An invitation to Axeanda45 (+ everyone else)

[2beararms]

And GOD said …”Let there be firearms” … and there was, and he saw that it was good.

This discussion is on the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. My question is HOW DO YOU VIEW THIS SUPPOSED RIGHT? From other discussions, I see many want to call the 2A a God given right, but I do not see where that comes from. God never said the quote above. The right to defend oneself, a simple extension of the right to live, is indeed a God given right. The right to do it with firearms IS NOT!

I quote a poster in another discussion who said, “If they can "vote your right to carry out of existence" it wasn't a right, or they are way out of line and we are not a free country.” And yet the RIGHT to which we address this passion was not God given, it was ‘voted’ into existence, by men, as an amendment … a correction or an afterthought, if you will, to the Constitution of the United States. There are many other amendments all of which can be said to grant rights and some HAVE BEEN VOTED OUT OF EXISTENCE, including the eighteenth PROHIBITION. Yes, many DID see the prospect of an alcohol free country as a RIGHT!

So my question is … WHERE DOES THE INALIENABILITY OF THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS COME FROM ???

It is NOT part of the second amendment, that is simply a codicil to a great document written by men and established as the law of the land by men, but hardly God given, inalienable, or guaranteed to stand forever.

It is NOT my intent to desire harm to the 2A, in fact it IS my intent to protect it, but to do that, I, as a realist, feel it required to recognize that “any legal position in a democracy is only as strong as the majority that support it”, and that the 2A is nothing more than a legal position and knowing what the 2A IS, to me is the first step in protecting it.

I am not trying to attack or undermine the viewpoint of anyone but do desire to hear the viewpoint of all.

Specifically however, this post is an invitation to Axeanda45 to please give me your viewpoint of this and all RIGHTS as they relate to law and inalienability. I ask this because your arguments ARE persuasive, but mixed with the emotion of previous posts become a bit scattered and diluted and I, for one and perhaps the only one, would actually like to hear your compiled opinion on the subject (limited of course to what can be said in a post, as I fear I will simply get a “buy my book” response since it is obvious this is not your first time dealing with the written word).

[HootmonSccy]

Great Post..
I think you made your viewpoint clear, but I think you missed the point..
yes the constitution, bill of rights, etc were written and voted on by men, and thus, as you stated "established by men".
However, these men, as all men who form governments have a foundation from which they are building from.. Whether they are "realists", communists, socialists, Darwinists, or theists will have an huge impact on what they think government should look like and what "rights" the people should have.
As many people in this world deny that there was a holocaust, some also deny my next point, but it is just as established.. The people who formed this great country believed that there was a God, and the vast majority believed in Christianity. This was their foundation from which they built upon to create this great country..
Now there were other influences as well.. They had just come out of a terrible battle with Britain, not just for freedom, but freedom from what?? tyranny, taxation without representation, etc, they also knew of the French and other revolutions beyond their own. This also helped shape what they thought the people needed as rights..
So does it say in the Bible that you have the right to own firearms?? Well, that's kind of a silly question.. Since the bible was written across more than 1500 years, all of which were long before the invention of gunpowder or Iron, or firearms. But I do believe that there are themes in the Bible about protecting ones self, and nation and being your brothers keeper.. There are many battles in the Bible, in fact many war strategists use some of the battles in the Bible to develop their strategies even today or modern strategies have a basis from Biblical battles. In these battles, did they take up guns??, NO, but they did take up arms.. they may have been spears, or bronze swords and shields, but they had arms..
The founders of this country did not want the government to become tyrannical as the last government they were under.. This is why they wanted strong state governments and a weaker federal (centralized) government. Their concept was more of 13 independent countries, bound loosely by a central government for common needs (such as defense). To insure that the government always worked for the people they made it "BY the people", and then armed the people so that the government would always respect the people so as to not be overthrown..

I'm not sure I actually answered your question specifically, but it was the foundation of the founders faith and their experience with bad government (one of the best of the time), that led them to establish the one we have now. They included checks and balances, and armed the people, so that IF necessary, the people could take back their government from people who would presume they know better than the people, or worked for their own self glory and power..

[HK4U]

Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —

[JJFlash]

"How do I view the right?"

You've captured most of what I think:

1) I have a God-given right to protect myself and my family;

2) The 2A enshrines that right into the Constitution;

3) The 2A right (vs. God-given right) can be voted away;

4) Even if it's voted away, that does not negate my need for protection nor does it take away my God-given right.

That's why I take issue with those of us who say "hey, it's legal, so I'll dress any way I want and carry what I want where I want; I don't care who thinks what about it". IMHO, you MUST care who thinks what about it, cause the "right" can be lost (through legitimate Constitutional procedure).

[HK4U]

"How do I view the right?"

You've captured most of what I think:

1) I have a God-given right to protect myself and my family;

2) The 2A enshrines that right into the Constitution;

3) The 2A right (vs. God-given right) can be voted away;

4) Even if it's voted away, that does not negate my need for protection nor does it take away my God-given right.

That's why I take issue with those of us who say "hey, it's legal, so I'll dress any way I want and carry what I want where I want; I don't care who thinks what about it". IMHO, you MUST care who thinks what about it, cause the "right" can be lost (through legitimate Constitutional procedure).

JJ I agree pretty much with all that you said except 2nd Amendment can be voted away. I feel that all of the original Bill of Rights was written to protect us from a totalitarian government from trying to usurp our "God given rights" The constitution being the highest law of the land, any law that congress would pass to strip us of that right is actually a bogus law.

[Axeanda45]

OK, I'll bite

First off I am floored by your compliment in the last few sentences of your post. I thought that no-one could understand what I was trying to say (maybe you are the only one that did? lol) , and that is why I received such a hard time on the other thread.....( besides the fact that I prodded a few of them on.... ).
Thank you

WHERE DOES THE INALIENABILITY OF THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS COME FROM ???

My opinion:

Our Inalienable Rights come from being a life form on this planet basically........

I believe that we (humans) are here because GOD created this Universe , the Earth, Us, and everything else.
If you don't believe in that, we can still come to the same conclusion (if you agree with me) without putting GOD into the equation.

The statement "Inalienable Natural Given Rights" could be viewed as an equal to 'Inalienable God Given Rights"

So, when I say "I have the God-given right to..." I use "GOD" because I believe in Him, and He is the reason I exist here at all, so He gets include in my speech....

Now, to explain the life form statement......

My example will be nature, specifically animals, as they are easy to relate to this line of thinking.

Does an antelope have the right to kick at the Lion that is trying to kill it?

Does a cat have the right to open up an attacking dog's nose with it's claws?
Etc...

Now look at us humans, we do not have hooves or claws to speak of, or fangs, etc.....

What we DO have is a large brain and skills to make and use tools (weapons).

I say that "Right" would be the correct word to use to justify our "permission/authority?" to use tools for self-defense.

---------------------------------------------
Now, I will comment on the area in your post that included this:
"that the 2A is nothing more than a legal position"

The Constitution does not "give" us anything, it affirms (validates/declares) certain items (Rights) that the founders thought important enough to mention for our future, freedoms, well being and safety (individual and Nation) etc...

The Constitution does this partly by restricting Congress and other parts of Government from doing certain things, like to "Infringe" on our right to bear arms.

I believe that ANY law that does not "line up" with the Constitution is null and void, and has no true legal power. (perhaps this is what you were looking for my opinion on?)
That does not mean that I can't get arrested, fined, and/or jailed, maybe even killed for breaking those "unlawful" laws.

Do I follow those laws myself? Most all of them, yes. Do I like having to obey them? Nope.
Are there any that I refuse to obey....This might not be a wise place to state something like that, but yes, there are, I just won't say which ones....
-------------------------------

I am sure there are others here that have MUCH more knowledge than I do on Constitutional Rights (possibly even you 2beararms) and look forward to reading their posts on this.
I hope I have answered to your satisfaction, or even answered the correct question!

[JJFlash]

JJ I agree pretty much with all that you said except 2nd Amendment can be voted away. I feel that all of the original Bill of Rights was written to protect us from a totalitarian government from trying to usurp our "God given rights" The constitution being the highest law of the land, any law that congress would pass to strip us of that right is actually a bogus law.

Is it not true, tho, HK, that an amendment can be added to or deleted from the Constitution? I agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying, but the reality is...

Am I missing something, here? My assumption is that amendments in the Bill of Rights can be removed just as any other amendment can. Is this correct (I'm certainly not a constitutional scholar)?

[Axeanda45]

"Voted" might be the wrong word to use JJ, but you are correct, the Constitution CAN be changed, just not by what most people would think of if you said "Voted Away"
It takes a Constitutional Convention to change it, and that would take a Majority of the States (dunno how much of one) to have to seek a ConsConv by debating and then calling (yes, voting) for it in each State's Senate or whatever it would be called. Then, once enough States agree, they must all send reps to that Convention and debate the issues at hand. THEN they will decide (yes, vote, lol) what part to change / delete / add to the Constitution. It is extremely unlikely (we hope) that would happen. I actually havent looked it up, but I think it has only happened 4 times since the founding of this once great country.

[JJFlash]

"Voted" might be the wrong word to use JJ, but you are correct, the Constitution CAN be changed, just not by what most people would think of if you said "Voted Away"
It takes a Constitutional Convention to change it, and that would take a Majority of the States (dunno how much of one) to have to seek a ConsConv by debating and then calling (yes, voting) for it in each State's Senate or whatever it would be called. Then, once enough States agree, they must all send reps to that Convention and debate the issues at hand. THEN they will decide (yes, vote, lol) what part to change / delete / add to the Constitution. It is extremely unlikely (we hope) that would happen. I actually havent looked it up, but I think it has only happened 4 times since the founding of this once great country.

Yeah, I was mixing up "voting", as in voting in/out gun laws, versus amending the Constitution, thru the appropriate process. I, also, do not recall the number of states needed to amend, but I'm sure someone's gonna tell us here real soon. And that's good; it's one of the reasons I like this site - smart people.

Point is, I guess, the 2A could conceivably be removed from the Constitution.

[ricbak]

I guess I'm getzen old cuz I could not remember the way to change. Taking a quick look around: 2/3's of Senators required to pass.

The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

• Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
• Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
• Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
• Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798]):

Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net