No Virginia, There Is No Constitutional Right To Own A Gun
Never Never Land, – -(AmmoLand.com)-
“There was a demonstration in Virginia over the weekend consisting of gun owners demonstrating for what or against what no one really knew and maybe they didn’t either. But it probably had to do with a second amendment right for them to own guns that doesn’t exist. And never did.If there is one thing both conservatives, many Democrats and most journalists have in common its their constitutional ignorance of the second amendment and their false belief that the second amendment has anything to do with an individual’s right to own a gun.
It doesn’t and it never did.
But to listen to Obama, and many Democrats and liberals like Ed Schultz the other night on MSNBC, along with conservatives, they assume they know what the amendment means, assume it gives individuals the right to own guns, and as is the case with so many mistaken assumptions made in America, they are all wrong.
How do we know? Let us count the ways. First, there has never been one single Supreme Court ruling that has held the Second Amendment gives people the right to own guns ( “Heller”, which many advocates like to quote, actually skirted the entire issue and focused instead on the status of the District of Columbia as not being a state and ducked on the whole question of the second amendment and states rights). You would think with all the controversy surrounding guns that somewhere along the line there would have been a case or a challenge where the Supreme Court addressed the issue, but there has never been an affirmation of the Second Amendment applying to individuals. Ever.
The entire and sole purpose of the second amendment was to give the states the right to have their own armed militia for the defense of the state. It had nothing to do with individuals owning guns for their own self defense. That already was the case. The second amendment guaranteed the states the right to have and maintain ( “keep and bear) arms for the defense of the state as a whole. And not just armed with guns. With any weapons they wished including cannon, war ships, rockets, anything, which is why state’s have armories. All anyone has to do to understand the second amendment is read it.
The right to keep and bear arms is not about what guns you have. It does not guarantee that you have the right to walk into a 7-11 carrying your gun and if you disagree, try doing in New York. They’ll find a nice cell for you maybe next to Plaxico Burress the former NY Giant wide receiver who is doing 3 years in jail for carrying a gun in New York City.
And what about the words ” to bear arms”? It does not mean to go hunting or to take your gun to a gun show, go target shooting, show it off or even to shoot a burglar. In 1789 America and to the Founders who authored the amendment “to bear arms”, meant only one thing — to go to war.”
Are you still reading?
Whats that.. some of you agree? Well if you are that dumb and want to read the rest of this lie filled twisted piece of socialist yellow journalism, be our guest you can find it at : https://tiny.cc/a_bunch_of_yellow_lies
We recommend you contact the author, Marc Rubin, and tell him how proud you are that we was kind enough to school us ignorant hicks on the true meaning of the 2nd amendment. Thanks you wise sage.
About the Freedom Hating Author:
Marc Rubin has been an advertising art director, writer and television script writer having been the head writer for such TV series as “The White Shadow’ “Fame” and others. He was co-founder of The Denver Group which received much media attention for the ads and TV commercials he created pressuring the DNC to keep Hillary Clinton’s name on the ballot at the Democratic Convention. He is currently at work on a new TV series pilot and a number of film projects. He lives in New York City.
You can reach Marc at [email protected]
For those of you that agree you can leave you email and comments below and I am sure some of our readers will thank you too.
This may be the most poorly researched article I've ever read.
"On another note, we MUST understand that the Supreme Court is NOT the final arbiter of the Constitution. We the people are!" frank, i don't know where you got this idea. read "marbury vs madison". what do you think "supreme" means in "supreme court"? for better or worse, and you might not like it, but there is a very long history of the US supreme court being exactly that, the final arbiter of deciding what the constitution MEANS. this is a subtle difference from writing the constitution, approving the constitution, amending the constitution, etc. the power to INTERPRET the constitution… Read more »
This author is just too stupid to waste a lot of time responding. I will spend time finding out who supports and sponsors him and let them know what a dumb@#! I thing he is and whay we are not bying there productsa or watching his shows anymore.
This idiot is proof that some people can not be trusted to responsibly use their right of a free press!
Hey Jim – you aren't referring to us gun totin bible thumpin PA hill billiies are you ?
Left there after 25 years and kind of ashamed what's been happening there since. Of course CA isn't any better. Time to think about AZ.
Always were Democrats but not the kind today.
Hey, what can I say….. in 1969, after returning from the Nam, I had this talk with a few fools of the time. They are just dumber today and have a great leader in the White House, who has no idea what this great Country was formed for in the first place. I guess its us Red Necks that cant read that piece of paper right…. Thanks for the liberals that help us out in this messed up world.
dew
First, the Constitution, from the 11th amendment onward does indeed "confer" some rights (13th and 14th amendments for example). Second [ref #7 above], the "Bill of Rights" is that part of the ORIGINAL Constitution, consisting of the main document and the first TEN amendments. Not the first 13. The Framers never wrote 11-13; subsequent CONGRESSES did. Third [ref #3 above], POWERS are delegated to States; RIGHTS are for PEOPLE. States have no rights (as in "states' rights"). Power delegated is exercised by "AUTHORITY" of agents of states, who, while it is true generally are "people", which could as easily be… Read more »
The 2nd Amendment is part of the 1st 13 Amendments known as The Bill of Rights each amendment confirms individual rights not the states
Is this guy for real?
Boys, boys, Stop it! You did not finish the article. Please read the last few lines. Stop getting mad at an allie, This article was written to show you how the Constitution is being revised. Try googling "The New States Constitution".
The constitution does not guarantee anything as the writer Palidine opines. It is God's gift to humanity – our rights. to the writer of the article, spuing bilge gunk, the constitution doesn't guarantee that own an automobile either and it kills a far greater number of people than any weapon in the hands of a responsible owner. For that matter, knives etc. kill as many or more. So apply your blarney to that. I have the inherited right to defend myself against my enemies that wish to do me harm. it is that simple. I also have the inherited rigtht… Read more »
I couldn't find the part in the Second Amendment where it said, "the right of the STATES to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Every copy I can find says, "the right of the PEOPLE…" I did notice in several other places where the word STATE or STATES was used when conferring certain powers etc. Why would they use PEOPLE in some places and STATE in others? Hmmmmm? Oh if only we conservatives had the naturally infused intelligence, without the need for academic research, as the progressives/collectivists seem to have! There would be no limit to the good… Read more »
I suggest you re-read the Heller decision. All nine justices agreed the 2nd Amendment does protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. They just haven't addressed to what extent the right exists and we're waiting on the McDonald decision due out in June, I believe, to get formal "incorporation" of the amendment against the States. Some corrupt Supreme Court in the last century issued a soiled ruling that was then misinterpreted and misapplied by corrupt, activist judges to TRY to assert that the states are not bound by the Bill of Rights. Yes, they think we the people… Read more »
What part of "right to keep and bear arms" do you not understand? Also I suggest you research the meaning of militia back in 1776 versus today.