Gun Control & RKBA

cherokeeprogressive

(24,853 posts) Wed Jul 25, 2012, 08:33 PM Jul 2012

Here's what I think about the argument over the Second Amendment... [View all]

Nowhere in the Constitution or any of its Amendments is the right to bear arms conferred upon citizens of the United States. In fact, the Bill of Rights isn't even ABOUT conferring rights. It's about limiting what the federal government can and cannot do. Look at the wording... "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", "No soldier shall", "shall not be violated", and that's just the first four amendments. Nowhere in there do you read "the federal government, empowered by the states, does confer the right to "X" upon the Citizens of the United States".

The Second Amendment merely states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon by the federal government. This says to me that the right was considered to have already existed when the amendment was written.

You can argue about the meaning of "well-regulated militia" all you want. I think it's moot. Since you cannot find a place where the right to keep and bear arms is conferred upon the people, I believe it's inherent.

Now, back to your argument.

77 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Here's what I think about the argument over the Second Amendment... [View all] cherokeeprogressive Jul 2012 OP

cherokeeprogressive and I often disagree, but not about this point slackmaster Jul 2012 #1

I've actually tried to get the point across about the Bill of Rights before. cherokeeprogressive Jul 2012 #7

And exactly... Fredjust Jul 2012 #12

Human Rights Watch puts it this way gejohnston Jul 2012 #13

The Cuban constitution enumerates all rights that Cuban citizens have slackmaster Jul 2012 #14

I agree with you 100% Missycim Jul 2012 #22

Inherent for the puritan slave owners maybe. We should have evolved. Hoyt Jul 2012 #2

They weren't Puritans gejohnston Jul 2012 #4

They were pretty stern and callous folks who didn't question slavery, prohibiting women from voting, Hoyt Jul 2012 #6

Thomas Paine opposed slavery, as did Benjamin Franklin. n/t TPaine7 Jul 2012 #9

John Adams was also very much opposed to slavery, as you can see here: friendly_iconoclast Jul 2012 #20

Benjamin had slaves. There weren't many of FF who did not have slaves. Few fought it at time. Hoyt Jul 2012 #29

Yes, He was born into surroundings of profound racism, but he rose above them TPaine7 Jul 2012 #36

I read about a Klansman who called himself a "civil rights activist". He claimed he had changed too. Hoyt Jul 2012 #37

Guns are not inherently racist. They existed before white people were in what is now the US, TPaine7 Jul 2012 #39

Evolution occurs over millions of years, not hundreds. HALO141 Jul 2012 #11

Sure thing, we'll just wait a million years for you guys to realize guns aren't the answer to much. Hoyt Jul 2012 #30

OK, is that a promise? HALO141 Jul 2012 #38

actually women did vote gejohnston Jul 2012 #15

They did question slavery 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #25

Yea, they questioned whether to count them as a whole person. You guys can't be serious. Hoyt Jul 2012 #28

Don't tell me this is yet another area where you revel in your own ignorance? 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #31

What was the outcome of all those "fierce debates" and when did slavery end? How about racism? Hoyt Jul 2012 #32

Interesting. So the fact that there was a certain outcome 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #33

No, you guys treat guns "like people," even like relatives. Hoyt Jul 2012 #34

I do send mine a birthday card every year 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #35

The only reason that slavery was included in the constitution tortoise1956 Jul 2012 #42

The Constitution, essentially endorsed slavery. Heck, most of the founders "owned" humans. Hoyt Jul 2012 #44

What does slavery have to do with the RKBA? discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2012 #50

Just a historical note: Glaug-Eldare Jul 2012 #43

I've heard that from the right wingers in southern states. They sound proud of it. Hoyt Jul 2012 #45

I'm fairly certain Jenoch Aug 2012 #77

Nope. Washington wasn't an atheist. GreenStormCloud Jul 2012 #23

Let's take your logic seriously and apply it consistently, exactly as if it made sense. TPaine7 Jul 2012 #8

You know your rights are safe. Hopefully your guns will be restricted, and pethaps Hoyt Jul 2012 #10

No I do not. TPaine7 Jul 2012 #17

What ever your gun rights really are, Hoyt Jul 2012 #18

That's probably the most reasonable post I've ever seen from you. But it's wrong... cherokeeprogressive Jul 2012 #19

there is no evidence that the government will take away your rights samsingh Jul 2012 #66

1930's Germany .gov was democratically elected. nt rDigital Jul 2012 #74

give me an fing break. alot of things happened at that time to get wwII GOING samsingh Jul 2012 #75

more complex than that gejohnston Jul 2012 #76

Out of curiosity are you at all concerned about the rights we have lost and are losing ... spin Jul 2012 #21

Guns at home only worry burglars and home invaders, not armed robbers. GreenStormCloud Jul 2012 #24

That explains a lot. alabama_for_obama Jul 2012 #48

Or he's working to ensure safe and convenient working conditions for his colleagues. n/t NewMoonTherian Jul 2012 #58

Rights are never safe 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #26

Now the government is constrained from abridging this right of any sane non-felon citizen. lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #40

It's not that they approved of slavery Reasonable_Argument Jul 2012 #41

Buuuh... buuuh... but... -..__... Jul 2012 #3

Exactly. n/t TPaine7 Jul 2012 #5

Here's some support for that interpretation, and good onya for seeing it! X_Digger Jul 2012 #16

So clearly in stating that the purpose is "a well-regulated militia" ellisonz Jul 2012 #62

How is it that a 'declaratory and restrictive clause' against the government limits 'the people'? X_Digger Jul 2012 #63

These are not stand-alone commandments, these are amendments to the Constitution. ellisonz Jul 2012 #67

How is a limit on the government (the bill of rights) a limit on 'the people'? X_Digger Jul 2012 #69

I agree with your assessment 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #27

But the arms they had were muskets and cannon dickthegrouch Jul 2012 #46

Full of sound and stupidity, signifying nothing... cherokeeprogressive Jul 2012 #47

When one finger points out, three fingers point back dickthegrouch Jul 2012 #52

if you are in the middle gejohnston Jul 2012 #54

So you're standing by your implication that anyone carrying a gun is a combatant and therefore cherokeeprogressive Jul 2012 #55

Re-read what I wrote dickthegrouch Jul 2012 #56

NO matter how broad the brush is that you paint with, it always misses some spots... cherokeeprogressive Jul 2012 #57

100,000 gun injuries a year is acceptable to you???? dickthegrouch Jul 2012 #64

Link? ErikO Jul 2012 #68

Wikipedia dickthegrouch Jul 2012 #72

"That is the current consequence of waiting until some idiot shoots someone before jailing them." cherokeeprogressive Jul 2012 #70

It's not pre-emptive at all dickthegrouch Jul 2012 #71

Err.. Yes, they had multiple round magazines, even then.. X_Digger Jul 2012 #49

They didn't have radio, TV, or the internet either. Angleae Jul 2012 #51

Speech is a whole lot different from murder /nt dickthegrouch Jul 2012 #53

Only because you like the 1st amendment. xxenderwigginxx Jul 2012 #60

there are plenty of people injured every day... alabama_for_obama Jul 2012 #61

but the presses they had were hand operated and used ink! alabama_for_obama Jul 2012 #65

WELL SAID xxenderwigginxx Jul 2012 #59

That is a right-wing argument that ignores the 14th amendment. eallen Jul 2012 #73