Government 2A Regulation: Usurpation of a Natural Human Right

[Glenn_A]

I am certain I am not the stupid one in this instance, because I keep asking this question and no one even addresses the question let alone answers it. I will ask it again giving my background reasoning for my thoughts.

“Why have we allowed government (the courts up to the SCOTUS) to treat the Second Amendment as an INalienable Civil Right (regulated) when its purpose (individual protection [self-defense] against the evil acts of other individuals and/or the governments they create) is clearly described in the Declaration as being an UNalienable (inherent in the individual as an Act of God, and beyond the ability of government to deny or regulate) HUMAN Right?” Look up the definitions of both unalienable and inalienable in any LEGAL dictionary. Not Webster’s, Johnson’s or Funk and Wagnall, but Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition or Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

Our three basic Human Rights are listed in the Declaration as being “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. These are ABSOLUTE Rights existing in every member of the Family of Man and, recognized as such by the individual, are self-limiting by individuals - not by government. It is only required that the actions of individuals do not deny, limit or intrude upon those SAME Rights existing in others.

Under Natural Law (the concept laid out in the first two paragraphs of the Declaration and the significant mechanism ensuring the perpetuity of our Rights), the Rights to “LIFE” (autonomous and absolute control by the individual of one’s existence and destiny), “LIBERTY” (the Right to enjoy a political atmosphere that allows the free exercise of our Rights) “and the pursuit of Happiness” (the individual Right to do anything one wishes with his/her life) – pursuit of any occupation, hobby or activity one wishes - is only subject to ONE restriction or caveat: Because these are universal Natural Law Rights existing in everyone, no individual may take any action or undertake any pursuit which would deny, limit or intrude upon the ability of any other individual to enjoy THEIR life. That’s called TOLERANCE and RESPECT for the Rights of others, characteristic of the moral and polite society envisioned by the founders. Just penalties imposed by government for the violation of one’s individual Rights by another are justifiable government regulations PROMOTING, not limiting, freedom by punishing evildoers.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in Heller rejected the idea that the Second Amendment only protects militia service. He affirmed it protects every citizen’s individual right to own firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense.”

Scalia’s “opinion” is in perfect harmony with Natural Law for three obvious reasons. (1) An individual Right confirms we were created as individuals – not as a group and given one Life to live; (2) The individual Right of self-defense is affirmed as well, because you cannot have the absolute Right to control your Life and destiny if you do not ALSO have the Right to DEFEND your Life, the lives of family members and any innocent life in need of protection .. hand-in-glove as a necessary part of that control; and (3) The Right of self-defense assumes our ability to eliminate a threat to our life in the most effective way possible. That would not include being forced to bring a knife to a gun fight, but does include effective arms of the period in which we live, constrained only by the caveat not to harm or end the life of any other innocent person.

Also, government has absolved itself of any liability for its failure to protect individuals. In Warren v District of Columbia – 444 A 2d, 1 (DC Appl., 1981) it was decided and affirmed, stating “It is a fundamental Principle of American Law that no agency of government (no Federal, state or local jurisdiction nor any subdivision thereof) may be held liable for failure to provide government services to any individual – only to society as a whole. This decision is not unique to the District of Columbia; nor is it a ploy to avoid just liability. The principle that each individual must be responsible for providing his/her first line of defense against crime with the police providing only an auxiliary general deterrent to crime, is inherent in a free society.” Put simply, according to law self-defense is not just a Right but an individual obligation.

It is lawyers and judges (partially out of feelings of intimidation by the public and their respect for a profession including judges who deal with the complexity of the law) who have been allowed to complicate through its regulation a Right that is inherently exempt from government regulation. Another part can reasonably be attributed to the Liberal bias found in almost all institutions of learning at any level, and the tendency of Progressive thought to promote larger more intrusive government while diminishing the concept of Individual Responsibility for one’s actions - the very soul of freedom and Liberty.

The proof lies in the fact that no one can be said to have the inherent Right to control one’s own life and destiny unless they also have the Right to DEFEND their life effectively as a necessary and inseparable part of that control. Our Human Rights are self-evident (beyond question)TRUTHS endowed by our Creator in each of us.

The stupidity exists in the myriad of confusing, often conflicting and lacking in uniformity from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, rules and regulations which WE the people have allowed to happen through our representatives. The remedy is simple: Eliminate the stupidity by recognizing the 2nd Amendment as a Human Right of self-defense!

“Prove Me Wrong!”

[Robert1025]

The 2nd Amendment is the one amendment that is, if you read it, guaranteed our rights beyond any other amendment. First, George Washington defines Militia as anyone 17 and over who knows how to use and maintain a weapon is the militia (minute man comes to mind). It also contains “shall not be infringed” as meaning the government or any entity cannot restrict who can own and use weapons. It makes no mention of any restrictions on any individuals for any reason. It further guarantees its existence by stating “shall not be infringed” meaning any person, elected official or government entity that says or proposes any changes that in any way infringes in any way, shape or manner the individual’s right to own and keep and bear (carry at will) arms would be in direct violation of their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. Meaning in the terms of the times, if anyone wanted to in anyway restrict your rights under the Amendment would be in violation of their oath and possibly removed from office. It also guarantees (in my interpretation) that there is not one square inch of this land that can legally restrict you from carrying; public, private, government owned cannot infringe on these rights. If it was otherwise our forefathers would have included these restrictions in the amendment. Yes, it’s not that way, and although we comply with the law, all of them are illegal as originally envisioned by the founding fathers. Yes, our forefathers never envisioned the changes of firearms. If you want to use that, then our forefathers never envisioned mail in ballots, not voting in person, or computers counting votes. They never envisioned allowing non property owners the vote. You get the drift, the fact they didn’t envision something does mean that it negates it’s existence or acceptance.

[Glenn_A]

I believe George Washington encouraged militia participation by anyone 15 years of age and older. You are correct in stating the 2nd Amendment is there to guard the other nine and the substance of what you’re saying about the phrase “Shall Not” is that it imposes a legal obligation on government to obey, as opposed to “May Not” which implies having the discretion to make a choice.

You also refer correctly to the militia skills of using and maintaining a weapon. This was a basic requirement for units of armed men who may have to act in common defense of their hamlets, villages and towns in the absence of any organized police force.

The 2A says, “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.” In the vernacular of the colonial period, ‘well regulated’ meant as you indicated “well trained, disciplined and proficient in the use of arms”. Militia members were required to drill regularly with their militia units, practicing marksmanship, military discipline and proficiency in the use of their weapons.They also were required as individuals to KEEP their weapon in their individual homes, along with an adequate supply of powder, shot and flints … and three days rations packed and ready to respond on a “Minutes notice” to that common defense against any threat posed by warring Indians, gangs of outlaws or a general invasion. That is why they were referred to as “Minutemen”.

I agree in general with the substance of what you are saying but I disagree that they never envisioned the changes in firearms, such as rapid fire. I remember seeing a drawing from that period of a tripod mounted shotgun that could fire 12 rounds in rapid succession. As an early example of firearms evolution that obviously never saw wide distribution (probably too gangly or cumbersome for practical use) it at least demonstrated their willingness to innovate along those lines because their effective response was limited by available technology. But I agree with your overall point.

The major point I was making was that the 2nd Amendment is so closely linked to our absolute Right to the control of our own lives and destinies through the Right of self-defense … they are inseparable. One cannot exist without the other. And it matters NOT from where the threat derives - other individuals, gangs, tyrannical domestic government or another nation declaring war. The important consideration is our responsibility - our fundamental obligation under American Law to be our own first line of defense - cannot be limited by government if our Human Right to control of our lives and destinies is to remain an absolute Right. The fact that it IS a Natural, God-given Right is beyond question. It is the existence of government regulations and the fact they are even allowed which are out of sync with our founding under Natural Law.

[Glenn_A]

Just imagine … by recognizing our 2A Right and our Right of self defense as being the Natural HUMAN Rights they are, instead of allowing government to continue to mischaracterize them as Civil Rights subject to regulation, all 22,000 of these laws go away … and it simply becomes a matter of demonstrating personal responsibility … which the government has already acknowledged as being “ … a fundamental principle of American Law” in Warren v District of Columbia - 444 A 2d, 1 (DC Appl., 1981)