My view...

My right to keep and bear arms does not originate in the 2A. This right existed well before the US Constitution existed. The 2A serves to forbid government from infringing upon the exercizing of this right, but right to keep and bear arms does not come from government.

I like the way AWR Hawkins says it.

We don’t have the right to keep and bear arms because the Bill of Rights says so; rather, the Bill of Rights says so because the right to keep and bear arms is intrinsic to our very being: it is a right with which we were endowed by our Creator.

So which rights enumerated in the first ten amendments have been held by the courts to be unlimited?

Agree fully, but the anti-gun politicians want you to believe the right is given by the government......that way they can take it away.

__________________
Still carrying my S&W 642

As a practical matter, with Hillary making a couple of SCOTUS appointments, the 2A will mean whatever the SCOTUS says it means, and what you and I and 100 million other people think will count for squat. Anyone who thinks the best educated, most liberty loving country in the world cannot be turned into a slave state in a generation or less needs to read history.
Hitler was ELECTED to SAVE the country from its economic troubles and GIVE everybody prosperity. How did that work out?

__________________
Science plus Art

Here's what the clowns don't understand. Just because you pass a law, doesn't mean we'll comply with it.

Examples include but are not limited to:
1. Colorado magazine ban
2. Post Sandy Hook Connecticut magazine and rifle ban
3. New York's Safe Act.

In Colorado the Sheriffs told the State to go pound sand.

In Connecticut the majority of the rifle and magazine owners in question told the state, "If you feel froggy then jump."

In New York, Albany got told, "fuggedaboutit."

You can only push an unpopular agenda so far before you get push back.

Attached Images

patriot.jpg (16.1 KB, 183 views)

The text of 2A says right in it that it's a pre-existing right:
" ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms ..."

2A doesn't grant the right, it acknowledges it.

The 2nd A means what it means, regardless what anyone thinks they can cause it to mean. When tyrants create a meaning for a thing, contrary to the true and real and excepted meaning, then they are out of touch, not us. You only become a slave if you allow it! Hide your gun, fight with them or save them for a rainy day....but never surrender them!!

__________________
A Snider squibbed n the Jungle

Besides the fact that I believe the 2A means exactly what it says, I agree with the rest of your post. They will do what they will, if we let them. Will we?

__________________
Sure you did

I don't think they'll take it all the way, I think they realize that if they push to far they just might start the next civil war. They don't really know what's out there.
I don't think they are that stupid?
Just my thoughts?

Actually, Hitler wasn't elected. He was appointed chancellor by Paul Hindenburg. Entire books could be written about Hitler's relationship with the German people. He was a good peacetime leader economically, but he really over-reached, especially after 1938. It went to his head. Power corrupts.

But anyhow, getting to the nugget of the OP, yes, I agree that gun ownership is a natural right. But how many idiot leftists are gonna believe that? Very few.


--------

That's the one I'm clingin to......



.

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

None have been held by the courts to be unlimited.

I believe the God-given rights enumerated in that document
are indeed unlimited. However, we have entered into a
Lockean Social Contract, agreeing to give up some of those
rights so that government might provide protection of our
liberty and property. According to that Lockean Contract,
when government abuses that trust we placed in them, we
have not only the right, but the duty to overthrow that
government.

Me and Thomas Jefferson are great admirers of John Locke.

__________________
Georgia On My Mind

If Florida has the right to CCW why didn't someone stop this last shooting before he got this far?

Being from Canada I can't understand why these guys get away with shooting so many and everyone seems to wait for the police to show up.

__________________
40 yrs Millwright Machinist

I think it is illegal to carry in a bar where alcohol is served. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

If three guys on a train can take down a terrorist with a AK and other guns why can't 300 people take down one terrorist in a bar.....

__________________
Only difference Fool/Mule-ears

People point to the establishment of a well regulated militia as saying that everybody doesn't have the right to bear arms except the militia.

But right after that is says that the rights of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The gun grabbers try to use the first thought to nullify the second.

At any time of need, individuals can become part of the militia. See 'Minutemen' for an example. They were farmers and homesteaders. They didn't need 'military' weapons. So, according to the grabbers, their guns should have been taken away and they could have taken to the field with hoes and pitchforks.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

It depends on the local laws. Some states allow it so long as the carrier isn't drinking. Some states prohibit it outright. Some states have a law that says if 51% or more of an establishment's revenues are generated by alcohol sales, carry is prohibited. There may be other variations that I'm not aware of. I know the law where I live, I'm less certain about other locations.

A lot of people don't understand what "well-regulated milita" means.

To them our 'creator' is the government. (Lack of capital 'C' is intentional)

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

I have to agree with the OP 100%. Self preservation is instinctive
from birth as well as the drive to protect one's family members. I
watch a lot of the nature oriented shows on AP and Net GEO wild.
Some brutal, difficult to watch battles occur where the outcome is
life or death, period. NO ONE, regardless of their role in society has
the right to tell you that you don't have the right to defend yourself
from attack by predators. Humans survive due to technology, including
weapons. If we had to depend on our teeth and fingernails we would
be extinct by now. Just like the other animal species on this planet
we have the right to use our best weapons to insure survival.

...nobody had a gun or if they did, they were too shook up to use them.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

It probably depends on what state you are in. I don't think there is a prohibition on carrying in bars here in SC as long as long as you have a permit. Establishments may have restrictions (Starbucks for ex.), but I don't know how effective they would be if someone wanted to CC.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

From Dr. Johnson's Dictionary , circa 1755
Régulate. v.a. [regula, Lat.]

1. To adjust by rule or method.
Nature, in the production of things, always designs them to partake of certain, regulated, established essences, which are to be the models of all things to be produced: this, in that crude sense, would need some better explication. Locke.

2. To direct.
Regulate the patient in his manner of living. Wiseman.

Ev'n goddesses are women; and no wife
Has pow'r to regulate her husband's life. Dryden.

As mentioned, it's probably illegal to carry in a bar in FLA, so there was probably nobody present with a firearm. it's part of the "compromise" gun owners have allowed to happen to placate the anti-gun crowd.

Yes that's true in Michigan and several other states. I think it's wrong, But I do agree that someone under the influence of alcohol should not have a weapon in their posession. But not everyone drinks at bar's... clubs. That could have made a difference on the amount of lives lost.
God Bless America.

Purposefully misunderstanding "well regulated" is part of the long term strategy of the gungrabbers. It simply means that it functions well, as in a well regulated clock. The context of the times.

The question is, how much longer are we going to allow the anti-gun hysterics to demonize firearms and firearm owners?

Agreed How long?? Something gotta give...

Apparently, in FL concealed carry is prohibited in a bar, or in the bar area of a restaurant.

Additionally, it is apparent that there was no (effective) armed security, and no one present had the offense-directed mindset to tackle the murderer.

__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220

Therein lies the essence of cause of lost liberties: opinions!

Our RIGHTS are definitive. Trammeling our RIGHTS are based upon opinions. Hence, prevailing opinions and not our constitution, the supreme law of the land, become basis for trammeling our RIGHTS. Hence, since our RIGHTS can be capriciously debased by cockamamy opinions of a probably drunk judges can be stated that we actually have no rights, just fleeting privileges as determined by prevailing opinion of pettifoggers who've managed to weasel their way onto benches.

The Second Amendment is 100% definitive and unequivocal. It's so easy to understand that even a caveman can comprehend it. We, mostly people in my generation, screwed up when we accepted spurious rationale of opinions of judges/justices who've meted out political agenda as opposed to justice. And we bought it because compliant media propagandized us in to believing that judges are smart and, by extension, we were smart for accepting smart judges' opinions that were really inane rationale. Most judges aren't all that bright. The Stanford rape case judge has plenty of company in the arena of the absurd.

Nowhere in the United States Constitution is found basis for trammeling our rights save for Article V.

Liberties lost are rarely if ever regained. If we don't immediately insist our bought and paid for politicians who are pawns of the New World Order, which is code for one-world-government, begin impeaching activist judges, we'll acquiesce to incrementally removing the Second Amendment from our constitution.

The OJ trial was pettifoggery on display. Moron lawyers were happy to reveal the extent of their stupidity by fawning over a very incompetent Johnnie Cochrane. The only lawyer whom I heard say that Lance Ito, the Dream Team, and the prosecution were making a mockery of our legal system was Vincent Bugliosi, who was considered the best lawyer in the United States. He saw right through the bull sugar. OJ's trial in no way even remotely resembled justice. Yet lawyers couldn't rush headlong fast enough into a spotlight for a few seconds of dubious notoriety to opine about how brilliant that moron, Cochrane was along with the rest of the jesters including Ito. There was a reason Cochrane declined Bugliosi's offer of a million bucks to debate the OJ farce on TV.

A court opining that our rights can be trammeled is nowhere near as dangerous as our accepting such stupidity. If we accept that spurious stupidity, then the fact is all of our rights are illusory and existing only titularly.

Alleged Second Amendment supporters can unwittingly become complicit in destroying it.

I can read the Second Amendment. I know what Madison memorialized. Further, Madison explicated the foundation of the Second Amendment in his The Federalist No. 46. We know that we were supposed to live within a nation, not a global governance, in which we were supposed to enjoy maximum individual liberty. We screwed up. Big time. We are not a free people and we do not live in a free country.

Criminal politicians and even more dangerous judges can't wait to attempt to steal more liberties from us thus bringing us closer to the New World Order and veritable enslavement using Orlando as spurious rationale. Whether we're gullible enough to buy it is to be determined.

Insanity is doing the same thing over-and-over-again while expecting a different outcome. If we keep electing political party elitists, we can expect the same outcomes. And it is a very dangerous fallacy indeed to remotely think that establishment Republicans will protect our Second Amendment. Bush 43 said he'd of signed Brady Bill renewing legislation if congress had presented it to him. His daddy did in fact sign gun control legislation.


Paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin, if we trade individual liberties for the illusion of security, we'll have and deserve neither.

It's a subordinated clause. The main (dominant) clause is:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The dominant clause is controlling.

A well-regulated militia can mean what-the-heck-ever 5 political justices decides it means. Do you trust your rights to a very political supreme court?

There was a reason Thomas Jefferson didn't trust judges.

No, it can't. It means exactly what it says, that the militia shall operate efficiently and effectively.

Any other meaning is strictly the construct of fearful, wishful thinking.

The 2nd amendment is 27 words of crystal clear English. It says everything it means to say and nothing that it doesn't. If a person reads it all, reads nothing in and leaves nothing out, they will understand it perfectly. Any ambiguity is the result of fear, wishful thinking and 240 years of scholarly interpretation, usually brought about by the fear and wishful thinking.

“When the revolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was the governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people: that is was the best and most effectual way to enslave them: but they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually…I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of a future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…”
---George Mason---

Seems as though this Founding Father knew that a far off opinion would redefine militia in contravention of Madison's intent of his Second Amendment.

Courts issue opinions. If their opinions are not based upon facts, they are, by definition, illogical.

In your opinion, are asset forfeiture laws without due process consistent with the Fourth Amendment? Well, the answer to that is upon whose opinion are we relying.

AlHunt,

If American jurisprudence were fair and based upon objective law, it would matter not of what party affiliation an appointee is.

History is replete of courts, especially the supreme court, of meting out political agenda as opposed to justice. This is why Obama wants to replace Scalia. If he gets a leftist justice on the court, Heller would assuredly be replaced with an opinion that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what we know it means. Our guns will be confiscated the following day.

Courts issue judgments.

Opinions explain the reasoning behind the judgments.

AlHunt,

There was no constitutional basis for Marbury, Miranda, Escobedo, Mapp v Ohio, Plessy, Roe v Wade, Milliken v Bradley (forced busing of school kids) and God only knows how many others. They were all prophylactic rules of activist justices who've created legislation out of thin air. Hence, justices have and will continue to opine how our constitution is to be interpreted and to illegally create law out of thin air.

An opinion is a judgment.

No, there's a separate, formal mandate that comes after the opinion which directs the Clerk to either affirm the previous judgment, or send the case back for reconsideration. The case is not final until that mandate is issued, about a week or so after the opinion. . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Federal appellate courts issue mandates. Appellate courts determine issues in dispute on the prior judgment by issuing an opinion, followed by the mandate to follow the opinion.

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Actually I think they are arrogant and stupid. They believe their own b.s.

Always bet on stupidity! The history of the twentieth century says they will.
Registration, Confiscation then Genocide. That's the history.

347 million firearms in the hands of 330 million Americans. I say they can't get it done. Doesn't mean they won't pass the laws.

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it won't be needed until they try and take it. Thomas Jefferson.

Molon labe.

"It is the opinion of this court..."

This might help: Court Opinion legal definition of Court Opinion

And that opinion is not enacted until the mandate is issued . . .

This might help:

Why the Appellate Mandate Matters

Most, if not all, legal terms are terms of art, with specific meanings in the legal world, and federal appellate procedure is much different than state procedure. . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Most of the population are sheep. The people on this forum are Sheepdogs.

Three types of people. Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs. LTC David Grossman.

Dr. Susan Gratia knows the essence of the Second Amendment, and why James Madison memorialized it within our Bill of Rights:

Nice. Thanks for posting. Spread it far and wide.

Well ya'll know, that there are those that walk among us that....

Always looks to spin a tragedy on any kind, into a cause for their personal agenda.

.

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

What I don't see from here...

Is, when the populous is dis-armed and remove from the equation,
when we, the working class are gone the way of the dodo bird.
Who is going to contribute to the GNP, who is gonna pay the taxes
the ruling class depends on for life's substances?



My God Boys, what's coming down the road!


.

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

The working man will contribute to the GNP, but will not benefit from it.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

I say this:

Forget guns.

Forget edged weapons.

Forget any weapons.

When it comes down to it a human being has a basic right to self defense,I don't care if you pick up a rock and dash someone's brains out if you feel your life is in danger you have that right and unless you're very wrong you should not be in any trouble for taking another's life.

A gun is just the most modern way to do this and the above is (to me) an integral part of the 2nd and why we have it-you have a right to defend yourself and you have a right to access the tools to do that.

The thing about a right is there is nothing it will do to stop idiots and crazies from using it to their own ends-that is an unfortunate side affect of living,bad stuff happens,people die,get used to it.

__________________
Life's a grave,dig it!

Don't do it, Jim.

Code of Laws - Title 16 - Chapter 23 - Offenses Involving Weapons

SECTION 16-23-465. Additional penalty for unlawfully carrying pistol or firearm onto premises of business selling alcoholic liquor, beer or wine for on-premises consumption; exceptions.

(A) In addition to the penalties provided for by Sections 16-11-330, 16-11-620, 16-23-460, 23-31-220, and Article 1, Chapter 23, Title 16, a person convicted of carrying a firearm into a business which sells alcoholic liquor, beer, or wine for consumption on the premises is guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than two thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

In addition to the penalties described above, a person who violates this section while carrying a concealable weapon pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23 must have his concealed weapon permit revoked for a period of five years.

What with all these 'entitlement programs' ain't no way
anyone's gotta work....The workin man will be as long gone as the dodo.


.

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"