danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #521
Just lousy reading comprehension? The Second Amendment proclaims what is necessary to the security of a free State; it is most definitely, not about natural rights.You know --- I am continually amazed at the level of ignorance espoused by the left today.No, it isn't. The right to acquire and possess is a natural right. Militia service is an obligation of the People.The right to bear arms is a natural right. Do you even "John Locke" bro?Militia service is not a natural right. Natural rights are not in question.
![]()
The 1st and 2nd Amendments are an excellent example.
The 1st Amendment clearly limits the government from passing laws abridging several enumerated rights. It says nothing - not a single word - about me abridging your right to speak. The government - not me - not BLM - not Antifa. It is NOT unconstitutional for BLM to block speeches at UC Berkeley - it might be an illegal activity, but it isn't unconstitutional. You will notice that the blockers aren't charged with preventing the speech -they're always charged with rioting, blocking an event, trespassing, whatever the hell the cops can find. But, they're blocking your speech is, in fact, an expression of their freedom of speech (which is NOT guaranteed by the 1st Amendment)
The 2nd Amendment is the same - it prevents the GOVERNMENT from passing laws infringing on the rights of the people to bear arms. "Why" isn't the issue - the attempts to parse the wording in order to arrive at a contorted definition in order to fit a preconceived political position are, simply, wrongheaded.
The Constitution is a restrictive document - it does not "grant" rights to anybody. If it ain't restricted by the Constitution, it's legal. Some would say - myself included - if it isn't SPECIFICALLY restricted by the Constitution, it's legal.