Misunderstanding the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment included therein

Most people, even most USCCA members, misunderstand the Bill of Rights. They wrongly think that it grants rights. But it doesn’t. Included with that, they wrongly think that the 2nd Amendment portion of the Bill of Rights grants the right to keep and bear arms. But it doesn’t. I don’t know why they think that, because it makes no sense. It is not what the Bill of Rights and the individual Amendments included in the Bill of Rights actually literally say.

What the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment portion of the Bill of Rights, does is to place into our founding law the acknowledgement that we already have those rights listed therein and the provision that our government will not infringe on those rights. The Founders assumed without even a second thought that those rights are rights that we are all born with. They come from God and/or nature and are an integral part of our very life, itself. We are born with them. They considered those rights to have existed in every individual who is born even before they set out to form the government. Just like it says, “… the right…” i.e. the pre-existing right, “… of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

So then, don’t say, “my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms,” or “to free speech” or “to assemble” or “to petition my government,” etc. But instead say, “my Constitutionally-protected right …”

And even if Satan the devil who has taken over the Democrat Party is successful in removing either all or part of the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, from our U.S. Constitution, it won’t remove from us our God-given right to keep and bear arms. We will still have those rights, though they may come to be infringed upon by a tyrannical government.

68 Likes

All true, some samantics there but still true. Evil is everywhere, left,right,the bad & some who think they’re good.

8 Likes
11 Likes

I noticed fairly recently that modern sporting rifles are being labeled “assault rifles” when just a couple years back, those labeling them as such were corrected. Now it has run amuk, with even some gun folks calling AR’s "assault rifles. This mind control concerns me.
Lately, I noticed your president (not mine) said the 2A meant “the government” where it states militias and “we the people.” Figuring your president for a doddering old fool, I paid little attention, but noticed this mantra being parroted on social media by a professor, who is a supposed expert on the Constitution.
This type of psychology is dangerous.

10 Likes

The operative words in our Bill of Rights and our Constitution are “SHALL NOT”, and no amount of legal twisting should be tolerated by political crackpots at any government level - a prime example is Morton Grove, IL, versus Kennesaw, GA.

7 Likes

Interesting “buzz” Buzz . Chadw posted another interesting string titled Constitutional Carry: What Does It Mean?

From Chad’s article, I missed his point on the “militia” part. However, IMHO, I thought Chad made a good link to today’s self-defense value and the original 2A wording about a right to bear arms, but he also emphasized and ended with a calling for us to seek more training. Wishful thinking on my part, but I would advocate for more affordable training so that those with low income who are law abiding - can have easier access to that training.

Appreciate the pointing out about the Constitution not being actual laws. I understood them to be proposals, suggestions, and opinions. I respect them as noble and as high ideals. But I may not agree with all of them, all of the time, or with their exact wording.

The original Constitution was written circa 1787. It was signed by 39 people, representing 12 states. It’s since been ratified. I had read that the original 2A wording was written by three men; 27 words. Nowadays, we might refer to them as a committee. What strikes me the most, is that it was so long ago, and that we are a different people now than we were then.

234 years later, we can view or interpret the wording according to our own values of today; Hence the disagreement. We are not the same exact people from that date. It’s the laws which hold the legal weight (or bite with teeth), and laws of course can be federal, state, or local.

When Bills are being proposed, or being discussed in the legislature, I wonder if the best strategy is to focus on rights of such lethal self-defense, as opposed to the Constitution, a God, or a religion. I wonder of self-defense is a value of which more persons might resonate with or relate to, as a common thread. To me it’s the laws which threaten or hurt my 2A freedoms, which worries me. With all due respect of course. :innocent:

2 Likes

Burdo, no, no, no. You misunderstand. I never, ever stated or even came close to implying that “the Constitution [is not] actual laws.” That is totally wrong. The Constitution IS U.S. law. It is the founding law.

With all due respect, you are absolutely wrong in every single way in your perception and attitude with regard to the Constitution and its construction, as evidenced in all of the other things you wrote.

As for affordable training, you say that you would advocate for more affordable training for those with low income. Well, your membership in USCCA includes all kinds of free training. Also, YouTube and other areas of the internet are full of all kinds of free training. There is more free training in those sources than any person could ever consume. I know that I spend all kinds of time in the evenings and on weekends watching free training videos, and I could do that day after day, week after week, and never get to watch all of it. Plus, there is all kinds of video training available from trainers such as James Yeager and John Lovell on their websites for just $11.00 per month. You can pay just $11.00 and watch every single one of their training videos in just a single month, and cancel you subscriptions before they renew at the end of the first month. There is no reason for anyone to ask for another handout. We’re already “handing out” more free stuff than any country should ever hand out.

7 Likes

Your statement clearly reveals who you are - dangerous to America no doubt.

6 Likes

Tell a lie loud enough and long enough…

8 Likes

Context is everything. As Burdo points out, the document we reference was created in 1787 by men who had gained their independence from what they believe was a tyrannical leader in a world of empire building tyrants. They were determined to prevent that from happening to them again and crafted a government that served the people instead of the other way around. The first step in doing that was to list those absolute rights that the government must protect. The rights were not granted, in their mind they were obvious, God given, and inalienable.

Our world has evolved in an Orwellian fashion. The pigs are wearing clothes. They own the press, well most of it. They believe they are smarter than the rest of us and it is their responsibility to protect us from ourselves. They have 2 freezers full of ice cream and armed guards with weapons they don’t want the public to have access to. They are no longer us, they have become a privileged ruling class (PRC).

To view the Constitution in any other context than that in which it was conceived is the first step to having those rights infringed by the PRC.

12 Likes

Agree 100%. For a short but excellent read, I recommend David Barton’s book. I have bought several and give them away freely to confused friends and relatives. Inexpensive but packed with info and quotes from the authors of the Declaration and Bill of Rights, where they expound on exactly what the meaning of 2A was, and why.

2 Likes

I believe that another part of the problem is that people do not understand what “infringe” means. People seem to think it means to completely obliterate, rather than to encroach in the slightest. I can infringe on my neighbor’s property rights without forcibly removing him, moving my family into his house and allowing him to live in the tool shed. I can infringe on his property rights just putting my pinky toe across the outermost blade of grass on his lawn. The root word is “fringe”, referring to penetrating the fringes.

In addition to @Buzz 's point about misunderstanding the Bill of Rights, I think that too often those on the pro-2A side get caught up in debates about crime statistics. While I think those have their place, and ultimately those statistics bear out the ineffectiveness of gun control laws, the right to keep and bear arms, whether the natural right or its Constitutional protection, does not depend upon winning that aspect of the debate. I think that people who are maybe in the middle or are undecided on the issue are bombarded with statistics from both sides as to whether gun control is effective or not, and the gun grabbers can always manipulate and present statistics in a way that supports their arguments. And they are going to be successful in swaying many people, even many who think that they want to be tolerant of our 2A rights, but want to “balance” those with public safety.

So even if we know we’re on the right side of the statistical argument, I think we need to spend less time engaging in that debate and focus on the fact that the Second Amendment is indeed absolute, just as the 13th Amendment is absolute regarding slavery, the 15th, 19th and 26th Amendments are absolute regarding voting, the 22nd about Presidential term limits, etc. Would we tolerate one slave in this country? One restriction on women, members of a racial group, or 18-20 year-olds voting in any election? One President serving a 3rd term? Of course not - so why should we concede that there are any gun control laws that the Second Amendment would permit, regardless of its effectiveness? The answer of course is that we shouldn’t, and I believe that even engaging in the debate about the effectiveness is a concession that such a law would be constitutional in the first place.

9 Likes

And if I might add, the word “weapon” does no one on the pro-Second Amendment side of the argument, any good.

A “weapon” conjures up a mental impression that the tool-in-question - whether a gun or hammer or 2x4 - is automatically used for dangerous purposes. Of course, they are not, always.

Please consider substituting “gun” or “firearm,” not unlike the pro-abortionists using “pro-choice” over pro-baby deaths. IMHO.

5 Likes

I refuse to be intimidated by people that try to change meanings of perfectly good words like “gun”. After brutal manipulation in the Army over that I just like to say it to piss them off. I use both.

1 Like

And that’s your opinion. No need to attack me for pointing out a different one.

Not attacking you. That’s just your powderpuff feeling. :wink:

1 Like

Sounds as though you should have remained in the military inasmuch as you are unable to accept an opinion other than what you were instructed to think and say. And that’s pretty pathetic. Sorry. You’ll likely never get over it, either.

Are you seriously that upset? :rofl:
I am laughing out loud for real in front of my wife about your repeat responses. Guess you don’t have a sense of humor. Life’s too short to be butt hurt over anything on a social media forum. Take a deep breath. Everything is going to be alright.

FYI, if you payed any attention to my posts you’d realize I’m a disabled veteran with some serious disabilities that can’t quite be overcome. Please don’t try to trigger me simply because you can’t take a joke.

1 Like

Ha ha, funny bunny.

1 Like

Folks read Krisanne Hall’s book "Not a Living Breathing Document ". She explains the reasoning & 100’s of years of history behind it all in a non boring short book.

2 Likes