Where have I said the 2nd is "unconstitutional" or that the right to arms is subject to any particular restrictions? What exactly have I argued that compels you to come at me with such an attack?

I think that you are too obtuse to be arguing the pro-gun side; the debate requires much deeper thought and reasoning than just posting quotes (when you so obviously do not understand the underlying concepts and principles held and articulated by the speakers).

And where have I argued anything like "guns are horrible"? Since you have such profound reading comprehension difficulties let's parse what I wrote and see if you can keep up. I said:

I am merely quoting Cruikshank here, a Supreme Court case which eloquently states that the citizen's right to arms is not a gift from a benevolent legislature but a pre-existing right which Congress found being exercised freely and without qualification before the Constitution was written.

This means that since no power was granted to government via the Constitution to impact the private arms of the citizen no power exists to do so.

I said:

This should be self explanatory but I'll go through it just for you; three concepts are evident here . . .

A) Since the right to arms is not granted, given, established or conferred to the citizen by the 2nd Amendment, . . .
B) the right to arms of the citizen exists without any reference to the 2nd Amendment, . . .
C) so the amendment can not be "interpreted" to outwardly restrict, condition or qualify the right to arms.

Here's a big hint if you are going to argue the pro-gun side; when I say the right to arms is "not granted" that's a good thing for gun rights because it makes clear we do not exercise our rights at the behest of, or only with, the permission of government.

I'm sure you have heard the term "inherent right" but do you understand what that term means? Are "inherent rights" granted?

Europe Rick,

I can't figure out what's with the attitude. Who crapped in your cereal bowl this morning, and why the hell you taking it out on me?

Those quotes he provided are valid because a) the ones that defend the 2nd amendment came mostly from our founders and b) as you're so smart I'm sure you know that in providing evidence it is common, and in many cases expected, that you provide quotes from valid sources.

If you're going to get knit picky about things, do it about the topic. You're smart, you know why he's providing examples.

"The Supreme Court has said the right to arms (specifically the right to arms of freed slaves) "is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

The Supreme Court is straight out lying. The Constitution is very clear about it's rights to the people and it's protection thereof. "neither...dependent on that instrument for its existence." That statement simply ridiculously stupid. It it's not, then why did the writers see fit to write an amendment about it, and then put it and 9 others in a separate bill of their own, The Bill of Rights?

__________________
Ignorance Empowers The Corrupt

The Supreme Court is not allowed to "interpret" what the Constitution says, in fact it's funny you say that cause I'm arguin bout that on another thread too. Interpretation implies possible deception, something that the writers of the Constitution knew was an inevitability and that is why it's not allowed.

__________________
Ignorance Empowers The Corrupt

What you posted was nonsense.

I did not question the validity of those quotes I questioned why he was addressing them to me and equating my position with Hitler and Stalin. Nothing in those quotes addressed anything I wrote.

See, I am 110% against gun control and 110% pro gun rights. Greatamerican (and now it appears you also) have made a profound mistake in reading what I wrote as arguing against gun rights; apparently neither of you are capable of grasping the fundamental concepts that I am discussing. My statements are purely pro-constitution and pro-gun rights.

Saying the RKBA is "not granted by the constitution" and that it is not "in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence," is stating that the RKBA is a pre-existing right, the strongest type there is; the founders found the right being exercised freely before the Constitution was crafted and ratified. The RKBA was not "created" by the ratification of the 2nd Amendment . . . the right exists whether the amendment is there or not.

The 2nd Amendment merely recognizes and guarantees the right; IT DOES NOT GRANT, GIVE, CREATE, ESTABLISH OR CONFER THE RIGHT!

Is any of this sinking in?

Yes they are, it is their Constitutional duty to consider the principles of the Constitution and apply them to law. That is their only job.

Oh goody, sounds like fun, I'll be sure to find that.

It surely does invite misconstructions and deceptions, that's why it is so important that liberals are not permitted to attain a majority on the Court. The most violent injury is the "living constitution" theory of judicial review. But hey, that's another thread . . .

I'm sorry, but it appeared as though you were for gun control. I must have misunderstood.

What exactly are you attempting to say here?

__________________
“Good leaders abhor wrongdoing of all kinds; sound leadership has a moral foundation.”

-Proverbs 16:12

Each and every human being has an innate right to self-defense - and the right to own a weapon to secure that right.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

He's just mad because somebody told him it was fudge topping, so he took a big bite.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

Apology accepted.

Quite simply, that our rights do not flow from the printed word. They can not be read in and read out as political winds change. Arguing that the government has "granted" the right to arms means you accept that there are conditions or circumstances whereupon the right can be "taken back" by government. That is wrong; since no power was ever granted to government to impact the arms of the private citizen the government can not "take back" a power it never possessed, . . ..

So, what's that mean for gun control?

Since the RKBA secured in the 2nd article of the Bill of Rights is not created by such enumeration, the scope of the RKBA is not dependent upon the words only chosen to secure it. Once one understands that tenet, all the arguments for limiting the right based on the lexicon and linguistics of the 2nd Amendment lose their foundation and significance.

Since you are so fond of quotes I want to excerpt from the case I quoted from earlier. This is very important and addresses specifically the topic of pre-existing rights, I hope you will read it carefully. I promise it will be enlightening. The case is U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 US 542 (1875).

This is a case where two black men, recently freed slaves in fact, thought themselves to be free citizens and sought to assemble with others and have a gun in their possession. A group of KKK members had a different opinion; they disarmed them, broke up the assembly and lynched them. The first two counts of the indictment was charging the KKK members with:

"banding together, with intent "unlawfully and feloniously to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate" two citizens of the United States, "of African descent and persons of color," "with the unlawful and felonious intent thereby" them "to hinder and prevent in their respective free exercise and enjoyment of their lawful right and privilege to peaceably assemble together with each other and with other citizens of the said United States for a peaceable and lawful purpose."

and then, having the . . . :

"intent to hinder and prevent the exercise by the same persons of the "right to keep and bear arms for a lawful purpose.""

The Court, in considering the question of federal protection of the right to assemble via the 1st Amendment, explains about the right to assemble:

"The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government. . . . It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution. The government of the United States when established found it in existence, . . . The particular amendment now under consideration assumes the existence of the right of the people to assemble for lawful purposes, and protects it against encroachment by Congress. The right was not created by the amendment; neither was its continuance guaranteed, except as against congressional interference."

SCOTUS then opines that since the blacks were not meeting, "in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances" there was no federal protection issue. The Court then turns to the second count and begins this exposition with:

"The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to [the states]."

It is quite clear that the Court's arguments regarding the right to assemble are congruent with the right to arms and can be read as flowing through both expositions.

Let's revisit the quote again:

The right to arms, "is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

Hopefully you now see that statement in a different light. Here's another quote from the Supreme Court:

"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted." BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

The concept of rights existing before the constitution is a principle evident in the rulings of SCOTUS for centuries.

The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . . " VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)

"The rights of life and personal liberty are natural rights of man. 'To secure these rights,' says the Declaration of Independence, 'governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.' The very highest duty of the States, when they entered into the Union under the Constitution, was to protect all persons within their boundaries in the enjoyment of these 'unalienable rights with which they were endowed by their Creator.' " -- U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." -- West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943).

The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights. UNITED STATES v. TWIN CITY POWER CO., 350 U.S. 222 (1956)

"[N]either the Bill of Rights nor the laws of sovereign States create the liberty which the Due Process Clause protects. The relevant constitutional provisions are limitations on the power of the sovereign to infringe on the liberty of the citizen. . . . Of course, law is essential to the exercise and enjoyment of individual liberty in a complex society. But it is not the source of liberty, . . ." DENNIS C. VACCO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK, et al., PETITIONERS v. TIMOTHY E. QUILL et al. No. 95-1858, (1997)

I wholly see what you mean, and it looks as though you were playing devils advocate.

Yes, I agree with you, and that's something that most people can't grasp, which is probably why I misunderstood you. The Constitution does not GIVE the right to bear arms, it UPHOLDS it. Or in other words, its putting on paper what everyone should know inherently but have forgotten through all the human bullspit that goes on.

Ya know what?

It's a shame that these kinds of discussion even need to take place.

Our founding fathers would be enraged and shamed.

__________________
Ignorance Empowers The Corrupt

What about the second part of the quote?

Could this mean that my state can infringe (violate, transgress-encroach, trespass) on my inherent right ever since the Big Bang to own a bang-bang?