TexasCHLforum.com

gah...gah...gah!!!...gah...gah...gah!!!...

Sorry, I had to get that off my chest.

The problem is that the Government is trampling the rights of the people. And a part of that problem is how some individuals perceive and interpret those rights.

I understand that you see it that way, but that does not make me incorrect. Historically, governments of all types and locales have *not* granted these rights to their citizens. In fact, the previous government denied many of these rights to its citizens. Regardless of why the rights are being protected or where their foundation lies, they are still "granted" by the government. *Any* right that the citizens have under a government is *by definition* granted. I know you disagree, but please do not be so rude as to call me "absolutely incorrect" because I believe differently from you.

I am relatively sure that we are both utterly convinced on who is correct, and who is not. If you consider it rude for me to characterize you as "absolutely incorrect", than I have to wonder just how shallow a threshold you have for being offended. I thought I was being rather diplomatic and if necessary, will apologize.

really? how do you defend that stance? The first half of that sentence cannot stand on its own and be anywhere near grammatically correct. Therefore, the sentence *must* be taken as a whole. As I wrote above, I interpret that to mean that the right to keep and bear arms is directly related to the first half of the sentence, not a separate one. After all, the framers could have separated them if they wanted to... but they did not.

The Second Amendment has a single sentence in it, comprised of two parts divided by a number of commas.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This amendment has gone through roughly 3 phases of Judicial interpretation. The final interpretation under HELLER, is that the RKBA is an individual right and not just collective. It appears to me that you are in support of the second phase of Judicial interpretation. I am not.

Once again, I disagree. Violence has not only changed, it has changed *drastically*. There are still embattled parts of inner cities in which it does take place with the same regularity, but that environment was the norm in 1776, not the exception. We had just finished fighting an 8-year-long WAR that *literally* happened in our backyards. Local law enforcement was almost non-existent, and vigilante justice was often the only type available. I'm not suggesting that we should not be armed, but the general climate in regards to violence is *nowhere near* the same.e]

We are parsing words here. Violence is still just that....violence. It has not become respectable or civilized. It is still a nitty-gritty dirty reality that anyone, anywhere can encounter. Local law enforcement reports and investigates crime. They rarely get the opportunity to prevent it. The individual citizen is the only person that can be counted on to provide for their own security.
My contention is that violence has not changed since the first man bunched-up his fist and his woman cold-cocked him across the noggin with a rock from behind. It DOES NOT happen in specific locations, during certain time-frames and to people that "deserve it". Violence is indiscriminate.

I am not ready to advance the cause of OC at this time. My ultimate goal is what is commonly known as "Constitutional Carry". What bothers me, is that many people interpret the Constitution so differently.

Mgood, I agree completely with you.

djjoshuad wrote:
I politely disagree. I know that a lot of people believe that the word "unconditionally" is implied with each of the bill of rights. I don't know where that comes from. Also, the constitution of the united states is not about enumerating rights granted by any particular god (the word "god" is not written once in the constitution). It's about rights granted by the government to its citizens. The 2A even uses the term "well regulated"... unregulated open carry seems to go against the 2nd amendment, not with it. Calling unregulated carry "constitutional" is not only incorrect, I believe it is irresponsible.

I have to dispute the following assertions:

djjoshuad wrote:"It's about rights granted by the government to its citizens".

That is absolutely incorrect. The Bill of Rights are about "inalienable" rights that the government cannot rescind, and by no means are "granted" by the government to its citizens.

djjoshuad wrote:"The 2A even uses the term "well regulated"..."

Well-regulated is used specifically in regards to the forming of State Militias and is NOT related to the latter half of the sentence to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The intent of this Amendment is to make it clear that citizens of the United States can defend themselves both individually and collectively especially in the face of possible Governmental tyranny. The Government does not grant us such a right, it is considered a "given" or naturally "inherent" right.

djjoshuad wrote: This furthers what I was trying to say above. People of that time carried weapons all the time because it was absolutely necessary. Not being armed wasn't just a little risky, like it is today. Not being armed in that time meant certain vulnerability and likely harm to your person. A man carrying a weapon openly, walking down main street USA, was normal and no cause for alarm. Today is a much different society. A man doing the same thing today would cause great alarm - right or wrong, it's how society has evolved. At this point, it will take "corrective" action to get society to feel differently

None the less, the need to walk down the street armed is no less prudent that it was in the past. Violence has not changed since those days.