His point is, and he is right, is that NO, the Constitution and/or The Bill of Rights does NOT give me my rights. As outlined, the Creator did. It is BECAUSE of THAT reason that the Constitution is clear that no GROUP or PERSON has the authority in any fashion to dictate rights to another group or person.

These documents were drawn up only to reinforce our creator-given rights, so as not to be infringed by any government who exceeds their power.

Of course, as with all governments on a long enough time line, it does anyway, and so we have the illegal but functioning perspective of yours, and that is, it depends on how you look at it, because now, in today's society, the government DOES dictate and skew the Constitution, which again, is illegal so it flips back to - do they really have the right?

Ultimately the answer it still NO. Any person or group that dictates rights to others is going against the Constitution, thus making it illegal.

__________________
Ignorance Empowers The Corrupt

You may want to read his post again. He did not say that they gave you that right. He said that it secures that right. There is a big difference.

When it comes to gun control...I do not care either way. I live in the backwoods of PA and guns are kind of a thing around here. I do not have a problem with those who have them. I do not own a gun and never would. However, I do think that 2nd amendment does not give every citizen the right to possess a gun. If we look at it for its literal meaning then we do not have the right to bare arms unless we belong to a regulated militia.

I see referencing to what the founding fathers would say about the issue. I do not think that us a good argument for a few reasons. One they are not here and we would have no idea what they would say, too speculate that is foolish. Second, everything in the constitution is written in such an ambiguous manner that no body can interpret it. The ambiguity of the document was not a mistake, it was written that way because the fathers had know idea how address these issue and figured they would leave them for another day.

I believe the ambiguity was purposeful in order to preserve states right to regulate their own.

I chose Massachusetts because it was one of the original 13 colonies, but most of the other states had their laws modeled like this. It was pretty clear who the militia was.

__________________
Barack Obama's Executive Flop

If Obama couldn't lead such a small organization as the Chicago Annenberg Challenge to success, how can any one bellieve he can lead this country to it?

I would suggest that you read this thread again. Then go learn some 18th century English.

Originally, the 2nd Amendment said the State had the power, but was changed to state the People had the power. If the Constitution had said the State had the right then the whole argument that the 2nd Amendment is aimed towards just militias would be logical, but the Founders wanted the People to keep the power. Think of the times, the events, the people in the game.

__________________
There shall ye find Light

Be thou faithful unto Death
And I will give thee a crown of Life

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.

Oh cruel fate, to be thusly boned. Ask not for whom the bone bones. It bones for thee.

So you are saying that it possibly could mean, "Guns are evil and nobody should be allowed to own one legally"?

__________________
Not many people know this, but I'm really famous!

So you can secure something you don't have?

__________________
Not many people know this, but I'm really famous!

You have that right from birth regardless of where you live. But some countries deny this right.

__________________
Someone hijacked my sig again.