CT Senator: 2nd Amendment Not Guaranteed

[Jeff]

Yet another idiot senator talking out of the wrong hole tries to explain the constitution to us, where he got his facts , well your guess is as good as mine


I mean, let’s look at the context of nullification. Nullification was last used by southern states to try to eviscerate Civil Rights legislation, to try to prevent states from basically enforcing desegregation — and I think history will look back on this round of nullification as kindly as it did on the last round. It is laughable also because it is a total bastardization of the Second Amendment. The second amendment is not an absolute right, not a God-given right. It has always had conditions upon it like the First Amendment has.
“The idea that the Second Amendment was put in there in order to allow citizens to fight their government is insane. If that was the case, we wouldn’t have also included treason in the United States constitution. We basically said, ‘If you take arms up against the government, we’re going to knock your block off,’ and that’s what the early Presidents ended up doing in the rebellion and the whiskey rebellion. The Second Amendment is not designed to allow the citizenry to arm itself against the government, and nullification is another example of states not understanding the true nature of that amendment.”

http://bearingarms.com/ct-senator-2nd-amendment-not-guaranteed/

[DragonStryk72]

Yet another idiot senator talking out of the wrong hole tries to explain the constitution to us, where he got his facts , well your guess is as good as mine


I mean, let’s look at the context of nullification. Nullification was last used by southern states to try to eviscerate Civil Rights legislation, to try to prevent states from basically enforcing desegregation — and I think history will look back on this round of nullification as kindly as it did on the last round. It is laughable also because it is a total bastardization of the Second Amendment. The second amendment is not an absolute right, not a God-given right. It has always had conditions upon it like the First Amendment has.
“The idea that the Second Amendment was put in there in order to allow citizens to fight their government is insane. If that was the case, we wouldn’t have also included treason in the United States constitution. We basically said, ‘If you take arms up against the government, we’re going to knock your block off,’ and that’s what the early Presidents ended up doing in the rebellion and the whiskey rebellion. The Second Amendment is not designed to allow the citizenry to arm itself against the government, and nullification is another example of states not understanding the true nature of that amendment.”

http://bearingarms.com/ct-senator-2nd-amendment-not-guaranteed/

So then, say, if we were ruled by England at some point, and they're beating us down with taxes and whatnot, then we have no right, no duty, to throw off such government, and provide new guards for our future security?

Even setting aside that obvious hole, there's this: We have guns because of the people who are praying we don't have guns as they're breaking into our homes, or slipping up behind us on the streets.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I have my guns because even if the 2nd Amendment did not exist I still know and understand that the right to self-defense belongs to every human. For if a man is forbidden to protect even his own life(and life of family) then he is by default an absolute slave to the authority issuing the forbiddance! For what is valued higher than that of one's own life or that of the lives of one's family ? No entity in the universe has the authority to take my weapons unless I have engaged in a criminal act using any of those weapons. A law abiding citizen has the right to defend himself regardless of any government claims to the contrary. Gun confiscation is that claim put into action. Such gun confiscation by the Federal government is actual tyranny and an act of war upon the American citizens should it ever occur. The Feds fear our guns because they know they can not enslave us while we have use of them. They hate the 2nd Amendment because it is a right insured by the authority of the Constitution of the United States of America. -Tyr

[Little-Acorn]

Something that some people (even some gun owners) still seem to miss, is that before the Bill of Rights (incl. the 2nd amendment) was added to the Constitution, it was STILL illegal for the Fed govt to ban or restrict people's ownership of guns.

The Fed had ZERO powers of any kind, nothing, nada, zip, zilch, until the Constitution expressly gave it the powers listed in its text. And when the Constitution was ratified (but before the BOR was added), not a bit of that text said that the Fed govt could restrict or ban people from keeping and bearing arms.

So the Fed never had any such power... and so, it was FORBIDDEN to try to exercise it.

In fact, the 2nd amendment changed NOTHING... except that with the way it is worded, it extended that ban to ALL governments withing the nation's borders. Once the 2nd was added to the Constitution, states and local government couldn't ban guns either. (Many state and local govts ignored this from time to time, just as the Fed often ignores it).

This was also true for the rights listed in the 1st amendment. Before it was added, the Fed govt still had no authority to restrict or endorse religion, no authority to restrict speech or the press, etc. etc. But when the 1st was written and added, it specifically forbade ONLY CONGRESS from restricting those rights (unlike the 2nd amendment). State and local could still restrict speech, religion etc. (The 14th amendment later changed this.) In fact, most states at the time, had official state religions, and the 1st was carefully written to avoid messing with that.

[aboutime]

POT...meet KETTLE. Wingnut, calling others 5376. On the Maddcow show??? Really?