4 ms·

The whole point is that the right to self-defense, which means the right to bear arms, pre-dates the Constitution and the formation of our nation. The 2nd Amen

The whole point is that the right to self-defense, which means the right to bear arms, pre-dates the Constitution and the formation of our nation. The 2nd Amendment only makes it clear that the government is not infringing upon the right which already exists. For a deeper look at the issue dive into the positive rights vs. negative rights discussion which has been going on for ages. Sometimes it's phrased as positive vs negative liberty. The short version, or my understanding of it, is negative rights means your rights were not given to you by your government, they are inherent, or given to you by God, or they are somehow a part of your very existence. This means your government can only take rights away from you but it doesn't have the power to ever grant you a right. Positive rights on the other hand is the idea that rights are granted by your government. And since they are granted to you they may also be taken away.

daenz 7y ago
Bingo. Only clarification I'd make is to this: >This means your government can only take rights away from you but it doesn't have the power to ever grant you a right. My understanding is that the government is unable to grant nor deny you the right, only infringe upon it. The right is always there by virtue of your existence, so it can only be infringed upon.
- inagfbdfys6a3nf 7y ago
  Right, I misspoke. Thank you. It's a subtle difference but the implications are massive. For anybody following along (since daenz seems more informed than me already), the 9th Amendment and the discussions that led up to it flesh out the idea that the Bill of Rights merely guarantees that certain rights won't be infringed even though many other rights also exist but were not explicitly mentioned. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_...) The biggest modern example I can think of is the non-enumerated yet Constitutionally guaranteed (according to the Supreme Court) Right to Privacy which played a pivotal role in the Roe vs. Wade decision.

daenz 7y ago

Bingo. Only clarification I'd make is to this: >This means your government can only take rights away from you but it doesn't have the power to ever grant you a right. My understanding is that the government is unable to grant nor deny you the right, only infringe upon it. The right is always there by virtue of your existence, so it can only be infringed upon.

inagfbdfys6a3nf 7y ago
Right, I misspoke. Thank you. It's a subtle difference but the implications are massive. For anybody following along (since daenz seems more informed than me already), the 9th Amendment and the discussions that led up to it flesh out the idea that the Bill of Rights merely guarantees that certain rights won't be infringed even though many other rights also exist but were not explicitly mentioned. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_...) The biggest modern example I can think of is the non-enumerated yet Constitutionally guaranteed (according to the Supreme Court) Right to Privacy which played a pivotal role in the Roe vs. Wade decision.