers no positive right. Nothing in the Second Amendment grants any American the right to do anything. If the Amendment didn’t exist, Americans would still have the natural and moral right to keep and bear arms of any kind for any purpose. The Second Amendment only recognizes an existing right. If the federal government had any authority whatsoever to make any law regarding any weapon, then that authority would have to be spelled out in the Constitution in Article I, section 8. The Second Amendment is merely an additional limitation on federal power to infringe upon gun rights besides the fact that no authority is granted to the federal government in its limited, enumerated powers to infringe upon them in the first place. As part of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment was designed to protect the rights of Americans from infringement by the new and powerful central government under the Constitution."

robocop10mm 09-12-2012 02:22 PM

"Dangerous Dicta"? That is EXACTLY what the 2nd Amendment is. A LIMITATION or RESTRICTION on the Federal Government and an affirmation of a natural, God given, right. The 2nd Amendment does not "guarantee" the right to Keep and Bear Arms. It prevents the government from restricting the RKBA.

All other replies were deleted because this topic immediately turned in to a political discussion. This section is for LEGAL TOPICS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE 2ND AMENDMENT, not political diatribe

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:59 AM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.