- April 3, 2018 at 9:24 am #385676
So on Facebook I got into a discussion with an anti-gunner about… Things. He responded with all our guns are not protected under the second amendment. I responded with this and it got me to thinking what is infringement and how far has the government gone to infringe on our rights? What are some of y'alls ideas on this topic?
I appreciate your response and opinion. However here is the exact and only text of the constitution “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.” That's all it says…. Where does it say only for your protection or only for hunting? It doesn't that's what people have been interpreting for years. It's for the states to have a militia to secure a free state from an overpowering central government.
You see our framers of this had just got out of a 2 year bloody and hard war fighting for their freedom from a king. They wanted to make sure that if ever it the future we elected a king that was not removable we the people would have the ability like they did to secure a free state.
Now, when the government goes off and regulates this and that and banned this and that and restricted this and that…. That's infringement and we the people are done with it.April 3, 2018 at 9:38 am #385683
Well, my opinion may not be a popular one but here you go…
The text says that the right shall not be infringed but it doesn't define what the right is that can't be infringed. Meaning that its all good that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed but what does the right to keep and bear arms cover or mean?
We can study the founders intentions but frankly I don't think it matters much. I love the founding generation… I have made a more significant study of that group of people than most but if we are to infer on one hand that their intention in writing the second amendment should be the only thing that matters today but then decide that their desire to allow the constitution to be a living document that could change over time based on the desire of the people then we have conflicting beliefs. So while there is value in studying the founders and their intentions with the 2nd amendment we also have to realize that for the purposes of arguing today about what the right to bear arms covers it really doesn't matter what the founders intended.
What does matter is what the judicial branch of government says that it means. The law only has meaning so far as the court system tells us what it means. So if we really want to understand what the right to bear arms covers then we need to look at all supreme court decisions that apply an interpretation to that right. The 2 Heller decisions are the most recent and most fruitful to study. Some things that were made clear in that those decisions:
First: The right to keep and bear arms means we have a right to a firearm not just for hunting or sport but for self-defense.
Second: The right to keep and bear arms means we have a right to have a firearm on us wherever we go that is reasonable.
The Heller decisions say a lot more than that… worth studying individually but those 2 things are at the core to be sure.
So when it says that the right shall not be infringed, I believe that means the rights as currently defined by the Supreme Court shall not be infringed and YES I agree that a lot of existing legislation and a lot of proposed legislation does infringe on that right. I also personally believe that the 2nd amendment SHOULD cover other things that have yet to be declared by the Supreme Court.
My 2 cents…
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.