sound constitutional reasoning

hso

Joined
Dec 16, 1998
Messages
1,066
Folks,

Over on the AR15 discussion forum I caught a marvelous explanation of the 2nd from a fellow with the handle of ZEN. Let me give it to you.

"I was once a knucklehead. (untill I got a few things through my thick scull)

If we are to argure and fight for our rights then we need to understand them. Does the constitution and second amendment "give" us the right to keep and bear arms?

Lets ask the question another way.

If the second were repealed does our right to keep and bear arms disapear?

The anti gun crowd would have us believe so. They would have you and others believe that "rights" are given from the government to the people.

And therfore that we only have the "rights" That "they" deem to "give" us. They would have us believe that the 12 supreme idiots can interpret our rights away.

THIS IS THE BIG LIE!!!!

The right to keep and bear arms was NOT given to us by the constitution or the second amendment. It was not given to us by the founders of this great country. (and therfore, by the government)

It existed long before.

The right to keep and bear is a natural or "god given" right. You were born with it. It is a human right as basic as the right to breath, to speak our minds, to defend ourselves, to worship what religion we choose, to not have our homes broken into by police, to be secure in our papers, and just generally to not be molested by government.

You were born with these rights. Your father was born with them. Your fathers father was born with them. And so on in and unbroken chain back to the dawn of time.

These rights belong to you.

They do not belong to the government. And therefore they are not the governments property to "give" or to take away. They are YOUR property!!!

Yours to keep.

Our founders knew this. They knew the right to bear arms was a human right that they did not create nor had the right to give. They knew these rights allready existed when they created the federal gov't with the constitution.

Their intent in the second amendment was to restrict the government from ever even "infringeing" apon a right that "we the people" own. (and traitors have gone far beyond that. Breaking the highest law of the land and making themselves subject to death for treason)

Remember: If the government gave or granted us this right, Then they can just as easily take them away with the stroke of a pen.

That is what they want you to believe

Free men know, that individual rights, belong to the people. They are forever. Inalienable and inalterable.

Communists and faciasts believe the only rights that YOU have are the ones the government gives you. And that they can be changed or taken away with the winds of social fasion.

And that's what the anti-gun crowd would have you believe. That the constitution gave us these rights and that the supreme court can interpret them away etc.

These "rights" existed long before they were mentioned in the constitution. They existed long before we became a country. They have existed for thousands, maybe millions of years. Before any government existed. (and even before the idea of governments existed)

They exist in the breast of every free man. All of you know that feeling.

The government and the antis have co-opted the idea of our rights. They want people to believe that we only have the rights that they or their law say we do. Nonsense I say. (they want you to believe that they can pass a law and our right disapears) (CRAP!!!)

They do not own these rights.

We do!

They are ours to keep. (and allways have been)

Yes, they can pass laws against our rights.

They can jail us for practicing them.

They can torture us and even kill us for them.

But they cannot take our rights away!
They are still ours. That is the nature of a right. Just because some bureaucrat or 12 supreme idiots or some hick from Arkansas says we don't have the right does not make it so.

This fundimental right has existed long before them, and it will exist after they are gone.

Did the jews in Germany have right to keep and bear arms? According to German law, they did not.

I say they did.

I have that right. Regardless of what "laws" are passed by those power hungery scum in our capitol.

And I will kill and die to protect my rights. (and yours)

So the next time some anti-gun fool tells you "the second amemdment of the constitution doesn't give you the right to own a gun" You tell that fool that he is right. And that, that "right" was not governments to hand out. Nor, to take either. And that it is a basic human right that is recognized by the constitution and protected by the second amendment. And no matter what anyone says, you will never relinquish it willingly.

Death to tyrannts.


Zen"

I haven't seen a better explanation of the 2nd ammendment to the constitution anywhere else.

Take care,

Mike

------------------
TANSTAAFL




[This message has been edited by hso (edited 07 November 1999).]
 
I'm sorry, but while I agree with the conclusion, this isn't much reasoning at all; however moving you might find them, these are mostly unsubstantiated declarations.

A good <EM>internal</EM> case for taking the rights in the Bill of Rights to be acknowledgements (rather than grants) could be found by proceeding to the end, where it talks about unenumerated rights.

For a more <EM>external</EM> case, one would read the rightings [Oh geez, what a typo!
smile.gif
] of the founders, especially of Madison.

Ultimately, a <EM>solid</EM> case for the independent existence of a right to keep and bear arms would have to be based on a case for the existence of natural law.

------------------
It's always Dark. Light only hides the Darkness.



[This message has been edited by Athanatos (edited 07 November 1999).]
 
Good points all, but you've given the base assumption that allmost all of the founders used, that natural law existed and there lay the basis of their philosophy and the foundation for their form of government.

Take care,

Mike Crenshaw

------------------
TANSTAAFL


 
Yes, the founders indeed <EM>did</EM> believe in natural law, and to establish that they did, one looks at the reference to unenumerated rights and to the other writings [
smile.gif
] of the founders.

But, ultimately, advocates of weapons control are going to argue that the founders were incorrect in believing that natural law stood in the way of weapons control. In the absence of a proof for the existence of natural law (which, BTW, is no more or less than a proof for the objective existence of morality) and of a proof that natural law gives us the right to keep and bear arms, they'll always have a good chance of getting that amendment formally or informally repealed. (It is informally repealed when the courts choose to ignore it or to interpret it as meaning other than what it says.)
 
It's better than that.

If your dog bites somebody, that is legally considered "lethal force". If you *order* your dog to attack somebody you can and will be charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

Yet if your dog is seen to be attacked by a particularly stupid human and it bites back in defense, the dog will suffer no harm and will be held blameless, except they *might* put it under rabies quarantein if you haven't kept up it's shots.

The obvious conclusion is that a DOG is allowed to use potentially lethal force in it's own self defense, without being labeled a "bad dog" for doing so.

In California and other states, we have less self defense rights than a dog.

Jim
 
If your dog kills other people it will probably be destroyed, self defense or otherwise.
 
johno wrote:<BLOCKQUOTE>If your dog kills other people it will probably be destroyed, self defense or otherwise.</BLOCKQUOTE>Nah, I buried that body where <EM>no</EM>body's ever gonna find it. Of course, from now on, I'm keeping the guns locked up where the dog can't get at them again. <EM>Bad dog!!</EM>
 
Back
Top