Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Shouldn't the second amendment be our carry permit

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-31-2012, 10:16 PM   #11
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,904
Liked 401 Times on 284 Posts
Likes Given: 9

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by orangello

It's all good, most people thought i was weird when i had a free-range 6' burmese python roaming my apartment.
Sounds like a good pet, and he feeds himself, and you have no pests running around.
__________________
ineverFTF is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2012, 04:29 AM   #12
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

The Second Amendment,like all other articles in the ORIGINAL Bill of Rights,was intended to set limitations on the new government,as SSGN DOC explained above.

However,Doc,I see you and I'll raise ya one.

These rights are seen to be "natural rights",and they are based in the immutable truth that human beings are created with certain characteristics,such as the instinctive will of self defense and the intellect to have one's own opinion.

"The people have certain natural rights which are retained by them when they enter into Society, such are the rights of Conscience in matters of religion; of acquiring property and of pursuing happiness & Safety; of Speaking, writing and publishing their Sentiments with decency and freedom; of peaceably assembling to consult their common good, and of applying Government by petition or remonstrance for redress of grievances. Of these rights therefore they Shall not be deprived by the Government of the united states."
-Roger Sherman(Sherman was a Founder, Senator, and lawyer)


Some of the Founders believed these rights to have come from God:

"Rights come from GOD not the state. You have rights antecedent to any earthly governments rights that can not be repealed or restrained by human laws. Rights derived from the great legislator: God."
-John Adams

And they believed that these rights were unassailable by government,having come from a higher power then mankind and any form of society or governing body that mankind can create himself:

"The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power."
—Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, February 23, 1775



Of these rights,the right to self defense has been seen as part of instinctual human behavior and thus as an immutable truth,since antiquity:


"There exists a law, not written down anywhere, but in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice; not by instruction but by natural intuition: I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right."
-Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BC-43 BC) Roman Orator and Statesman at the trial of T. Annius Milo in 52 BC


These rights cannot be "taken",even by a majority of the populace using the power of government to try to do so.
The majority,being a construct of mankind like government, has no legitimate power to deprive anyone of these rights.
Even if the majority were to amend the Constitution against the 2A,the right of self defense,and the right to arms since we use them as a tool using species,is not void.It is just violated.

"There is no maxim in my opinion which is more liable to be misapplied, and which therefore needs elucidation than the current one that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong.... In fact it is only reestablishing under another name a more specious form, force as the measure of right...."
— James Madison, letter to James Monroe, October 5, 1786

They cannot be legitimately deprived for what some might call "just cause":

"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it."
-George Washington


They can only be rightfully violated -not taken- upon due process of law, in the case of an individual who has violated the rights of others, where the punishment is confinement so that one does not have the ability to act upon their rights, or death; which removes the individual from the issue altogether.



The Second Amendment itself directs the government,ALL government,I might add,as the states are signatories to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights,that it may not infringe on th right of the people to keep and bear arms.




The popular colloquialism "the Second Amendment is my carry permit" is both appropriate and inappropriate in different ways.

First of all it is appropriate in asserting that the Second Amendment does in fact guarantee the right of the people to bear (carry) arms.

It is inappropriate in that it defines the 2A as a "permit",which it is not.

As you said,its a restriction on government power.

But as it is a colloquial statement made in light of the current status quo of a privilege granted by permit (permission) of government to bear arms in todays Amerika,its entirely righteous.

But fair warning- if you try to act on this inalienable right without first seeking permission,you will find very quickly on which side of the spectrum our current government resides consisting of, on the one hand, a government that abides by the natural rights of citizens, and on the other, a government that violates them at will.

Brave men standing on principle will choose to disobey illegitimate "laws",but they will need their bravery to do so.





PS-

Abraham Lincoln was a statist,big government pig that was closer to a modern day grand poobah of the KKK then any "great emancipator".

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”
-Abraham Lincoln
Source:Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858
(The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.)


The fact that this government has chosen to erect a palace for his worship in DC shows in truth and without doubt its inclinations for total centralized power.

The fact that millions of people are "educated" into believing him to be some "benevolent emancipator" rather then the racist tyrant that levied war on the states PROVES that pooblik skewel is nothing less then an indoctrination center.

He bent the states into obedience by use of arms,and in so doing warped the consensual nature of the contract that formed this union beyond anything the word "consensual" can be used- and as the federal government had asserted force to dominate the states and deprive them of sovereignty in the 1800's,it used force to dominate the individual and deprive them of liberty in the 1900's,and is still doing so to both today.

So of course,the big government types LOVE Lincoln.

The federal government simply wouldn't be the giant,bloated and bastardized illegitimacy it is today without him.

__________________
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
-Mahatma Gandhi

http://jpfo.org/
III%

Last edited by KalashnikovJosh; 09-03-2012 at 04:39 AM.
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2012, 05:04 AM   #13
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 258
Liked 23 Times on 19 Posts

Default

Yes, it is.

But since our gov doesn't give a rats azz in a cats mouth about the Constitution it doesn't really matter.

__________________
triggerjob is offline  
KalashnikovJosh Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2012, 05:35 AM   #14
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Cattledog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Portland,OR
Posts: 1,459
Liked 588 Times on 378 Posts
Likes Given: 535

Default

Theres some real common sense to why 2nd amendment rights do and should stop at your property line. Its because there are people outside your world (home) that couldnt give a rats ass about your rights to gun down an intruder. They just dont want bullets flying through their windows. There's nothing wrong with vetting those that are carrying in public. This is after all, America and the right of security is only valid if it does not infringe on the security of others.

However, the CCW permit requirements state to state are so ridiculously similar that there should be national recognition. Pick a test and be done with it. Those states that dont allow CCW...f**k it. States rights are paramount. They can be part of the "control group" in the experiment. We already know how thats going.

__________________
Join the NRA Here!


"You can have it fast, cheap and accurate...pick any two."~Me

"Educate and Inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them." ~Thomas Jefferson
Cattledog is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2012, 06:28 AM   #15
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 258
Liked 23 Times on 19 Posts

Default

Cattle,
Your argument ignores the constitution, which is the problem in our country.

__________________
triggerjob is offline  
KalashnikovJosh Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2012, 06:45 AM   #16
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Cattledog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Portland,OR
Posts: 1,459
Liked 588 Times on 378 Posts
Likes Given: 535

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by triggerjob View Post
Cattle,
Your argument ignores the constitution, which is the problem in our country.

Thats a blanket statement. Please dont do that. Elaborate if you have a point to make. The states rights are the backbone of the constitution. So long as there is no public record, CCW permitting is constitutional because the security of the general public in any given state is and always will be considered. There are flaws in the system yes, but the right to defend ones self has to be checked when society can be put at risk. Its the difference between anarchy and democracy
__________________
Join the NRA Here!


"You can have it fast, cheap and accurate...pick any two."~Me

"Educate and Inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them." ~Thomas Jefferson
Cattledog is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2012, 12:42 PM   #17
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1304 Times on 663 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

You all make good points about innate human rights, that 2A recognizes our right to protect ourselves, our family, our property and our liberty.

But reality is what it is, and 2A has been eroded over time using words like "need" and "reasonable" and the people either ignored the infringement or agreed with the government.

Today, there are a few people who will refuse to obey any further gun-control laws that might get passed. I'm one of them. You're only as free as you choose to be. Hopefully, most folks here would not tolerate any more limits on our rights acknowledged in 2A.

__________________
bkt is offline  
opaww Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2012, 02:44 PM   #18
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Chainfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,211
Liked 1063 Times on 687 Posts
Likes Given: 266

Default

The truth is, by our constitution, only the Supreme Court can define exactly what the constitution means. Who wants to be the test case?

__________________

"It is better to be too skeptical then too credulous"

Carl Sagan

Chainfire is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2012, 02:52 PM   #19
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1304 Times on 663 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainfire View Post
The truth is, by our constitution, only the Supreme Court can define exactly what the constitution means. Who wants to be the test case?
No, actually the Supreme Court conferred that honor to itself in Marbury v. Madison way back when. The Constitution acknowledges the SCOTUS does have the power to declare something constitutional or unconstitutional, but not that it is the sole arbiter of such judgments.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2012, 03:38 PM   #20
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Coyotenator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Southern Spokane County,Washington
Posts: 129
Liked 47 Times on 31 Posts
Likes Given: 72

Default

Several years ago in a fit of disgust I sent the Webster's dictionary definition of the word "Infringe" to all of the Supreme Court Justices.In the E-Mail, I said that apparently there was a gap in their education and that I hoped this would help them fill it in.
No ambiguity and no shades of grey, infringed means infringed.

__________________
Coyotenator is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Concealed Carry permit Rhodesian Legal and Activism 4 06-30-2011 09:42 AM
Concealed Carry Permit Bigjo23 Glock Forum 7 10-25-2010 07:42 PM
can i get a pa carry permit? surfgod247 Politics, Religion and Controversy 1 04-18-2009 04:30 AM
Carry permit rlmcat The Club House 8 09-03-2007 11:53 PM