Do you really support the Second Amendment?

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by opaww, Mar 29, 2010.

  1. opaww

    opaww New Member

    4,868
    0
    0
    When anyone says will I support the Second Amendment but…they are really saying that they do not in fact support the Second Amendment because the Second Amendment is unconditional not like the other rights.

    Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


    Here we have Amendment I, show me where it says that no one can restrict any of these rights? It plainly says “Congress shall not”, putting a restriction on a given federal government body “the Congress”. No restrictions on the state at all so we had to have a 14th Amendment to stop states from enacting laws denying the rights as recognized by our First Amendment.

    Contrary to popular opinion the right to yell fire in a crowded theater is not a federal law, restriction nor even a mandate. But comes from state laws not actually restricting the actual speech but rather placing consequences for the words you utter that may cause harm to body or reputation (slander) of persons. Even here we must still use due process of law before we can find someone guilty of an offence of free speech, or any of the listed rights in the First Amendment.


    AMENDMENT XIV
    Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

    Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

    Section 1.
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


    Amendment II

    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.


    The Second Amendment has no restrictions place on it, as does the First Amendment. It clearly states, “Shall not be infringed”, this alone is the most powerful statement in the whole of the Second Amendment. It does not say shall not be infringed “except”, it does not say shall not be infringed by Congress, nor just the brady bunch. It says “shall not be infringed” clearly restricting any infringement by anyone, except through due process of law.

    The Second Amendment needs no protection of the 14th Amendment because it is automatically incorporated to any and all governing bodies. The Bill of Rights was created to restrict government from violating the listed rights and this included all forms of government in the USA unless specified other wise as is in the First Amendment.

    Due process of law was always held to mean until sentence was served in full then all rights were restored fully. In the middle of the 20th century we seen the advent of new meanings calling some violations of law to be felony’s and the restrictions of life time punishment for the felony’s to continue well after the time was served.

    Today we see some rights restored by the courts except the Second Amendment. Very few have ever had their Second Amendment rights restored even after a court ruled in their favor. The BATFU still holds the right to deny you the Second Amendment rights regardless if a court rules to give it back to you.

    It was never once a felon always a felon, until the middle of the 20th century and the need of socialists to control the people of this country and for them to decide what rights you should have. Then we saw the corruption of the meaning and miss-interpretation of the wording of the rights so they could get people to believe it was all wrong for 200 years.

    Then we saw the adding of some laws as felons this continued until today where almost everything is a felony, or can be made into a felony for convenience. The rights everyone had is slowly being eroded to a point where most people just shrug their shoulders and say it does not effect me or there is nothing I can do about it. Removing a right is simple today sense most people will not band together and stop it.

    If you say, “I support the Second Amendment except,” you are leading more credence to the division of our power to stop further restrictions on rights. Once rights are gone it takes spilling of blood and/or dam near a miracle to get them back.

    opaww
     
  2. ThorsHammer

    ThorsHammer New Member

    704
    0
    0
    I am not a citizen, yet, still I support and work to uphold the constitution. People frequently ask me why I am a member of the NRA. "Why do you care, you're not a citizen." I usually look these @$shats straight in the eye and respond: "Well, you don't, so someone has to look out for your rights." And then I usually get a blanket "Why don't you move back to Sweden?" response to which I reply "Since you seem hell-bent on living in a socialist society that's your best bet. Want me to help you pack your bags?"
     

  3. amoroque

    amoroque New Member

    1,229
    0
    0
    Great piece there Opaww!

    I never thought about it that way before, but, you are 100% right. The 2nd amendment is the only one that was not meant to be changed or had any exceptions made to.
     
  4. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Natural or God-given rights exist; they are not granted. They are preconditions that cannot be changed -- look up the word "unalienable". It is something that cannot be changed.

    It is akin to:

    "Congress shall make no law causing the sun to rise in the west and set in the east."

    Even if Congress did make such a law, it wouldn't change the facts.

    When threatened, all living organisms will naturally defend their lives, the lives of those around them, and in the case of humans, they will also defend their wealth, property and most importantly their liberty.

    We do not need a bill of rights acknowledging our right to breathe, drink water, eat food, wear clothes and use shelter. Why? Because it's a given: we need these things to live. The same goes for being able to defend ourselves, but the Framers knew through past experience that would-be tyrants first disarm a populace, and 2A exists specifically to eliminate that threat.

    Anyone who is against 2A is either an idiot and ignorant of history or a would-be tyrant.
     
  5. user4

    user4 New Member

    3,414
    1
    0
    Okay, so we all agree that gun rights are inalienable. So, why is it such a pain in the ass to buy a gun? Why is it ANYONE's business?
     
  6. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Some laws exist as a deterrent -- such as requiring people to pay well over $150 (in my county) to get a permit to buy a handgun. Other laws exist to desensitize us to eventual future laws that make it even more difficult to buy a firearm (eg: filling out a 4473).

    The real question is this: Why have we tolerated this crap?
     
  7. opaww

    opaww New Member

    4,868
    0
    0
    What bkt said
     
  8. Puff

    Puff New Member

    42
    0
    0
    There is also in our Bill of Rights ( the first 10 amendments ) No.9.

    Article IX
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
    construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.




    One of the issues the sighners of The Declaration of Independence had with the King of England was that "He has affected to render the military
    independent of and superior to the civil power."

    Take a few minutes to reread the Declaration Of Independence and
    the issues our founding fathers had with the King - you will see
    several things in there that are happening today.
     
  9. M14sRock

    M14sRock New Member

    5,549
    0
    0
    Very well written, O. You rock.
     
  10. Cory2

    Cory2 New Member

    575
    0
    0
    So my question is this: How am I supposed to convience other people? I have only a small circle of friends and I post on this site. All of my friends believe whole heartedly in the secondamendment and everyone on this forum does too. How else can we reach out to the public? Talking to like minded people about what we both know isn't getting our cause anywhere.

    We can vote in novemember but you see what that got us last time. We need a way to reach out to a larger group of people i just dont know how. Maybe some of you older people who have more experience in politics (as i am only 21) can help me figure it out.
     
  11. Last Crow

    Last Crow New Member

    400
    0
    0
    Many of the problems come from the statement:
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
    The original intent was made clear by our founders.
    "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
    — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
    There is another quote I read many years in a Play Boy. I can’t remember who said it, but it was something like this. There is always going to be 1 or 2 percent of the people who should not have a gun but we can’t infringe the rights of the whole because of theses few.
    In my opinion ever gun control law in this country is unconstitutional.
     
  12. 2hot2handle

    2hot2handle New Member

    803
    0
    0
    Well said Thor.........we need more people like you in our country. Feel free to invite any friends you have in Sweden that feel the same way!
     
  13. buttski

    buttski New Member

    22
    0
    0
    infringing on our 2nd ammendment right

    How is congress able to pass any laws governing our right to bear arms?
    You may not like someone burning the american flag but it is their protected right, and that has held up in the supreme court many times!

    studies have shown ( in the case of crime ) that when cities take firearms away crime goes up, and anyone with any common sense can see, the only people that will give up there guns are the honest people...... you think the thugs are giving them up?

    by the way sweden kicks @$$
     
  14. skullcrusher

    skullcrusher New Member

    10,888
    1
    0
    Does the AWB mean anything to you? Congress can pass any law they want, i.e. Health Care. Until the laws are challenged in the SCOTUS, they are law.
     
  15. Yunus

    Yunus New Member

    5,250
    0
    0
    A question.

    Would you really want the 2A to all of a sudden be interpreted literally? Let's say the SCOTUS decides to do just that and in the Chicago case says, the government is not allowed any restrictions what so ever on firearms the constitution prohibits it and states can't infringe either.

    How long do you think it would take to get a new amendment brought up that allows the government to infringe on our rights when it comes to arms? Do you think that many representatives are going to stand up and support a literal interpretation of 2A? Members of this board might support it but do you think even 10% of the population would?
     
  16. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Minor correction: The SCOTUS doesn't challenge anything. They merely judge a case or a decision of a lower court. An individual or individuals or states challenge laws.
     
  17. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Yes.

    Quite some time.

    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States...

    There aren't enough pure-left states to pull off an amendment.

    No, of course not. I think that many representatives are going to moisten their finger, stand up, and hold their finger in the air to see which way the political wind is blowing. They are unprincipled assclowns who are concerned only about being re-elected, and precious few of them could get away with voting for an amendment that would nullify 2A.

    Firearm ownership in this country is higher now than it has been in a long time thanks to the perceived threat of new gun-control laws from this administration and congress. I think there is a majority of Americans, whether they are gun owners or not, who would support a literal interpretation of 2A.
     
  18. Yunus

    Yunus New Member

    5,250
    0
    0
    After the Brady campaign and other anti-gun organizations release the ads with first graders open carrying automatic weapons they can barely lift into school and Muslim looking men open carrying firearms onto airplanes and drunk people leaving a bar unable to walk straight but able to carry their automatic rifle, they won't need to be pure-left, every state will want some restrictions.
     
  19. tomgodd

    tomgodd Active Member

    1,236
    1
    36
    Great Topic!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  20. skullcrusher

    skullcrusher New Member

    10,888
    1
    0
    Thus the "challenged IN the SCOTUS". I did not say "challenged BY the SCOTUS". Once SCOTUS agrees to hear arguements regarding decisions in the lower courts, the challenge is made IN the SCOTUS. Otherwise they would not allow counsel to make present arguements in front of the SCOTUS. Semantics, I guess.