Obama Administration's War Against The Second Amendment...Continued...

**Mr_Truth** · Mar 31 2012, 04:44 AM

Originally Posted by onalandline

I know. I'm just trying to get danielwhatever to come to his senses.

Many of you on this forum call me ''liberal'' but just in case you're interested, nobody is more pro Second Amendment rights than I am.

But I still fail to see any proof that Obama is out to end those rights.

**Hoosier8** · Mar 31 2012, 05:05 AM

Originally Posted by Nemo

As I pointed out before: the Declaration of Independence was not a foundational document; rather it was the Constitution that established the framework of our government and source of our individual rights and liberty under the rule of law. Thomas Jefferson’s ideas about natural rights were not adopted by the framers of the Constitution. There are no natural rights, there are no unalienable rights, there are only legal rights. The framers of our Constitution created a nation of laws and not men. All men are not created equal, they are equal under the law; and the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not unalienable, they are subject to law.

The DOI is a foundation document stating the soul of the nation.

The constitution defines law but does not provide any rights, only protects preexisting rights as well understood by the Founders. The first 10 amendments were immediately passed because some thought it should be absolutely clear what some of the preexisting rights were such as the right to free speech.

Blackstone was well understood by the Founders and used often as reference:

Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are: neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture.

Some natural rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution:

Self Government
Personal Choices
Choosing a Job
Choosing a Mate

The DOI stated only the obvious, the three great natural rights.

**onalandline** · Mar 31 2012, 06:00 AM

Originally Posted by Mr_Truth

Many of you on this forum call me ''liberal'' but just in case you're interested, nobody is more pro Second Amendment rights than I am.

But I still fail to see any proof that Obama is out to end those rights.

OK, for argument's sake, nothing has really been done yet. However, Obama's past voting record on gun-related issues, and much of his Administration are not that fond of individuals having guns. I'm just speculating based on that, and taking a proactive, rather than reactive stance.

**danielpalos** · Mar 31 2012, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by onalandline

As long as State gun control does not hinder the Bill of Rights.

Our Second Amendment merely exempts a well Regulated militia of the People who keep and bear Arms, from State gun control (laws).

What you are referring to is an inalienable or indefeasible right to controversial forms of private property. Those rights are usually secured by State Constitutions; and, there is even federal case law that supports that concept and legal doctrine in the US.

**Bondo** · Mar 31 2012, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by danielpalos

Our Second Amendment merely exempts a well Regulated militia of the People who keep and bear Arms, from State gun control (laws).

What you are referring to is an inalienable or indefeasible right to controversial forms of private property. Those rights are usually secured by State Constitutions; and, there is even federal case law that supports that concept and legal doctrine in the US.

Ayuh,.... IF that were the case,....

Why are the "People" specificlly named as those that hold that Right,..??

'n Why is it that the "People" are individual people, referred to in Every other amendment,..??

Why would the word "People" have different meanings, in different amendments,..??

It's My belief that the 2nd amendment applies to the "People",.... Not to the States....

**onalandline** · Mar 31 2012, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by danielpalos

Our Second Amendment merely exempts a well Regulated militia of the People who keep and bear Arms, from State gun control (laws).

What you are referring to is an inalienable or indefeasible right to controversial forms of private property. Those rights are usually secured by State Constitutions; and, there is even federal case law that supports that concept and legal doctrine in the US.

No State constitution could ban guns anyway.

**danielpalos** · Mar 31 2012, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by Bondo

Ayuh,.... IF that were the case,....

Why are the "People" specificlly named as those that hold that Right,..??

'n Why is it that the "People" are individual people, referred to in Every other amendment,..??

Why would the word "People" have different meanings, in different amendments,..??

It's My belief that the 2nd amendment applies to the "People",.... Not to the States....

Because, any militia of the United States must be comprised of the People.

**Hoosier8** · Mar 31 2012, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by danielpalos

Because, any militia of the United States must be comprised of the People.

For those that don't understand, the second amendment protects both the right of a militia and the right of the people to keep and bear arms as has now been found in court. Though not worded as exactly as some want, the latter right is also enshrined in other State constitutions. Reading the writings of the Founders clearly points this out.

Even if no militia is formed, it obviously protects the right of the citizen.

**danielpalos** · Mar 31 2012, 10:48 AM

From my perspective, the Second Amendment merely exempts a well regulated militia from State gun control (laws). What you are describing is an inalienable or indefeasible right to forms of private property. They are not the same thing.

Why would our Founding Fathers word the Second Amendment in so awkward a manner, if it were to allow any citizens of the several States, an equivalent to an exemption from State gun control (laws) which only a well regulated militia may require, if going from State to State to enforce the laws of the Union?

**Hoosier8** · Mar 31 2012, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by danielpalos

From my perspective, the Second Amendment merely exempts a well regulated militia from State gun control (laws). What you are describing is an inalienable or indefeasible right to forms of private property. They are not the same things.

A right to private property still exists.