The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: rangerrebew on August 13, 2014, 10:27:08 am
-
Second Amendment Does Not 'Give' Us a Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Posted on August 11, 2014 by Gary DeMar Filed under 2nd Amendment, Corruption, Email Featured, Gun Control, History
Some people (maybe many) may be outraged by the title of this article. But it’s true. The right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right. We have the right to protect ourselves. If there are people with knives who want to do me harm, then I have a right to defend myself with a weapon in kind.
The same is true of firearms.
The White House website puts a subtle twist on the Second Amendment that most Americans, even some gun rights supporters, might not catch:
“The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.”[1]
Don’t be surprised if some of your friends agree with the word “gives.”
The assumption is that if we didn’t have the Second Amendment – the government granting Americans the right to keep and bear arms — then nobody would be permitted to own any kind of weapon until the government enumerated that right.
The right is seen as a “gift” of government. What the government gives, the government can take away.
This is not what the Second Amendment says. The right existed before the Bill of Rights was drafted and passed.
“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.”
Wikipedia gets it right:
“The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.”
Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/16612/second-amendment-give-us-right-keep-bear-arms/#qutf8sMmmJU20uyR.99
-
An important distinction. Good to be reminded.
-
The White House website puts a subtle twist on the Second Amendment that most Americans, even some gun rights supporters, might not catch:
“The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.”
No surprise that the White Hut considers itself the source of inalienable rights.
What source is there if not from 'messiah'...
-
The WH must be right. Zero is a constitutional scholar after all