Repeal of the 2nd Amendment would not abolish any RIGHT

Those of us who have read the full text of our Declaration of Independence, Constitution & its Bill of Rights and other documents produced by our Founding Fathers already know where I'm going with this.

The Constitution does not "grant" any rights, it merely enumerates them and places additional controls against Government abuse/tyranny.

Our RKBA (and other rights) exist independently from the Constitution. This is why they're unalienable, god-given rights as opposed to rights granted by a government/group of men.

A little known fact about this resolution is that it contained a preamble declaring the purpose of the proposed amendments. Most modern editions of the Bill of Rights either do not contain the preamble or only include the last paragraph. The most important paragraph is the first one because it discloses the intent of the proposed amendments.

A review of this paragraph shows that the sole purpose of the proposed amendments was to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being proposed. The amendments, if adopted, would place additional restraints or limitations on the powers of the federal government to prevent that government from usurping its constitutional powers. Every clause of the Bill of Rights, without exception, is either a declaratory statement or a restrictive provision.

If the Bill of Rights had granted rights, then the word “granted” would have to appear each and every time a right was being established. A review of the Bill of Rights shows that the word “granted” does not appear in any Amendment.

In reality, the Bill of Rights placed additional or secondary restraints on the powers of the federal government concerning the rights of the people and powers reserved to the States. That is why the words “no,” “not” and “nor” appear throughout the Amendments instead of the word “granted.”

Since the Second Amendment did not create or grant any right concerning firearms, the right enumerated in the Amendment has to be an existing right separate from the Amendment. Thus, repealing the Second Amendment would not eliminate any right because the right enumerated in the Amendment was not created by the Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms exists independent of the Constitution or the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment did not create or grant any right to keep and bear arms. It placed an additional restraint on the powers of the federal government concerning the existing right to keep and bear arms. Thus, all a repeal could do, from a federal standpoint, is remove the secondary restraint imposed on federal power by the Amendment. And since many States have a right to keep and bear arms clause in their constitution, separate and apart from the Federal Constitution or the Second Amendment, the existence or non-existence of the Second Amendment would not affect the right because the federal government was not granted and does not have the general power to abolish a natural or individual right secured by a State Constitution.

SOURCE: tenthamendmentcenter.com...

Come and take it.

The Second Ammendment is the right that keeps all the other rights from being taken away at the government's whim. Take a look at what's happening in europe. People are being fined or arrested because they said mean things about Muslims. Free speech has been effectively abolished.

ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

a reply to: JBurns

Additionally, Lincoln-era's 14th Amendment holds that no State has the ability to deny rights to any Citizen

the Fourteenth Amendment made, through a doctrine known as incorporation, the Second Amendment applicable to the individual States. Since the Second Amendment did not create a right, then repeal of the Amendment could not abolish the right in the individual States through the Fourteenth Amendment.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

It is a despicable display of authoritarianism. Fortunately, we Americans are a cut above the rest in that we would never permit government to infringe on rights it did not grant.

As Lab4Us says: ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

If they got rid of the second amendment, we would be highly restricted. It stops the Federal government from taking away our guns. States and communities can still make rules governing their proper use and ownership guidelines.

Do not repeal that 2nd amendment, it would be the start of the end of our freedoms. The Thieves and gangs will always have guns, so will people who do not obey the laws, it is the honest citizen that loses their priviledges.

a reply to: rickymouse

I strongly support the second amendment. Its repeal would cause a certain civil war and set us back to the same level as third world countries/Chicago/Baltimore/DC/parts of CA/etc.

That being said, it does not grant us any rights. Our right to keep and bare arms exists independently of 2A. Our RKBA was not granted by government, and it has zero authority to take those rights away. And the 14th Amendment forces the States to respect this as well (in addition to millions of armed patriots)

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: JBurns

Additionally, Lincoln-era's 14th Amendment holds that no State has the ability to deny rights to any Citizen

the Fourteenth Amendment made, through a doctrine known as incorporation, the Second Amendment applicable to the individual States. Since the Second Amendment did not create a right, then repeal of the Amendment could not abolish the right in the individual States through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Then how is states like CA and NY able to dictate what weapons are legal and what are not? It seems as if that would be a constitutional issue already, and if it's a "God given right", then the state would have no say so in the matter, yet, here we are today.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: rickymouse

I strongly support the second amendment. Its repeal would cause a certain civil war and set us back to the same level as third world countries/Chicago/Baltimore/DC/parts of CA/etc.

That being said, it does not grant us any rights. Our right to keep and bare arms exists independently of 2A. Our RKBA was not granted by government, and it has zero authority to take those rights away. And the 14th Amendment forces the States to respect this as well (in addition to millions of armed patriots)

People voting to repeal the second amendment would set precedence. The government could use that to take away other rights we have with ownership using the fact that we voted to repeal it as precedence to change other laws. I may not agree with the NRA on everything, but I knew lawyers and judges over the years and they all mentioned precedence as being important.

Of course, I did not listen at the time thinking they were a little weird, but I have seen the result of these kind of things over the years and now am fully aware how allowing something good can lead to a loss of our rights. We voted to buckle up our kids, that vote was used to force us adults to buckle up.

a reply to: JBurns

O K .
If the Second Amendment does not grant us any rights and its repeal would not take away any rights, why would it matter if it were to just be left to remain a part of the U S Constitution ?

To me this would be like saying,"Well, my old car is running just great, so I think I will overhaul the engine, just to prove I can".

This makes about as much sense as tits on a bore hog. Have you never heard the old expression "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"?

And I, for one, think a lot of people sleep a little better at night just knowing the founding fathers wanted our country to succeed enough that they put in such "safe guards" whether they were needed or not.

Where has the Federal government ever shown restraint ?
Apparently they don't have enough inhibitions and limitations on them.

a reply to: tinymind

why would it matter if it were to just be left to remain a part of the U S Constitution ?

It doesn't matter. In fact, it only further secures our existing unalienable, god-given human rights. These rights exist separately from the Constitution, which as the Framers wrote, were only intended to make several of our specific rights clear to the Government, including forbidding government from infringing upon our other rights which aren't fully enumerated in the Constitution.

This is a pro-2A pro-gun OP I do not, in any way, support the repeal of 2A. I am only pointing out to anti-2A folks (who whine about our Second Amendment) that even if they were to repeal 2A, this wouldn't disparage our existing natural RKBA

But by all means, the Second Amendment is a bulwark against Tyranny. I don't dispute that. What I'm saying is that the Federal government is far out of line by assuming it has powers not specifically allocated to it in the Constitution. So whether we had a second amendment right or not, the government is not permitted by the Constitution to regulate or administer our firearms, therefore it has no authority to assume that power. The Second Amendment exists as a secondary level of protection from government

And for those who like to argue the Second Amendment has anything to do with slavery... the issue of slavery is not included in 2A or their alternative proposed amendment to the Constitution protecting the right to keep and bear arms.

"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

From the OP source:

If slavery had been the reason, they would have said so. Unlike today, they did not live in an era where they had to keep such opinions discreet.

Another attack on our Constitution has been debunked

a reply to: JBurns

It also would not abolish guns. Weed has been illegal for a long time however you can purchase it in a large majority of cities across the country, and if you can't find it where you are, a 30 minute drive in literally any direction you will be able to.

The same applies for a variety of substances and actually to weapons as well, one can purchase a revolver, an automatic or a semi automatic. One can do so legally and illegally and nothing would change if we changed the second amendment except a quick erosion of other rights.

Many states and cities in the south would simply declare them as sanctuary cities for those who owned weapons legally and nothing could be done so attempts to remove constitutional rights is not the way to go. I do believe that we can and eventually will enact some new legislation that will help, but also believe that enforcement and equal enforcement of laws already on the books is of paramount importance to the issue, not an erosion of rights we cooperate with.

a reply to: JBurns

It also would not abolish guns. Weed has been illegal for a long time however you can purchase it in a large majority of cities across the country, and if you can't find it where you are, a 30 minute drive in literally any direction you will be able to.

The same applies for a variety of substances and actually to weapons as well, one can purchase a revolver, an automatic or a semi automatic. One can do so legally and illegally and nothing would change if we changed the second amendment except a quick erosion of other rights.

Many states and cities in the south would simply declare them as sanctuary cities for those who owned weapons legally and nothing could be done so attempts to remove constitutional rights is not the way to go. I do believe that we can and eventually will enact some new legislation that will help, but also believe that enforcement and equal enforcement of laws already on the books is of paramount importance to the issue, not an erosion of rights we cooperate with.

How were those rights when Japanese Americans were thrown into internment camps?
You don't have rights, you have privileges that can be and have been revoked at a whim.

Genuine question though how does the Patriot act and the act hat followed (I forget it's name) jive with the constitution?

originally posted by: Taggart
How were those rights when Japanese Americans were thrown into internment camps?
You don't have rights, you have privileges that can be and have been revoked at a whim.

Genuine question though how does the Patriot act and the act hat followed (I forget it's name) jive with the constitution?

The original Patriot Act jived perfectly with the Constitution because it was aimed directly outside of the United States. The bastardizations of it that occurred after the initial Act was passed, especially the warped BS that spawned between 2006 and 2010, was utterly Unconstitutional because it redirected the Act's focus to be within the USA and with American citizens in the crosshairs. The changes in the TSA toward naked body scanners and warrantless body frisks, the NSA wiretapping domestically, data collection domestically... that's all very Unconstitutional and, to be honest, blood should have poured like a river in DC over it. The fact that not a drop was spilled leaves me fairly sure that this country has somehow lost sight of the values it was formed upon.

a reply to: JBurns

It's also worthy of note that it is the only amendment protecting a right that includes the phrase, "...shall not be infringed."

I believe that this doesn't get enough notoriety when discussing the 2A, and I think that it's been four words that have been overlooked far too often and for far too long.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Europe doesn't see rights as inalienable.

That is the key....our bill of rights enumerates inalienable rights which our government is not allowed to touch. Elsehwere in the constitution lies additional protections for said rights....but you know how politicians love to backflip through logical loopholes while manipulating the populace, so some of that additional protection is no longer as strong.

Civil rights, on the other hand, are not inalienable. Some should be, but they aren't.

a reply to: network dude

Because they've decided to subvert or ignore the Constitution. And somewhere along the line, they managed to find judges to go along with their convoluted thinking.

Our rights must be restored