Into the Night
Verified User
There is the long running debate about gun rights, gun control laws, and the right to self defense.
The Marxists believe guns should be outlawed. It is their way to maintain power, since only they would be armed. Would it work? No.
The right to self defense does not come from a piece of paper like the Constitution of the United States, or the 2nd amendment. That document defines and limits the government, not the people.
If an animal is threatened, it will fight back with everything it has available to it...claws, teeth, even tools such as a club (yes, monkeys sometimes use clubs). This is a natural trait of all animals, and is their right, simply because they are a living thing.
Why so different for Man? Man has the power of his brain. He can create and use sophisticated tools. Is it not just as natural for Man to have the ability to defend himself and his interests from those who would seek to take it? Does this right somehow cease to exist in oppressive countries? No. Even the people of such nations still have the right to defend themselves. Whether they choose to do it is another story.
Here, in the United States, we have a federated republic. It is a constitutionally based government, layered into several governing districts such as towns, cities, counties, States, and of course the nation as a whole. None of these governments can legally do anything that is outside the bounds of the constitution (a county charter or city charter is also a constitution) that creates and defines that government.
The States got together and created the federal government. They created a constitution that defines the powers of that government and upon the States themselves as part of the agreement to form this federal government. Among those agreements is the Bill of Rights. For a State to ignore the federal constitution is to break that agreement, and they effectively cease to be a State of the Union in that regard by doing so. The federal constitution is not only defining a federal government, it is a treaty between the States.
The States have agreed on the 2nd amendment. It does not limit arms by type or popularity. It does not give authority to any court to change what the constitution is. The constitution, any constitution, can only be changed by the owners of that constitution (the States own the federal constitution), and only by the procedure set forth in that constitution.
Anything else is not a constitution. It has no effective power as such, even though some may call it a 'constitution'.
The right to defend oneself is inherent simply because we are living things. That right is specifically mentioned in our federal constitution and in many State constitutions to prevent the government from interfering with that natural right. The cost of interfering is the risk of revolution. Those that just fought a revolution to throw out British rule understood this. The Bill of Rights was incorporated into the federal constitution very quickly. They reiterate the principles set for in any constitution. If a government is not given specific power, then they simply don't have it. The people retain that power. Nothing in the federal constitution ever gave the government power to limit the right to self defense, even before the Bill of Rights.
The Marxists believe guns should be outlawed. It is their way to maintain power, since only they would be armed. Would it work? No.
The right to self defense does not come from a piece of paper like the Constitution of the United States, or the 2nd amendment. That document defines and limits the government, not the people.
If an animal is threatened, it will fight back with everything it has available to it...claws, teeth, even tools such as a club (yes, monkeys sometimes use clubs). This is a natural trait of all animals, and is their right, simply because they are a living thing.
Why so different for Man? Man has the power of his brain. He can create and use sophisticated tools. Is it not just as natural for Man to have the ability to defend himself and his interests from those who would seek to take it? Does this right somehow cease to exist in oppressive countries? No. Even the people of such nations still have the right to defend themselves. Whether they choose to do it is another story.
Here, in the United States, we have a federated republic. It is a constitutionally based government, layered into several governing districts such as towns, cities, counties, States, and of course the nation as a whole. None of these governments can legally do anything that is outside the bounds of the constitution (a county charter or city charter is also a constitution) that creates and defines that government.
The States got together and created the federal government. They created a constitution that defines the powers of that government and upon the States themselves as part of the agreement to form this federal government. Among those agreements is the Bill of Rights. For a State to ignore the federal constitution is to break that agreement, and they effectively cease to be a State of the Union in that regard by doing so. The federal constitution is not only defining a federal government, it is a treaty between the States.
The States have agreed on the 2nd amendment. It does not limit arms by type or popularity. It does not give authority to any court to change what the constitution is. The constitution, any constitution, can only be changed by the owners of that constitution (the States own the federal constitution), and only by the procedure set forth in that constitution.
Anything else is not a constitution. It has no effective power as such, even though some may call it a 'constitution'.
The right to defend oneself is inherent simply because we are living things. That right is specifically mentioned in our federal constitution and in many State constitutions to prevent the government from interfering with that natural right. The cost of interfering is the risk of revolution. Those that just fought a revolution to throw out British rule understood this. The Bill of Rights was incorporated into the federal constitution very quickly. They reiterate the principles set for in any constitution. If a government is not given specific power, then they simply don't have it. The people retain that power. Nothing in the federal constitution ever gave the government power to limit the right to self defense, even before the Bill of Rights.