• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Let's assume the BradyCampaign is 100% Right

1245A Defender

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
imported post

interesting info i found awhile back was this,,
the original list of amendments that was proposed had the RKBA as #5,,
but individually as they were voted for adopting by the states,
free speech was incorporated first,,
the RKBA was adopted second, and etc.
sorry i cant remember what i was looking up when i found this out,
but it was in the interwebs with pictures of old parchment, hand written documents.
 
UtahRSO

UtahRSO

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
146
Location
Lehi, Utah, USA
imported post

Pace wrote:
My argument and the argument of all Gun Owners should start to be based only one fact: The BILL of RIGHTS give us the right to OWN our own weapons, and then CARRY THEM. Any other argument ignores this very fact, ignores the reason that the Bill of Rights was made, the reason that it was so important to put it SECOND in the Bill of Rights, right after Free Speech and Religion.
Click to expand...


NO! NO! NO! It's important to understand that the Bill of Rights 2A DOES NOT GIVE us the right enumerated. That right exists independently, and the BofR only recognizes that fact. We would be on shaky ground if our rights could be taken away simply by eliminating a provision in the BofR.
 
SouthernBoy

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Pace wrote:
You are completely wrong (and right at the same time) That is a theory, and a personal belief. As soon as you start talking about anything that is not written, that is not law. You may have a belief that there is an inherent right to bear arms, independent of the Bill of Rights, but this is just your belief. It's a strong one, in which a lot of liberal (as in liberal democratic thought, not democrats) thinkers would agree with. I don't know if there is a "inherent" right to wear a firearm in public and that decision is a personal one between me and my faith.

That being said, you are espousing a belief, not one that is in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. When we go to Court, when we are fighting for our Rights, we need to focus on what the law is. If we are going to bring in what we think are inherent rights, moral rights, human rights, as just as they might be, we fall into the same trap the Brady Bunch does.

The BradyBunch says "Isn't it right that we are free from violence, that people should immorally carry weapons" or similar such things. We need to respond, "That's a great belief" but its not in the Constitution. They ask to be "free of fear" in Starbucks and push their own "beliefs" on us. That is not what the Constitution or Bill of Rights says.

We need to be Strict Constitutionalists, about what the BILL OF RIGHTS says. The Bill of Rights does not say "Inherent Rights" and neither does the Constitution of the United States.

They say the reasons for the Bill of Rights are: "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent starts of its institution." That's it!

That's it. Period. I believe in in inherent rights, I have my own beliefs as a person of faith about lots of things. However, those are beliefs that are independent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Don't confuse your personal beliefs with the LAW of the LAND. The Bill of Rights sole purpose is to restrict the power of the government, period.

Let's not ever confuse our beliefs with that of the law. There is a reason the word BELIEF and GOD are not found in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, because its a personal belief, and a person God. Go read the Constitution again, if you haven't - it's a very, very bland, boring document that is specifically written to be boring and to make CLEAR what the purpose is. It's a Government Document that says "This is what we allow, and this is what we don't allow" and that's why its so Brilliant and so Amazing as a foundation of Democracy.

You go to Iran for example, their Consitution says "The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran advances the cultural, social, political, and economic institutions of Iranian society based on Islamic principles and norms, which represent an honest aspiration of the Islamic Ummah." That's a document that talks about "beliefs" and "faith" and is why there are no freedoms in that Country.

Thank God I am in the US of A.





UtahRSO wrote:
Pace wrote:
My argument and the argument of all Gun Owners should start to be based only one fact: The BILL of RIGHTS give us the right to OWN our own weapons, and then CARRY THEM. Any other argument ignores this very fact, ignores the reason that the Bill of Rights was made, the reason that it was so important to put it SECOND in the Bill of Rights, right after Free Speech and Religion.
Click to expand...


NO! NO! NO! It's important to understand that the Bill of Rights 2A DOES NOT GIVE us the right enumerated. That right exists independently, and the BofR only recognizes that fact. We would be on shaky ground if our rights could be taken away simply by eliminating a provision in the BofR.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
No sir, he is correct when he states that the Bill of Rights does not give any rights but rather asserts the fact of their existence. Read the wording carefully as the language used is quite correct and precise.

"[font="verdana,arial, helvetica,geneva"]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."

[/font]
Notice that it says, "the right of the people". This is most significant. If the Bill of Rights were assigning or giving rights to the people, it may have said something more like this; "the people shall have the right...". But it does not. Its English clearly references a right already existing and which has existed essentially since Man has existed.

And one more thing. Governments cannot give or assign rights. What they can do is give or assign power and authority. In our country no government may do this without the consent of the people for this simple fact. It is the people who are the supreme sovereign. All authority and power terminates at their doorstep as it is them who hold the ultimate power and authority. This is a HUGE difference between us and all other nations down through history.

[font="verdana,arial, helvetica,geneva"]
[/font]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top