Shouldn't the second amendment be our carry permit

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by cswann1, Aug 31, 2012.

  1. cswann1

    cswann1 New Member

    179
    0
    0
    I was watching an interview with Ted Nugent the other day and he said something that made a fair bit of sense.

    He said: "The second amendment is my concealed carry permit". That got me to thinking. The second amendment tells me that I have the right to bear arms to defend myself. I'll just leave it right there and not go into what I need to defend myself from. Point is: 1) I really don't think I should have to have a constitutional amendment to tell me what I already know, but if it gives government a sense of self-worth to have it in writing, that's OK. And 2) I don't think the second amendment meant that this right only applies while in my own home or on my own land.

    Why do I have to have a state issued permit for something that is confirmed (not given) by the constitution?
     
  2. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    I think that is how it should be, but it is a loooong road to there from here.
     

  3. ineverFTF

    ineverFTF New Member

    1,903
    0
    0
    I agree, to a certain extent. What you are suggesting is that any american wether he is a criminal, a drunk, a drugee, crazy, or just plain stupid could walk into a gun shop, purchase a gun, stick it in his belt and be on his way. We need laws yes, to keep the idiots from carry around a gun. Should the laws be as strict as they are? Hell no. But without those laws a lot of weapons that are being carried legally would do more harm than good.
     
  4. SSGN_Doc

    SSGN_Doc Well-Known Member

    6,921
    42
    48
    The 2nd amendment wasn't written to tell us (the people) what we should already know. It was written to tell the government that the right is guaranteed to the people and no right with it's regard is guaranteed to the federal government. The Bill of Rights does not "grant" rights from the government it is suposed to inform the government of gthe areas that it has no governance over. "The people" unfortunately can vote to restrict their own rights and grant more power to the government. Once that is done, it is hard to get it back.

    If the people of a state within the union have decided to further regulate things then it is the state's right guaranteed in the 10th amendment, to do so. This is why there is no federal carry permit. So, New Yorkers and Californians can feel safer with the gun laws they have until they realize that criminals already have a knack for disobedience of the law. Teh 10th amendment that guarantees that those areas of government not granted to the Federal government shall be left to the states, lost a lot of traction with the civil war after Lincoln put Federal troops on a states land to force the hand of the commonwealth of Virginia. Then proceeded to make constitutional violations. Since the Union won, the power of the central government over the states has increased, and the teeth of the states to exert their own powers have been dulled.

    Vampire hunter or not, Lincoln was not the greatest republican president we ever had. He had a tough position to hold. He had to try to keep a nation together against a divisive topic of the day. Slavery was a horrible and immoral institution. It's days were numbered even in the south. Unfortunately not on a short enough political timeline, and the constitution took some hits. Any time that happens it is hard to recover.
     
  5. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Yeah, that.

    2A is an acknowledgment - an understanding - by and of the government that individuals, as the true force in this nation, have a right to own and carry weapons if they so choose.

    The reality is that since Lincoln, government has overtly said it does NOT acknowledge or understand our right and has worked piecemeal to restrict it. Our job is to restore that understanding peacefully, if the government will let us.
     
  6. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    It is not the fault or responsibility of the 2nd Amendment to limit access to firearms, only to keep the Feds from restricting it. I see no reason for a criminal who has not committed a violent or gun-related offense to be restricted from owning a firearm.

    Let's punish violent acts FULLY and not try to limit non-offenders to safety scissors.
     
  7. ineverFTF

    ineverFTF New Member

    1,903
    0
    0
    Alright im with ya on that one.
     
  8. ineverFTF

    ineverFTF New Member

    1,903
    0
    0
    I still luuuuuuuuuuv bears though :D
     
  9. The_Kid

    The_Kid New Member

    564
    0
    0
    Yes, that is a present day reality.

    For instance, all adults can purchase a Pieta replica of a Remington, 1858 New Model Army 44. Because it is considered "Arms" as written in The Second Amendment.
    I can walk in with no ID and walk out with it, no questions asked.

    The Second Amendment protects the citizens right to "Arms" not "firearms;" it was people that were hand wringing about, "do[ing] more harm than good" that spurred this statement from Benjamin Franklin.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2012
  10. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    It's all good, most people thought i was weird when i had a free-range 6' burmese python roaming my apartment.
     
  11. ineverFTF

    ineverFTF New Member

    1,903
    0
    0
    Sounds like a good pet, and he feeds himself, and you have no pests running around.
     
  12. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    1,156
    0
    0
    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.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2012
  13. triggerjob

    triggerjob New Member

    258
    0
    0
    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.
     
  14. Cattledog

    Cattledog New Member

    1,462
    0
    0
    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.
     
  15. triggerjob

    triggerjob New Member

    258
    0
    0
    Cattle,
    Your argument ignores the constitution, which is the problem in our country.
     
  16. Cattledog

    Cattledog New Member

    1,462
    0
    0

    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
     
  17. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    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.
     
  18. Chainfire

    Chainfire Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,235
    280
    83
    The truth is, by our constitution, only the Supreme Court can define exactly what the constitution means. Who wants to be the test case?
     
  19. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    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.
     
  20. Coyotenator

    Coyotenator New Member

    143
    0
    0
    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.