Keith Olberman: 2nd Amendment Doesn't Give You The Right To OWN A Gun

[Rigby5]

Statement 1: "Not at all original, but it's amusing that you believe you're the first person to come up with it."

Response: Not meant to be original, it is a fact that 2aguy is out of touch with reality.

Statement 2: At what point do you believe criminals will start obeying the laws you demand?

Response: a) Never, I don't demand, since I have no authority to do so; b) Criminals disobey the laws, that is by definition; c) Guns today are regulated, don't pretend they are not; d) The 2nd A. does not allow everyone the Right to own, possess or have in their custody or control "arms", incl. firearms. It can be revoked, and thus is a privilege; "shall not be infringed" is a fantasy.

Wrong.
The right to own a gun has been ruled to be an inherent individual right.
It is an extension of the right of self defense, but made even stronger by the need for an armed population in order to defend village, state, and country as well.

The fact a right can be over ridden does not make it a privilege.
For example, if you try to rob a bank, someone can shoot you dead and legally over ride your right to life.
That does not mean your right to life was a privilege that can be arbitrarily revoked.
It means that when rights come into conflict, laws can make some rights subordinate to others.

The right to own firearms can not legally be infringed by the federal government.
Felons were allowed to be armed until 1968, and that federal law is totally illegal in my opinion.
That was almost 200 years when felons were allowed to be armed.
{...
Congress passed the first blanket prohibition on felons carrying guns in the Gun Control Act of 1968, which made it illegal for felons to possess a gun any under circumstances.
...}
There is no basis in law for any federal firearms legislation.

 

[daveman]

Nonsense,
In a democratic republic, you can not have multiple different levels of rights dictated by an authoritarian government.
Inherent individual rights are supposed to be supreme over the government, not the other way around.

The only exception is when someone has been fairly judged to be a danger to other, in which case you do not try to control their possessions, but you control them.
You lock them up or supervise them.

Gun control is stupid because if someone is dangerous with a gun, they are even more dangerous with flammables, a car, explosives like fertilizer, toxins, etc.
You can't control things, but only people.
And that should not happen without a hearing in front of a judge.

But leftists don't actually care about victims of gun crime.

They want people to be unable to resist leftist totalitarianism.

 

[Rigby5]

No one ever said that the 2nd amendment granted any rights.
No right can ever be granted by legislation, but has to already exist in order to authorize any legislation.
You can write legislation to ensure and safeguard a right, but right have to be inherent or else they are just the whim of an authoritarian government.

 

[justinacolmena]

In a more true and fundamental sense, the people's right to keep and bear arms is universal, pre-existing, and unalienable; and as such can neither be given nor taken away by a Constitutional Amendment.

Having said that, I would argue that the Second Amendment is the best enumeration of that right thus far recorded in the history of a human species for which small arms will never be obsolete.

 

[Rigby5]

In a more true and fundamental sense, the people's right to keep and bear arms is universal, pre-existing, and unalienable; and as such can neither be given nor taken away by a Constitutional Amendment.

Having said that, I would argue that the Second Amendment is the best enumeration of that right thus far recorded in the history of a human species for which small arms will never be obsolete.

There are several problems with relying on the 2nd amendment.
One is that the original Bill of Rights was really just restrictions on the federal government, so did not really imply individual rights until after the 14th amendment stated the complicated process of judicial incorporation.
Another is that if one relies on legislation, that implies rights are just a whim that can be changed at will by just changing the legislation.

 

[justinacolmena]

There are several problems with relying on the 2nd amendment.
One is that the original Bill of Rights was really just restrictions on the federal government, so did not really imply individual rights until after the 14th amendment stated the complicated process of judicial incorporation

Drunken ass frat boy lawyers are in trouble with the bar over that.

Another is that if one relies on legislation, that implies rights are just a whim that can be changed at will by just changing the legislation

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 23:23 - King James Version

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

www.biblegateway.com

 

[M14 Shooter]

According to left-wing Democrat nutcase Keith Olberman. "keeping and bearing" is not the same as "owning."

Has to be, as you do no h ave the right to possess or use something owned by someone else.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Shall not be infringed" are the deadliest four words in COTUS. Not only do these four words allow the insane, addicts and violent offenders to own, possess and have in their custody and control firearms,...

This is a lie. All of these people are prohibited by federal law from possession of a firearm; said prohibition has been upheld by the USSC.

Four words, which a minority of Americans believe wrongly that, "shall not be infringed" is a Right. It is not a Right for there are number of regulations already in place...

All rights have regulations in place; if you are correct, then we do not have -any- rights.

These should be universal:

• Background Checks
• Licensing
• Registration

At a minimum.

You cannot demonstrate the necessity for, or efficacy of, any of these restrictions.
Absent this demonstration, these are unecssary and ineffective restrictions on the exercise of a right - that is, infringements.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Driver's licenses are required in all states; seat belts are required in most states; licenses can be suspended or revoked for reckless & driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Persons with medical conditions which make driving a car dangerous to themselves or others also are not able to legally drive a motor vehicle.

Other than being 18yrs old or older, there are no restrictions on the purchase, ownerhip or posessesion of a car; there ar no restrictions on th operation of a car on private property.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If your logic on "RIGHTS" is un-American then the license to drive a car, a surgeon to operate, an electrician to wire a home takes away the freedom of tens of millions of Americans.

None of these things are rights.