December 26, 2012 at 11:24 pm #15024
If the second amendment is to protect our rights to defend ourselves from the government, is it correct to say that the 10th amendment gives us the right to have guns for hunting and to defend ourselves from criminals?December 26, 2012 at 11:27 pm #15025
Sorry, I just noticed someone posted a similar question here https://libertyclassroom.com/forums/topic/the-right-to-use-guns-for-self-defense-protected-by-the-10th-amendment/December 27, 2012 at 10:08 am #15026December 28, 2012 at 7:56 pm #15027Brion McClanahanMember
Neither the 2nd nor the 10th amendment “gives us the right” to do anything. They both protect natural rights from government interference. That is how the founding generation conceptualized both. We have a natural right to self defense and self preservation. The 2nd Amendment protects that.December 28, 2012 at 9:49 pm #15028ronmicleMember
The constitutional argument is important, but perhaps a bit overrated. I think the major point to make is: in a free society, how can you not have the right to defend yourself or your property? It is right to make people depend on the state if their house is robbed, etc?December 29, 2012 at 2:58 pm #15029
Sorry, I should have said “protect” in both clauses. I know better than to suggest we get rights from government… I screwed up the wording in one of those clauses. I agree it is important to stress that these are rights that we have regardless of the Constitution.
Check out this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiXup3fWX7w&list=PLALopHfWkFlFXsDIlSx8KisqZM5OotGWq#t=14m27s where Judge Napolitano says the following at Mises Inst event:
“…Your right to keep and own a gun, which my friends is not the right to shoot at a deer, it’s the right to shoot at the government if it is taken over by tyrants.”
It seems like the Judge’s position is in conflict with some of the points made by Levinson in this article: http://constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm
Given the difficulty of understanding the 2nd Amendment, is there anything wrong with saying the following to 2nd Amendment skeptics: “If private ownership of firearms is not protected by the 2nd Amendment, then it is most certainly protected by the 9th and/or 10th.”December 29, 2012 at 3:34 pm #15030maester_millerParticipant
I seem to recall something about various states passing (or maybe just considering) legislation that was being referred to as “firearms freedom act” declaring that any firearms that are manufactured and sold solely within the borders of that particular state were not a part of interstate commerce and therefore not subject to any sort of federal regulation on them.
Does anyone know more about that?January 2, 2013 at 9:30 pm #15031
No response addressing my 2nd v. 9th and 10th question, which is leading me to believe it is really the 9th and 10th amendments that protect individual gun rights. This makes me think that the emphasis of the 2nd amendment is wrong in many cases.January 2, 2013 at 9:43 pm #15032
As support for my point I submit that if the 2nd amendment was repealed, there is no authority in the Constitution to take away our guns.January 2, 2013 at 11:14 pm #15033
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.