Inalienable rights
Barzilla brought up a great point and it made me ponder something.
Is the RTKBA an inalienable right?
I believe so. Not sure if I can say this without going down the religious path, but I believe that God expects us to protect ourselves and our families by whatever moral means available. If that wasn't the case, I don't think that we would have the fight or flight instincts in us.
Is the RTKBA an inalienable right?
I believe so. Not sure if I can say this without going down the religious path, but I believe that God expects us to protect ourselves and our families by whatever moral means available. If that wasn't the case, I don't think that we would have the fight or flight instincts in us.
0
-
ibtl... 0 -
Hypothetically, of course, let's just say that we were created by a loving God, and not oozed up onto land and changed into what we are.
He EXPECTS us to protect and defend our families, and our neighbors.0 -
Unalienable 0 -
according to your second amendement it`s a legal right.
and i am stunned that something that is written in plain language like your second is can even be debated as to what it actually means.
if some people there don`t like it for what it is then they should try to get it changed by refurendum....not by sneaky underhanded back room traitors who have their own interests to serve!0 -
quote:Originally posted by calrugerfan
Barzilla brought up a great point and it made me ponder something.
Is the RTKBA an inalienable right?
I believe so. Not sure if I can say this without going down the religious path, but I believe that God expects us to protect ourselves and our families by whatever moral means available. If that wasn't the case, I don't think that we would have the fight or flight instincts in us.
Reference our founding, the term is "unalienable", not 'inalienable'.
A simple reading of the Declaration of Independence will confirm it.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dan kelly
according to your second amendement it`s a legal right.
and i am stunned that something that is written in plain language like your second is can even be debated as to what it actually means.
if some people there don`t like it for what it is then they should try to get it changed by refurendum....not by sneaky underhanded back room traitors who have their own interests to serve!
Dan,
You have a better grasp of our Constitution than many who are citizens here.[;)]0 -
Based on the principles of individual liberty staked out in our Declaration, the issues of the time and the specific construct of our Constitution and BOR's to include the specific text of Amendment II, how anyone can take a position that an enumerated fundamental natural right is to be restricted by government, is an amazing thing, unless one considers the ideology, ethic and philosophy driving that obfuscation.
In my opinion and how I see it.0 -
Seems to bother you, to some extent, that I won't play your game of weasel-words.
Your question, revised for you... quote: Does the constitution say the rtkba is unalienable infringible or subject to government control?
Tell me, Barz, does the Constitution say that?
What specific and on-point arguments, made by those who drafted and supported Amendment II, state that it is designed to authorize the federal government to infringe on the RKBA?
Here is a sampling of what some founders/framers stated on the general subject of text and meaning...
"The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered by me [as President] according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption--a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated, not those who opposed it, and who opposed it merely lest the construction should be applied which they denounced as possible." --Thomas Jefferson:
"Though written constitutions may be violated in moments of passion or delusion, yet they furnish a text to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people. They fix, too, for the people the principles of their political creed." --Thomas Jefferson
"If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave."
-John Adams-
I guess that I'll just rely on the clear intent of those who framed the Constitution and/or founded this nation. I expect they know better than you do, just what our fundamental enumerated liberties meant and what their intent was in restraining government from abrogating or interfering in their free exercise.
Crazy ol' el-tee.0 -
So defending ones self, family or property needs to be a rule now? I don't get it. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
9 comments