We have an inherent right to defend and protect ourselves. "Inherent" means God-Given.

The right to self defence is a natural right that each and every creature possesses.

So the Second Amendment is reiterating that it is our inherent right and stating that it shall not be infringed upon, meaning we may keep and bear arms and that the government shall not take our arms from us.

*********

The Second Amendment Does Not Give Us the Right to Bear Arms

[www.americanthinker.com]

In speaking with many fellow gun-owners, I have come to realize that most people don't know that the Second Amendment does not give us the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment states that the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed"; it does not confer that right. The Second Amendment is an admonition to government that it may not take away your right to bear arms, which is inherent.

What then is the origin of the right to bear arms? While our forefathers had inherited rights and liberties as Englishmen, those rights were curtailed and suppressed which eventually led to the Revolution. It is the American Revolution which transformed us. Twelve score and two years ago, our forefathers brought forth on this continent a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated the notion that all men are created equal. Thomas Jefferson’s immortal words created a wholly new form and foundation for American liberty, law and government: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the Creator which certain unalienable Rights, among them, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.”

Without the many citizen-soldier militiamen such as the Minutemen, the new United States would not have won the War of Independence. By declaring independence and winning the Revolutionary War in October 1781, later cemented by the Treaty of Paris in 1783, our forefathers secured liberty. This preceded the ratification of the Constitution in 1789. "

The Declaration of Independence is thus central to our liberties and our law. The Constitution was implemented to "secure those rights," not to confer them. Considering the critical involvement of the citizen-soldier in the Revolutionary War, it is clearly evident why the Founding Fathers wrote in the Second Amendment:

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.

The Englishmen in the American colonies had inherited a right to bear arms from the English, subject to the whims of Parliament, but Jefferson and the Founding Fathers transformed the right to use force to protect yourself and your family into a corollary of the unalienable rights to life and liberty set forth in the Declaration of Independence. These unalienable rights were secured as foundational laws in a new American nation, born of liberty through the midwife of the Revolution.

The problem I see is that if the right to bear arms is considered given to you by the Second Amendment, then that right is a product of the Constitution. If it is a product of the Constitution, then it is subject to interpretation by the "ultimate authority" over the Constitution, the Supreme Court, through the concept of judicial supremacy established by McCullough v. Maryland. It does not help, in your author's view, if we continue to propagate the myth that the Constitution confers upon us the right to bear arms. It is our inherent, inborn right to protect ourselves and our families, bequeathed to us from our forefathers' blood and sacrifice in the many battles for liberty. It may not be legislated or interpreted away. It is not in the purview of the Supreme Court (or Congress, for that matter) to abolish the right to bear arms.

Since 1990, we have had the unconstitutional "Gun Free Schools Act." If we help the false notion live on that the right to bear arms is a creature of the Second Amendment, we invite and empower the black-robed keepers of the Constitution to put the creature in a cage. The fact is that the Second Amendment is a cage for the creatures who want to take away the guns given to you by your fathers, their fathers, and their fathers' fathers.

We have an inherent right to defend and protect ourselves. "Inherent" means God-Given.


gun and god combo
"The peacemaker" is Glock's new gun
Its spent rounds are rapture and fun
Yes killing's a thrill
Since I'm mentally ill
And need to own more than just one

A gun for me is like prozac
The bullets clipped pills in a stack
I'm not paranoid
But have weapons deployed
In case I should have an attack

This is Key!

*********

The Gun Control Debate Isn't Really About Guns. It's about Human Rights

[thefederalist.com]

Fundamentally, this is about the government’s responsibility to prove I have committed a crime before taking away my rights. Let me explain.

The Second Amendment must be read in context of the entire law and the acknowledgement in the Declaration of Independence that our rights are pre-political, that our rights predate the Constitution and are therefore not granted by government as mere privileges bestowed upon worthy individuals who satisfy some kind of government standard.

Our government does not have rights. Our government has limited powers carefully and specifically granted through the Constitution for the sole purpose of preserving and protecting all of the rights of the individual. What can the government constitutionally presume about me if I want to own a firearm? Whose burden is it to show that I should or should not be able to possess a firearm?

This is why the whole Constitution matters and it matters in relation to the Declaration. Because your and my rights are pre-political. The government bears the burden of proving why I am an unfit gun owner, or an unfit parent, or have committed a criminal act, or any other accusation bearing legal consequences when my rights are at stake.

The government must presume that I am a fully fit citizen, meaning in legal terms that none of my rights can legally or properly be infringed upon unless and until the government shows proof by a legal standard that I have acted in some way contrary to the law and the sanction for my actions can result in the government denying certain rights, such as taking away liberty through imprisonment. The government cannot presume that I am going to act in an illegal manner just because my neighbor, my relative, or a 19-year-old in Parkland, Florida acted in an illegal manner.

We care about how our government is allowed to treat us based on someone else’s actions. Each and every one of us has a right to be presumed competent, fit, and innocent. This is the heart of the matter for conservatives.

Even if the Second Amendment were to be repealed tomorrow, as some have suggested and called for, nothing about my legal status as a law abiding citizen would change. The government would not be able to change its legal presumption toward me and assume that I am a criminal before I commit criminal acts.

Once the government can shift the burden and make me prove my fitness and competency, then my government is treating me like a presumptive criminal. This isn’t problematic only when applied to arms ownership. It’s also problematic when applied to parental fitness, exercising religious freedom, speech, school choice options, economic choices, and any other legitimate action and choice that I as an American citizen am free and have the liberty to choose to do.

None of these rights or any others of the individual are severable from their status as unalienable or transformative by government whim into mere privileges. This is what conservatives mean by protecting liberty. We are preserving freedom from the government presuming we do not have legitimate free choice, without the government presuming without cause we are all criminals.

Liberty means the government does not have authority to punish me before I have chosen to act contrary to law. The government does have legitimate authority to criminalize some conduct, but must prove that I have committed that criminal act before it may punish me.

Even in the midst of heartbreaking, terrible, atrocious tragedies, we cannot allow the government to remove our individual presumption of innocence collectively. Crimes and illegal acts unfortunately occur every day. So do wrongful prosecutions.

Just because my neighbor might have have committed domestic violence, doesn’t mean I should have to prove to the government I am not an abuser before I enter into a romantic relationship. Just because my neighbor might have committed child abuse, doesn’t mean I should have to prove to the government I am fit to parent before I am allowed to have children.

The examples are endless. Any presumption against innocence is fully unconstitutional for an incredibly important reason — preserving and protecting genuine liberty. Rights are not absolute, but a legitimate government does not punish you or me before we act or presume we are going to act criminally.

This isn’t just about my gun. It’s about every single individual’s fundamental right to liberty. And liberty is absolutely worth protecting. Our founders pledged their very lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor defending it. So must we.

"Let the DEAD bury the DEAD..."

Jennifer, you truly the QUEEN of ARGUABLE PHENOMENON...

Coming soon to the US - if the Libs have their way.

The UK is banning knives!

What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand. Meaning - shall not be violated - don't chip away at our right to keep and bear arms.

It's a slippery slope - first they take our guns, then they take our knives, then they take our crow bars, then they take our baseball bats, etc., then they take us, if we haven't already been killed by the thugs, drug addicts, thieves, criminals, gangs, rapists, murderers,psychos, etc., who own all the illegal guns, while we're sitting ducks.

********

London's Mayor Declares Intense New 'Knife Control' Policies To Stop Epidemic Of Stabbings

The police will now stop and frisk people believed to be carrying knives.

[www.dailywire.com]

An epidemic of stabbings and acid attacks in London has gotten so bad that London mayor Sadiq Khan is announcing broad new "knife control" policies designed to keep these weapons of war out of the hands of Londoners looking to cause others harm.

The "tough, immediate" measures involve an incredible police crackdown, a ban on home deliveries of knives and acid, and expanding law enforcement stop-and-search powers so that police may stop anyone they believe to be a threat, or planning a knife or acid attack.

Khan announced Friday that the city has created a "violent crime taskforce of 120 officers" tasked with rooting out knife-wielding individuals in public spaces, and is pumping nearly $50 million into the Metropolitan Police department so that they can better arm themselves against knife attacks. He's also empowering the Met Police to introduce "targeted patrols with extra stop and search powers for areas worst-affected," according to a statement.

Strangely enough, Khan is responsible for decreasing the number of stop-and-searches, having previously declared the tactic racist and potentially Islamophobic. It's also not clear what local Londoners will now use to cut their food.

Parliament is also set to take up heavy "knife control" legislation when it resumes this week. The U.K. government is expected to introduce a ban on online knife sales and home knife deliveries, declare it "illegal to possess zombie knives and knuckledusters in private" — "zombie knives" are those defined as being manufactured for the purpose of being used as a person-to-person weapon — and ban sales of caustic materials to anyone under the age of 18, the Independent reports.

London has seen a dramatic uptick in murder rates, surpassing even New York City in the number of homicides every month since the beginning of 2018. It has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, and, technically, knives carried "without good reason" are off limits to anyone under the age of 18.

"We're doomed Gulliver"....

You seem to Live in a lot of FEAR Jennifer. Do you get out in nature much? Perhaps too much city Life. Let Nature take the stress out of your Life....

You live in "Fear" - one of those accusation words of the Libs (like "hate" ) used as an ad hominem argument to avoid discussion of the topic.

I live in Nature - in the mountains by a creek. It's Paradise.

"Firearms groups across the country have declared today the first annual Gun Appreciation Day. So don't forget to set your clock back 100 years." –Seth Meyers

This is what needs to be done,
I'm happy to see this idea being talked about now.

YES WE CAN!


Observer
Opinion
Is It Time to Repeal the Second Amendment?
By Donald Scarinci • 04/04/18 6:00am



Thomas Jefferson anticipated and advocated constitutional amendments as the main way to address changes in American life and keep up with advances in technology. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
While the marches and rallies across the nation demanding stronger gun control laws have increased in the wake of the tragic Parkland shooting, they will not amount to much without petitioning for a constitutional amendment.
The protests will achieve legislative reaction in some states like New Jersey. Unfortunately, state laws can provide only mere tweaks to the bigger problem of gun ownership in heavily populated areas. The sole way to solve the problem is to repeal the Second Amendment.
Without federal constitutional protection, states would be free to decide for themselves what restrictions, if any, to place on gun ownership. Less populated states would be free to have liberal gun ownership, including the right to carry. More populated states would be free to create more rigid restrictions on gun ownership and even ban guns completely.

Abolishing the Second Amendment
Most recently, retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens lent his support to the repeal of the Second Amendment.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2018 02:46AM by riverhousebill.

"People are so angry about gun regulation, you'd think they were being denied the right to marry the person they love."