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

Very fun read and great replies coming for all sides. Lets start digging deeper and begin analyzing the 2nd Amendment.

Does the 2nd Amendment only prohibit the Federal Government from infringement? Whereas, does the 2nd Amendment have authorities within individual States and/or localities?

It is in my belief, and that of the Supreme Court that our right to bear and keep arms is a right that preexists the Constitution. Therefore, being Common Law, its precedence takes priority over the State controlling a citizen on means of self protection and preservation.

The 2nd Amendment, as with all the amendments within the Bill of Rights were included to not guarantee our Rights as citizens, but rather limit the power of the Federal Government. The Bill of Rights reflect Rights that we as humans share and preexist Governmental law.

Looking for another angle...

Using the logic stated above, that the Bill of Rights is to protect common law and rights that are held by the People, the 9th Amendment also protects the individuals means of self protection and preservation.

Either way you look at it, the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental cornerstone within a Self Governing society. As that society has been slowly and forcefully shifted from Self Governance to Central Governance, a slow erosion of preexisting rights has occurred. The shift is designed to make more complacent citizens that look to the Government for answers and control rather than the Individual and your local communities.

With the recent Supreme Court ruling of District of Columbia et al. v. Heller and the more recent McDonald v. City of Chicago we are seeing that the Constitutionality, its area of responsibility and authority lies within the Individual to dictate that right, not the State, nor the Federal Government.

Common sense laws denying known criminals that have violated the most basic tenants of society from obtaining arms allow for the law abiding citizens from enjoying the protections laid forth in the Constitution; not the other way around as they are being put forth.

" Carrying your gun around isnt because it's practical like a few of your examples. Its stupid and dangerous and unfair to other people. It's your right in a lot of states and I respect that but I'm for gun control and don't want to be around them, ever.





THANK YOU !

I have printed your response and will offer it to my friend tomorrow.

I just had a fairly lengthy discussion with a professor over coffee this morning around this very issue. Mike claimed he was honestly interested in knowing why some are vehemently opposed to citizens being armed. I told him not to waste his time. After he espouses all the rational arguments for being armed , he will inevitably find the bottom line is "I don't like guns, I don't want them around me, and no one should have them with the exception of Police and the Military"

Keeping in mind we were both having Morning Coffee at Dazbog. Both of us were armed. For anyone interested, Mike had a $ 3000.00 Ed Brown custom 1911. I, being less financially endowed, had a Glock 19, Crimson Trace laser grip and a $700.00 Chris Reeve,Damascus Sebenza pocket knife.
For the record Mike is a tenured Prof & I am a Retired Commercial Pilot. I can assure you we are not ' stupid' or 'dangerous' ( unless threatened with severe bodily harm or death ) We both chose to accept the enormous responsibility associated with being armed and personally chose to shoulder the task of self defense vs shirking that duty and placing it on the head of a police officer. To the OP. YES! Infringement of said RIGHT is unfortunately alive and well in the eyes of politicians and the cowardly.

Next time you reference " POP GUN " you may want to take a gander at this.
www.youtube.com...



[edit on 20-4-2010 by dazbog]

Originally posted by tylermbell
reply to post by 23refugee

 

it wasn't written for modern times, they were saying that you have the right to have loyalty to you family name, you can bear the coat of arms.

guns were a given back then, you needed them for survival.

I can't stop laughing! Wow, that is signature material right there! Are you just trolling or what? Please don't speak of modern times as if there is no crime and there is no threat to liberty. I can see it now, "you need a license to breath, the revised constitution wasn't written for modern times".

Permits? I don't need no stinking PERMITS!

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.

I think the OP is confusing Regulation with Infringement.

Seeing as how you can still get the gun. Still own the gun, your right to keep and bear arms is not being infringed. But you are being "well regulated".

Originally posted by 23refugee
Show me, in context, where I advocated the overthrow of my government.

I never said you advocated overthrow of the government. I am talking about terroristic threats, the threat of the use of force as an intimidation tactic to influence government policy. You said and I quote yet again; "There purpose of an armed populace is to prevent tyrrany by the government ....This simple mechanism is what ensures that your vote counts." Couple that with your inflammatory accusations of government oppression by disarming citizens; "The first oppression that should be stopped is the disarming of the citizenry. This is a straw that will break the camels back." and your implication couldn't be more clear. An accusation I might add which you obviously cannot corroborate.

Now to be fair, I am sure that the federal investigators monitoring the chatter on this site are more than competent enough to tell the difference beween a harmless angry person speaking out of ignorance and a dangerous "person of interest" who may violently act out their delusions. But then there is the lone wolf factor.

Forgive my ignorance on this question, but it's quite odd to me as a Brit why Americans seem to want to carry guns everywhere? What purpose does being constantly able to kill your fellow citizens serve?

I view guns as tools, not inherently good or evil because they are not alive and are just objects. However comparing a gun to another tool, let's say a ruler, it's quite apparent to me why guns are regulated and rulers are not: It's far easier to kill a person with a gun than it is a ruler, in fact killing things is what guns are made for. Their only other designed uses are to injure something or practice killing and injuring things.

I, myself am a gun owner, (I know crazy to hear that in the UK lol.) I hunt, and I quite enjoy hunting, but I am not about to bring my rifle or my shotgun to a coffee shop because I see them as hunting tools, and there is a specific time and place where they have their use. My wife likes archery and bow hunting, and I have a couple of swords in my possession, but we are not going to bring those weapons with us on our daily lives either, we'd get laughed at horribly.

I honestly think that people should be laughed at for carrying weapons in inappropriate situations. I'd think someone carrying a six shooter in public wished they were a cowboy a little too much, and a pistol, I'd say they fancy themselves a mob boss or wanna-be badass.

We live in civilized times, and civilized nations, it may be the cultural divide, but I really do think it absurd to want to carry a gun with you everywhere.

reply to post by havok


I love the right to own a gun but I also see the need for some regulation.


Should someone be able to carry a gun into a court room? NO

Should we be able to own automatic weapons? NO

Should we be able to carry a gun into a packed stadium? NO

Should we be able to own a tank that fires? NO


I think you get the point we should be able to express our gun rights but within reason.

[edit on 21-4-2010 by 23refugee]

Originally posted by Lilitu

Originally posted by 23refugee
Show me, in context, where I advocated the overthrow of my government.

I never said you advocated overthrow of the government. I am talking about terroristic threats, the threat of the use of force as an intimidation tactic to influence government policy. You said and I quote yet again; "There purpose of an armed populace is to prevent tyrrany by the government ....This simple mechanism is what ensures that your vote counts." Couple that with your inflammatory accusations of government oppression by disarming citizens; "The first oppression that should be stopped is the disarming of the citizenry. This is a straw that will break the camels back." and your implication couldn't be more clear. An accusation I might add which you obviously cannot corroborate.

Now to be fair, I am sure that the federal investigators monitoring the chatter on this site are more than competent enough to tell the difference beween a harmless angry person speaking out of ignorance and a dangerous "person of interest" who may violently act out their delusions. But then there is the lone wolf factor.

The phrases you've quoted, yet again, are not in context. Context requires the entire passage to be viewed within the conversation taking place.
In my ignorance, I appear to be parroting what's traditionally taught as the reason for the inclusion of the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights. Like most Americans, I was taught that government tyranny was the reason for the rebellion that led to the founding of this country.
As for corroborating my points, one only need read the posts surrounding mine. In other words, viewing them in context.
We seem to have the same desire for a cohesive government. I can't help but wonder which of our stances might be the most detrimental to that cohesion. My "terroristic threats" ( which don't advocate government overthrow), or your allusions to my 1st amendment rights being negated by a discussion of my 2nd amendment rights.
I, for one, am as frightenened by those who remind me that I'm "as powerless armed as you are disarmed" as I am some crazy lone wolf.

Originally posted by Aggie Man
How is your right to bear arm infringed? So far as I know, you can open carry in every state w/o a permit. The constitution says nothing about the right to concealed arms.

If one is carrying a gun for protection, fine, but show it. A revealed firearm is a deterrent, a concealed one is not.

And some places, it just takes common sense to understand the banning of possession. Schools, bars (or any place serving alcohol), court houses, etc...

Aggieman, being from the Texas area, I would assume you had more agreement that not...
See, here's the deal:
The definition of infringed is on the 1st page.
When you tell someone where and how to carry a gun...
When you say, "You can have a gun, but you need to buy a permit to carry it legally."
When the right you are guaranteed by your Constitution is sectioned and strictly dismantled into bylaws...
Your right is infringed.
Thats the problem.

I see where your views are and I don't disagree.
You can't freely, openly carry a gun...ANYWHERE.
You will, like the posters in this thread, be accused of being a crazed, terrorist.

Thats all.

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
Forgive my ignorance on this question, but it's quite odd to me as a Brit why Americans seem to want to carry guns everywhere? What purpose does being constantly able to kill your fellow citizens serve?

You are NOT forgiven.
When you drive through areas of America that show blatant disregard for laws and obvious criminal activity, with the flashing of weapons...
You would want to carry a gun.

Its not that you can just "Drive around it" either.
With the influx of more and more gangs into suburban areas, I am practicing my rights.

You see, I don't see it as you do...

What purpose does being constantly able to kill your fellow citizens?

I am in NO WAY advocating "killing my fellow citizens".
My right is to be able to protect my life! Self-preservation!
I see it as my right to protect my life, liberty and property.

Let's see how fast you want to start carrying a gun after you've been car-jacked.
Or robbed.
Or even threatened with a gun.

I absolutely LOVE anti-gun proponents.
Until a life-or-death situation occurs to them personally, they are against guns.

Well, go walk a mile in my shoes. Then take them off because your feet are sore.
I bet all your opinions change drastically.

reply to post by havok


Not ANYWHERE? Ok, so I looked it up since I was "shooting from the hip" in my previous post. Here is what I found:

Permissive Open Carry States which means the states have passed full preemption regarding all firearm laws. These states permit open carry to all law-abiding citizens without a criminal record without any special permit or firearms license. The open carry is legal for a citizen on foot or in a motor vehicle. The states that allow this are Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, Virginia, Alaska and Kentucky.

Licensed Open Carry States allows open carry to all law-abiding citizens once they apply and are approved for a permit or firearms license. They can also carry on foot or in their motor vehicle. The states that require a permit or license for open carry are Utah, North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Indiana, Tennessee, Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Hawaii and Massachusetts.

Anomalous Open Carry States open carry in these states are generally lawful, but the state itself may have other stiff restrictions to deter citizens from carry a firearm open. The laws in these states are very grey and could cause you a lot of problems if you go toting a gun around openly. The states that have a lot of grey area on open carry are Washington, Oregon, Nevada, California, Colorado, Missouri, Kansas, Louisiana , Mississippi, Alabama, North Carolina, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maine, Delaware and New Hampshire. You shouldn't carry open firearms in these states just to avoid a charge of bringing terror to the people which only requires a citizen to see you carry open firearms and saying they are in fear. You will get charged.

Non-Permissive Open Carry States which means these states don't allow open carry of firearms or is only lawful under very limited situations such as hunting, traveling to and from a hunting site or in self defense. The laws are very grey in these states and you risk being arrested if you carry a firearm in the open. These states consist of Texas, Oklahoma, Washington D.C., Arkansas, Illinois, South Carolina, New York and Florida.

SOURCE: www.associatedcontent.com...

So, it appears that my home state doesn't allow open carry. However, there are states that do allow. This seems like a State issue, and not a Federal government issue. Still, it doesn't bother me, as this isn't the old west and I don't need a peace maker on my hip. When push comes to shove, I know where to find my guns.

EDIT to add link to source

[edit on 21-4-2010 by Aggie Man]

reply to post by Aggie Man


Aggieman, I wasn't saying you were "shooting from the hip".
We all know you can open carry in certain places.
Certain places. That's, like WUKKY said, regulations.

But as for Florida

790.06(12) - No license issued pursuant to this section shall authorize any person to carry a concealed weapon or firearm into any place of nuisance as defined in s. 823.05; any police, sheriff, or highway patrol station; any detention facility, prison, or jail; any courthouse; any courtroom, except that nothing in this section would preclude a judge from carrying a concealed weapon or determining who will carry a concealed weapon in his or her courtroom; any polling place; any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district; any meeting of the Legislature or a committee thereof; any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms; any school administration building; any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose; any elementary or secondary school facility; any area vocational-technical center; any college or university facility unless the licensee is a registered student, employee, or faculty member of such college or university and the weapon is a stun gun or nonlethal electric weapon or device designed solely for defensive purposes and the weapon does not fire a dart or projectile; inside the passenger terminal and sterile area of any airport, provided that no person shall be prohibited from carrying any legal firearm into the terminal, which firearm is encased for shipment for purposes of checking such firearm as baggage to be lawfully transported on any aircraft; or any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law. Any person who willfully violates any provision of this subsection commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s 775.082 or s. 775.083.

In ohio: Do not patronize while armed Database
This is just 2 state, each with different laws.
This means you can't carry it everywhere.
So...
Just furthering the research!

reply to post by havok


"shooting from the hip" - my wording, as in my post from yesterday, I did make an assumption that you could open carry in all 50 states.

Those places that are restricted; like police stations, courts, etc... Do you think it a good idea to have a right to carry there?

I think it's for the common good that open carry is prohibited in those places. There is sound logic behind their restrictions.

I was going to make a thread regarding the meaning of "keep and bear arms", in context of the framers of the constitution, but I just don't have the time to invest into the topic; so, I'll keep it simple and post the short version:

In context of December 15, 1791 (the date of ratification):

To Keep and Bear Arms (as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, 1795): to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight.

This notion is nothing new either. This idea, incorporated into the US constitution has been pondered and written about by great minds such as Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, Machiavelli, etc. In every account, one thing is consistent regarding the context, and that one thing is the above definition.

So, is it fair to say that the definition given in the Oxford English Dictionary is the same definition that the framers had in mind? I believe so.

So, when placed in it's proper context, One can surmise that the true intent of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure the protection of well regulated state militias; and it's intent was not to to ensure that every citizen can carry openly (or concealed) anywhere, anytime as they please.

I fully support gun ownership, I do believe it is our right to do so. However, to chastise the government, for the infringement of a right we never had, makes no sense. If anything, we are given more freedom with our guns than the constitution calls for.

Now that is my interpretation and my opinion on the matter. But it is one that has upheld in the Supreme Court on numerous occasions.

Edit for grammer

[edit on 21-4-2010 by Aggie Man]

reply to post by Aggie Man


Seems like an 10th Amendment issue to me.

Ohh, what a conundrum we have here. Do states have more power than the Federal government. Or does the 2nd Amendment supercede all?

Seems to me that States have the final say so in how "well regulated" firearms laws are.

reply to post by Aggie Man


Well, in response. I agree with your well thought statement.



I still think that enforcing a permit to carry a weapon...
....as long as you are a "law-abiding" citizen...
Is an infringement.

You would get charged with a crime if caught with a loaded weapon in you car.
For instance.

So, that, I'm my opinion, in an infringement.

As far as our right, to keep and bear arms, being for just militia purposes...
Maybe the original framers had this in mind while publishing the amendment.
But, there must be a gray area here, as certain states have more regulations.

Well, seems if it was up to the current administration...
...maybe the entire Constitution should be taken out of context.

reply to post by havok


This makes a lot more sense to me in your case now. You were hurt, and you are scared. Your reaction it completely understandable considering your situation and the fear you live under of being victimized.

I still do not agree with it though. When I was in grad school in Milwaukee, I got mugged, at gunpoint. They took my wallet, phone and pistol whipped me. I would never say it was one of the most pleasant experiences of my life, and I did have a lot of fear afterwords for a time, but living in fear is no way to live! Carrying a gun absolutely everywhere is a crutch, something to get you through your own insecurity, not an answer to your problem mate.

I have a question for gun control advocates:

Why should I rely on organizations and individuals who are notoriously unreliable, prejudicial, and corrupt for my own personal protection?

It's that easy of a question. An individual should have the right to protect themselves.

Because people shoot each other.

I used to live in a small town in the Midwest. People walk in and buy guns all the time. It's not that big of a deal.

Get a permit. If you're a felon, you can't get one. It's not rocket science.

I believe the best way would be that you have to ask for a gun ownership permit and if you are not a convicted felon or such, this permit will have to be granted, by law. Your gun will be registered and you are free to carry it all you want. That is how we have it in our country, and it works perfectly, IMHO.