Delta4Embassy
Gold Member
We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Arms are not for self-defense ONLY.We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?
Arms are not for self-defense ONLY.We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?
Self defense and being armed are akin, and if not mentioned together in the same sentence, certainly are implied. In my opinion, the intent of the 2nd is very clear. Also, the reason for its existence is very clear.Arms are not for self-defense ONLY.We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?
As far as the 2nd Amendment is concerned they are. Hunting 'implements' aren't mentioned. But that's not the point I'm making.
As is the case with the Constitution, the Second Amendment exists solely in the context of its case law.We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?
As is the case with the Constitution, the Second Amendment exists solely in the context of its case law.We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?
Consequently, Second Amendment jurisprudence provides government important guidance when it seeks to enact regulatory policies with regard to firearms that can pass Constitutional muster.
Incorrect.We have a right to privacy but no amendment saying as much except for specific instances. There's no right to medical privacy for example in the Constitution, yet we have the right nonetheless.
So wouldn't we still have a right to purchase firearms even without a 2nd Amendment?
We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?
Arms are not for self-defense ONLY.We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?
As far as the 2nd Amendment is concerned they are. Hunting 'implements' aren't mentioned. But that's not the point I'm making.
We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?
You're completely wrong about this. The second amendment was intended to give citizens the ability to keep our government from becoming too powerful. Our founding fathers wanted us to be as well armed as the government. Or at least well armed enough to give them pause. Our founding fathers only goal in crafting the second amendment was to protect us from our own government. Thus, the motives of anyone who supports gun control should be suspect.As is the case with the Constitution, the Second Amendment exists solely in the context of its case law.We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?
Consequently, Second Amendment jurisprudence provides government important guidance when it seeks to enact regulatory policies with regard to firearms that can pass Constitutional muster.
As far as the 2nd Amendment is concerned they are. Hunting 'implements' aren't mentioned. But that's not the point I'm making.
Wrong as usual. In every other case of nationalizing an amendment to the Constitution of an individual right it was the RIGHT of the PEOPLE that made it an individual right yet you would argue that some how the right of the people in the second is not the same.Incorrect.We have a right to privacy but no amendment saying as much except for specific instances. There's no right to medical privacy for example in the Constitution, yet we have the right nonetheless.
So wouldn't we still have a right to purchase firearms even without a 2nd Amendment?
The right to privacy can be found in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (Griswold v. Connecticut)
Again, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law. “But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed 'argument.'
Indeed, nowhere in the Second Amendment will one find the words 'individual' or 'self-defense,' but the right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right to self-defense exists nonetheless.
Without a specific protected afforded by the constitution, anyone who wants to limit the right will simple argue "...the constitution does not protect this supposed right..." and be done with it.We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?
Without a specific protected afforded by the constitution, anyone who wants to limit the right will simple argue "...the constitution does not protect this supposed right..." and be done with it.We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?
Ya? Then explain why currently even with the second some States have laws that clearly violate the 2nd? Or the laws that were recently over turned in Chicago Washington DC and New York?Without a specific protected afforded by the constitution, anyone who wants to limit the right will simple argue "...the constitution does not protect this supposed right..." and be done with it.We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?
Wouldn't work though. Still have the right to personal self-defense. Could argue, "Well how am I supposed to defend myself from a badguy with a gun if I don't have a gun too?"
The difference here is the current protection from "infringement" -- the 2nd will not allow it.Wouldn't work though. Still have the right to personal self-defense. Could argue, "Well how am I supposed to defend myself from a badguy with a gun if I don't have a gun too?"Without a specific protected afforded by the constitution, anyone who wants to limit the right will simple argue "...the constitution does not protect this supposed right..." and be done with it.We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?
Ya? Then explain why currently even with the second some States have laws that clearly violate the 2nd? Or the laws that were recently over turned in Chicago Washington DC and New York?Without a specific protected afforded by the constitution, anyone who wants to limit the right will simple argue "...the constitution does not protect this supposed right..." and be done with it.We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?
Wouldn't work though. Still have the right to personal self-defense. Could argue, "Well how am I supposed to defend myself from a badguy with a gun if I don't have a gun too?"