Posted on 04/28/2013 10:04:18 AM PDT by marktwain
Almost every newspaper I have looked at for the last several weeks has had letters to the editor debating gun control. Most have missed one important detail: There is a "right" to have a gun.
There are two types of "rights." The first is related to what a state cannot do to you, and which you have naturally unless it is removed from you by a powerful entity like a government. The Bill of Rights of the American Constitution enshrines these rights.
A person has a "right" to freedom of conscience unless someone takes it away. Consequently, we have a right not to have a religion imposed upon us by the government. We have a natural right to speak our minds. We have a right to meet peaceably and petition our rulers for redress.
We have these without taking something from another person. All of these we have naturally if someone or some government doesn’t take them from us. All of these natural rights are outlined in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
Another type of "right" is one we can only have if a state or government gives it to us. We have a right to health care only if a power exists that is strong enough to take property from one person and redistribute it to another.
The Constitution does not provide for the government bestowing these types of rights.
The second item in the Bill of Rights states, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
That is a basic right. It is also the supreme law of the land.
It is not necessary to argue for or against the ownership of guns. It doesn’t matter what statistics you can find for or against gun control. The brilliance of your argument is irrelevant. We have a "right" to be armed no different than we have a right to speak our minds.
Congress cannot lawfully pass any law infringing (a term used in the Constitution) on that right. In very basic terms, the Congress does not have the authority to "infringe" upon the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
President Barack Obama has no authority in this matter at all. None.
If the gentlemen and ladies in Washington wish to score some political points on this matter they could attempt to change the Constitution. Article 5 tells them what they would have to do. The Constitution can be altered.
The process is straightforward and familiar. First, an amendment can be proposed by either two-thirds of both houses of Congress, or by a national convention requested of the legislatures (not governors) of at least two-thirds of the states. The amendment then must be ratified either by the approval of the legislatures of three-fourths of the states, or by ratifying conventions held in three-fourths of the states.
The amendment would then become part of the Constitution. The president does not sign anything, and he or she is not legally necessary in this process.
Yet we continue to see debates in the media and between political parties about gun control as if we were discussing property taxes.
No, a critic may respond. We are talking about the limits we can put on a basic right. No one would assume that the right to be armed includes having a thermonuclear bomb in your basement.
Fine, but this is not what we observe. Instead, we see all kinds of arguments about controlling gun ownership in total or through incremental steps through legislation as if this was a serious exercise instead of political theater.
A stage play can create whatever reality the writers wish to portray. But gun ownership has a reality in the real world and until the constitutional issue is resolved, all we have is a dog and pony show on the Potomac.
Unfortunately, modern politicians and many letter writers seem incapable of understanding the difference between the two.
George Mason is one of the last bastions of freedom in higher education.
“George Mason is one of the last bastions of freedom in higher education.”
Thank goodness for that!
“Today we begin to disarm the criminal and the careless and the insane. All of our people who are deeply concerned in this country about law and order should hail this day.
- Lyndon Johnson when he signed the 1968 GCA into law.
Gotta be careful with movies! Back in the anti-handgun 1970s there was a TV movie REVENGE FOR A RAPE.
In it you root for the good guy (Mike Connors) as he avenges the rape of his wife while camping during hunting season (cover for anti-hunting scenes also).
Then, at the end (SPOILER ALERT!) we find he has killed the wrong people!
LOL! Got to see that one. Reminds me of that movie “Joe” if you ever saw that, that’s an old one from1970.. It stars Peter Boyle and Susan Sarandon, and of course being that Boyle plays a conservative, they make him out to be a hard drinking bigot who is hellbent on killing hippies. Ironically it was lib Sarandon who supported killers in real life when she named her first male born child “Jack Henry” after killer Jack Henry Abbott which the media never mentions.
You know what ticks me off about todays GOP, not that we still have a GOP but more of a RINO party, is they never promote all the lives SAVED by the 2nd amendment. The only time you ever read about them is usually in some small town newspaper website like “woman kills 2 home invaders” which a Freeper will post here and then the story disappears. And what do the RINOS do? Cower into a fetal position at the feet of democrats “Oh yes Mr. Obama, yes yes, you can have the 2nd amendment” when they should be publicizing the HELL out of stories like that. One thing I admire about the Treason party is they do not have the fear the RINO party has. They will lie and lie and embellish and they do not care who finds out, they will just keep doing it. But the slightest sneeze from a Democrat and the RINOs are on their knees begging for forgiveness.
This implies that the 2nd Amendment applies to the entire world. Natural rights aren't just for Americans.
This also implies, by extension, that most governments are illegitimately denying their citizens the right to self-defense.
You are quite correct.
What would happen if the majority of people just started carrying concealed because the believe in their right to do so?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.