GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Rating: 4 votes, 4.50 average.

The Second Amendment does not give you the right to own a gun

Posted 12-19-2012 at 16:57 by Razorsharp

We often hear people say, “The First Amendment gives me the right to say…” or “The Second Amendment gives me the right to have…”

Both statements are contradictory to the purpose of the Bill of Rights and the founding principles of America.

America was founded under the principle that we, as citizens, were endowed with certain rights, unlike in other countries, where rights are dispensations from the government. It’s what makes America unique.

Outside the realm of jurisprudence, The Bill of Rights does not confer any rights to the individual, nor does it empower the Federal Government any degree of oversight. Quite the contrary, each of the Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights is a stricture against the Federal Government, binding and limiting its power.

The Second Amendment states:

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.

Many who oppose the ownership of firearms by private citizens make the claim that citizens are only permitted firearms when in service of the Militia. That’s a bass-ackwards reading of the Amendment. When the Amendment is properly read, it is obvious that it is the Militia that is dependent on the people’s right, rather than the people’s right being dependent on the Militia. Furthermore, from the words of the Amendment itself, it is also obvious that the right of the people to bear arms preceded any militia involvement and even the Constitution itself.

Those who favor stricter gun-control legislation, point to the phrase, "A well regulated militia..." as license for the Federal Government to intervene and "regulate" the private ownership of firearms. This is a deliberate misreading perpetrated by those wishing to advance their agenda. The word "regulate", in respect to the Second Amendment, is more closely akin to "trained, equipped and disciplined", as affirmed in David McCullough’s historical novel, “1776”.

The day's orders form Sullivan deplored the disorter and unsoldierly behavior displayed in the camps in the eve of battle. Yet soldiers were here, there, and everyswhere, strollin about as if on holiday, some of them miles from the lines. "Carts and horses driving every way among the amry, " wrote Philip Fithian. "Men marching out and coming in... Small arms and field pieces continually firing. All in tumult."

The contrast between such disorder and flagrant disregard for authority and the perfectly orchestrated landing By Howe's troops could not have been more pronounced.

Arriving at Brooklyn, Washington was outraged by what he saw, and in a letter written later in the day, he lectured Old Put (Gen. Israel Putnam) as he might the greenest lieutenant. All "irregularities" must cease at once. "The distinction between a well regulated army and a mob is the good order and discipline of the first, and the licentious and disorderly behavior of the latter."
(Simon & Schuster; page 161)

Furthermore, to use "regulate", as in to "control the limits of" would be contradictory to the phrase, "shall not be infringed" that resides within the same sentence.

And finally, the purpose of the "Bill of Rights", as intended by the framers of the Constitution, puts regulation of the private ownership of firearms out of the purview of the Federal Government.

No, the Second Amendment didn’t give you the right, you already had the right. And barring an amendment to the Constitution, you’ve still got it.

DARoberts
Posted in Uncategorized
Views 3749 Comments 4 Edit Tags Email Blog Entry
« Prev     Main     Next »
Total Comments 4

Comments

  1. Old Comment
    Thanks for pointing out to us that the correct interpretation is that we had the "right to bear arms" even before the second amendment was ratified. I have never had that pointed out to me before.
    Posted 12-26-2012 at 18:19 by 71Warhawk 71Warhawk is offline
  2. Old Comment
    Thank You, well put!
    Posted 12-26-2012 at 21:34 by squeeeze squeeeze is offline
  3. Old Comment
    Razorsharp's Avatar
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 71Warhawk View Comment
    Thanks for pointing out to us that the correct interpretation is that we had the "right to bear arms" even before the second amendment was ratified. I have never had that pointed out to me before.
    Spread the word.
    Posted 01-01-2013 at 09:24 by Razorsharp Razorsharp is offline
  4. Old Comment
    Concerning the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms, people today who don't understand history often misinterpret this amendment. it says in part " a well armed militia" Back in the day how did you establish a well armed force? Every citizen was expected to bring his own personal firearm and ammo. There were no armories or weapon stores to draw from. So if the citizen wasn't armed there would be no militia. Yes the 2nd amendment does means the citizen most certainly does have that right and was expected to have a firearm.
    Posted 01-09-2013 at 08:36 by rrgagneur rrgagneur is offline
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:45.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 843
245 Members
598 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31