Someone explain to me how our right to bear arms is NOT infringed?

What the world needs, most of all, is to claim their Natural Right and Kingly authority and thoroughly embrace the Golden Rule. Natural Law is not a belief or philosophy or idea it is nature and natural. Man has innate natural rights then man creates fictions known as contracts and constitutions to define the rules for fictions known as governments and fictions known as corporations and business and fictional activities between people. But man can not create "Rights" and man's creations such as government can not create "Rights" nor impose restrictions in contradiction to the Natural, "God" given inalienable rights. Man can use rationals to violate the Golden Rule but this is always 100% crime. Fraud i perpetrated by claiming "Government" can grant man rights that dictate to his natural freedom. The Fraud of appearing to "Grant a Right" is the same fraud as appearing to justify taking it away. It is always a criminal act.

Originally posted by ReelView
What the world needs, most of all, is to claim their Natural Right and Kingly authority and thoroughly embrace the Golden Rule. Natural Law is not a belief or philosophy or idea it is nature and natural. Man has innate natural rights then man creates fictions known as contracts and constitutions to define the rules for fictions known as governments and fictions known as corporations and business and fictional activities between people. But man can not create "Rights" and man's creations such as government can not create "Rights" nor impose restrictions in contradiction to the Natural, "God" given inalienable rights. Man can use rationals to violate the Golden Rule but this is always 100% crime. Fraud i perpetrated by claiming "Government" can grant man rights that dictate to his natural freedom. The Fraud of appearing to "Grant a Right" is the same fraud as appearing to justify taking it away. It is always a criminal act.

Well... please define this natural right you speak of more exactly. I think that natural law, law before governments were created, was simple - "might makes right". Unfortunately, that is not enough in modern times, so we need governments to restrict and regulate this natural right. The question is, how much can we restrict and regulate to not commit injustice.

I believe that gun ownership has to be restricted by some basic conditions, like having your gun registered and having clean crime record. Because I dont think having a gun is a basic right, a right everyone has. So you are right, it is a restriction.

This is analogous to government enforcing that you have a driver license before you are granted a right to drive a car. Do you consider this a criminal act?

reply to post by Maslo

Well... please define this natural right you speak of more exactly. I think that natural law, law before governments were created, was simple - "might makes right". Unfortunately, that is not enough in modern times, so we need governments to restrict and regulate this natural right. The question is, how much can we restrict and regulate to not commit injustice.

In order for a government to enforce these restrictions they must rely upon might, which you declare as a natural law that no longer applies in these modern times. Do you see the contradiction in that?

I believe that gun ownership has to be restricted by some basic conditions, like having your gun registered and having clean crime record. Because I dont think having a gun is a basic right, a right everyone has. So you are right, it is a restriction.

That belief is precisely why The Bill of Rights were written, to make clear, in no uncertain terms, that regardless of what you believe, the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.

This is analogous to government enforcing that you have a driver license before you are granted a right to drive a car. Do you consider this a criminal act?

I realize that you are asking this question of another poster, but I certainly think the licensing schemes for driving are criminal, and long before DMV's declared; "driving is a privilege, not a right", they were selling this licensing scheme as a reasonable way to regulate traffic, which is not a crime, to regulate traffic, but to insist that people have no right to drive and then use force to abrogate and derogate individual rights just to enforce that assertion is a crime.



[edit on 22-4-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Amen to that brother.

Now the licensing fee's have gone up $20 after 7 days, if you're late renewing them.
Drivers license fees that is.

THAT is ridiculous.

Let's face it, we have rights...
Rights for alot of things, and we don't need taxes or fee's imposed on them.
Once your rights have associated fee's and taxes with them...they're no longer rights.
Their not even privileges.

Funny, but the whole slave thing sounds mighty familiar now.

But I do understand why we have regulations, and I also understand why felons can't get guns.
Good reasons, too.
But lets face facts here.
If a person, felon or not, wants a gun, they can get one. Easily.

See my whole argument was to hear why someone thinks our rights are not infringed.
So far, I can't get a plausible answer. I get good thoughts...but,
I keep getting the same answers I constantly think about.

The way I see it, if you have a right, you need not pay for it.
I.E., license fees, permit fees, taxes and regulations.

You should pay for the item, but not the right.

Its all irrelevant. Sooner or later these people will get what they want.
Taxed to death.
(oh wait, we are already)





[edit on 22-4-2010 by havok]

reply to post by havok

The way I see it, if you have a right, you need not pay for it. I.E., license fees, permit fees, taxes and regulations.

You are not alone:

"The principle is invoked that one who accepts the benefit of a statute cannot be heard to question its constitutionality. Great Falls Manufacturing Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581 , 8 S.Ct. 631; Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407 , 37 S.Ct. 609; St. Louis, etc., Co., v. George C. Prendergast Const. Co., 260 U.S. 469 , 43 S.Ct. 178."

~Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288 (1936)~

“A right common in every citizen such as the right to own property or to engage in business of a character not requiring regulation CANNOT, however, be taxed as a special franchise by first prohibiting its exercise and then permitting its enjoyment upon the payment of a certain sum of money.”

~Stevens v. State, 2 Ark. 291; 35 Am. Dec. 72, Spring Val. Water Works v. Barber, 99 Cal. 36, 33 Pac. 735, 21 L.R.A. 416.Note 57 L.R.A. 416~

“The term ‘excise tax’ is synonymous with ‘privilege tax’, and the two have been used interchangeable.Foster & C. Co. v. Graham, 154 Tenn. 412, 285 S.W. 570, 47 ALR 971. Whether a tax is characterized in a statute imposing it, as a privilege tax or an excise tax is merely a choice of synonymous words, for an excise tax is a privilege tax.” .

~Bank of Commerce & T. Co. v. Senter, 149 Tenn. 569, 260 SW 144, American Airways v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880~

"An excise tax is...a duty levied upon licenses to pursue certain trades or deal in certain commodities and upon official privileges." [Black v. State, 113 Wis. 205, 89 NW 522.]

~Black v. State, 113 Wis. 205, 89 NW 522.~

“Legislature…cannot name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege [Taxation West Key 53]…The Right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person and realization and receipt of income, is therefore, not a privilege that can be taxes.”

~Jack Cole Co. v. MacFarland, 337 S.W. 2d 453, Tenn.~

Thanks for the great thread, brother!

reply to post by whatukno


But but but.....this is what I was getting at in my post here.

Between the two recent Supreme Court cases, the battle to establish the scope of the 2nd Amendment is starting to fall upon the 9th and 10th Amendments.

The 9th, being thought of in some circles as a blanket protection for citizens for their natural rights to never be infringed upon by the Federal Government and the 10th being that what ever is not enumerated in the Constitution is left to the States and the People to decide.

A few things come to mind...that the Feds have conveniently stepped over and now currently strong arm States into bending to their will:
Drinking Age Laws, Seat belt Laws, Education, or any other program were the States are beholden to the Federal coffers.

So to me the question remains; does one have the right to self preservation and protection? Does that right predate Government?

If you can answer that with a yes and convince the Supreme Court than the 2nd Amendment applies to all States as it is a natural right of the Citizen and thus protected under the HIGHLY disregarded 9th Amendment.