knapplc asks dumb questions about guns

[knapplc]

These are probably questions I could google, so if I'm being lazy just tell me (but then tell me the answer anyway).

 

I promise these are not "gotcha" questions, and I have no agenda asking them. I've been curious about these questions for a while, but the (sometimes) contentious gun debate threads aren't good places to ask.

 

People with knowledge of guns/gun laws:

 

What is the problem with concealed carry? If I have a license to carry a gun, what does it matter if I carry it openly on my hip or hidden in a shoulder holster? Why is there a difference?

 

If we're legally allowed to have guns like AR-15s, why are there videos showing dudes walking around with such guns being approached by cops? Is it simple prudence on the cops' part to just check them out, or is there a problem somehow.

 

Maybe BRI would be the best expert to answer these questions, but I imagine folks who are "in" to guns would know this stuff, too.

[NM11046]

I also have a dumb question about guns (hit me today at the gym). It's called the NRA (National RIFLE Association) so when did their agenda become to protect anything other than rifles? Handguns, AR57 etc.

[TAKODA]

These are probably questions I could google, so if I'm being lazy just tell me (but then tell me the answer anyway).

 

I promise these are not "gotcha" questions, and I have no agenda asking them. I've been curious about these questions for a while, but the (sometimes) contentious gun debate threads aren't good places to ask.

 

People with knowledge of guns/gun laws:

 

What is the problem with concealed carry? If I have a license to carry a gun, what does it matter if I carry it openly on my hip or hidden in a shoulder holster? Why is there a difference?

 

If we're legally allowed to have guns like AR-15s, why are there videos showing dudes walking around with such guns being approached by cops? Is it simple prudence on the cops' part to just check them out, or is there a problem somehow.

 

Maybe BRI would be the best expert to answer these questions, but I imagine folks who are "in" to guns would know this stuff, too.

 

 

First Knapp, I had to LOL that you used the bold-ed terms above, since there is a thread created by Moiraine, that included these terms.

 

I will supply you with my viewpoint on the questions you relayed and others can chime in as they see fit.

 

1. What is the problem with concealed carry? If I have a license to carry a gun, what does it matter if I carry it openly on my hip or hidden in a shoulder holster? Why is there a difference?

 

There is nothing wrong with ' Concealed Carry', and this is my preferred choice.

 

A. ‘Open Carry’, I will say that depending on where you live (State and County), there are regulations and laws that need to be followed, which outline the restrictions or permit requirements of that town, city or county. In my opinion, 'Open Carry' can cause too much attention and ultimately it causes law enforcement to respond to concerned citizen’s calls or complaints, thus wasting valuable resources that could be avoided. If you will, imagine what the officer responding to a call of "man with a gun" thinks when the officer gets the call. In my opinion, (unless concealed carry is not an option), those who feel the need to 'Open Carry', in areas where it is not normally seen, are doing it for the show, and this is probably not someone who should have a gun in the first place. There are also studies that state that 'Open Carry' states, have a larger number of accidental shootings than those who prohibit.

 

I will also add that in the world we live today, some people are simply testing the resolve of the Officers who respond to these calls, to insure their “rights” are not being infringed upon. This is so ignorant and has added to the issues that we are seeing on the news daily. Be smart people, this is not the time to test, to see if you can make a name for yourself by getting an officer to do something against your rights. Listen carefully to the instructions the officer gives you and follow through appropriately to insure your safety. While we all want to protect our rights, you getting into a conflict to see who will blink first with a law enforcement officer who has no idea of your intent, could get your name printed in granite once and for all.

 

B. ‘Concealed Carry’, Just like above, have differing regulations and laws governing where, who and why someone could carry a ‘Concealed Weapon’. Each state has specifics that need to be adhered too. The issues surrounding concealed weapons are self-evident as we have seen and heard on the news. There may be additional hoops to jump through in the state you live, due to the weapon being hidden. Most law enforcement (present and retired) have such permits and elect to do so for the reasons I mention above.

 

If we're legally allowed to have guns like AR-15s, why are there videos showing dudes walking around with such guns being approached by cops? Is it simple prudence on the cops' part to just check them out, or is there a problem somehow.

Law enforcement in a city, is less likely to see people walking down the street with a long gun hanging over their shoulder, than the sheriff deputies in a rural community. Long guns are typically used for hunting and there is little wild life in a city as well as some ordinances that disallow hunting within city limits. You have it right Knapp, officers who see someone walking down the street with an AR or shot gun or any rifle, are trying to protect you, me and everyone else from the obvious. I made a comment in another thread regarding some of the you tube ass hats, who are walking in front of a court house with a long gun, testing their rights with an officer. I don’t care if you are white, black, blue, orange or other, if you elect to do something like that, you do not have a high enough IQ to have the right to own a gun, “any gun”!

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

If we're legally allowed to have guns like AR-15s, why are there videos showing dudes walking around with such guns being approached by cops? Is it simple prudence on the cops' part to just check them out, or is there a problem somehow.

Law enforcement in a city, is less likely to see people walking down the street with a long gun hanging over their shoulder, than the sheriff deputies in a rural community. Long guns are typically used for hunting and there is little wild life in a city as well as some ordinances that disallow hunting within city limits. You have it right Knapp, officers who see someone walking down the street with an AR or shot gun or any rifle, are trying to protect you, me and everyone else from the obvious. I made a comment in another thread regarding some of the you tube ass hats, who are walking in front of a court house with a long gun, testing their rights with an officer. I don’t care if you are white, black, blue, orange or other, if you elect to do something like that, you do not have a high enough IQ to have the right to own a gun, “any gun”!

 

Completely agree with this paragraph. If you are a big enough idiot to walk down the street with a long gun over your shoulder, I would be very disappointed if a police officer who sees you didn't ask for ID and ask you questions....

[knapplc]

But with 2nd Amendment rights, why is that person an idiot? If the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to carry that weapon, then... what's the issue?

 

It seems there's a societal taboo against actually enjoying the freedom the 2nd Amendment gives us. Is that not so?

[admo]

I don't think we're living in the wild west anymore. The US is a highly populated civilization that wants to work, dine out, shop, go to ball games, partake in charities, go to church and other events, and enjoy their leisure time in public without the idea of a person standing next to them in line with a gun. I mean, speaking for myself that is. So if I walk into Dunkin Donuts for an iced coffee and a blueberry donut, and spot a gun underneath a person's wind breaker, then I'm stopping in my tracks and leaving premise. Licensed to carry or not, that's a problem.

[TAKODA]

But with 2nd Amendment rights, why is that person an idiot? If the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to carry that weapon, then... what's the issue?

 

It seems there's a societal taboo against actually enjoying the freedom the 2nd Amendment gives us. Is that not so?

 

Knapp, don't pretend like you don't have your agenda. Starting this thread and posing the questions, thus obtaining the reasonable deduced responses to your questions was part your goal!

 

There, I used one of those silly terms.

 

"Rights" as I have stated before in the gun thread, (IMO) are not a forgone conclusion and come with restraints.

 

It is important to remember, "Bill of Rights" not "Bill of Granted Rights"

[BigRedBuster]

But with 2nd Amendment rights, why is that person an idiot? If the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to carry that weapon, then... what's the issue?

 

It seems there's a societal taboo against actually enjoying the freedom the 2nd Amendment gives us. Is that not so?

I guess I'm making a judgement on why the guy is doing it.

 

He isn't doing it because he loves carrying it around. He isn't doing it so that he is safer. He is purposely trying to cause a stir and hopefully catch something on camera of someone trying to prevent him from "exercising his second amendment rights.

 

There is a difference between doing something because that's what you want to do and doing something trying to make a scene.

 

Hey....people have the 1st amendment rights to say what they want. That doesn't mean they aren't total idiots for saying some of the things they say.

 

In this guy's case, he is purposely trying to make people uncomfortable by carrying it around.

[knapplc]

 

But with 2nd Amendment rights, why is that person an idiot? If the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to carry that weapon, then... what's the issue?

 

It seems there's a societal taboo against actually enjoying the freedom the 2nd Amendment gives us. Is that not so?

I guess I'm making a judgement on why the guy is doing it.

 

He isn't doing it because he loves carrying it around. He isn't doing it so that he is safer. He is purposely trying to cause a stir and hopefully catch something on camera of someone trying to prevent him from "exercising his second amendment rights.

 

There is a difference between doing something because that's what you want to do and doing something trying to make a scene.

 

Hey....people have the 1st amendment rights to say what they want. That doesn't mean they aren't total idiots for saying some of the things they say.

 

In this guy's case, he is purposely trying to make people uncomfortable by carrying it around.

 

I see where you're coming from. It seems to me, though, that as a freedom granted by the 2nd Amendment (TAKODA's explanation notwithstanding), John Smith American Citizen should be allowed to openly carry his gun anywhere. It's a weird thing, that we have this right, but most people wouldn't be comfortable with it. I know I wouldn't be comfortable with a guy carrying a long rifle downtown.

[84HuskerLaw]

 

But with 2nd Amendment rights, why is that person an idiot? If the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to carry that weapon, then... what's the issue?

 

It seems there's a societal taboo against actually enjoying the freedom the 2nd Amendment gives us. Is that not so?

 

Knapp, don't pretend like you don't have your agenda. Starting this thread and posing the questions, thus obtaining the reasonable deduced responses to your questions was part your goal!

 

There, I used one of those silly terms.

 

"Rights" as I have stated before in the gun thread, (IMO) are not a forgone conclusion and come with restraints.

 

It is important to remember, "Bill of Rights" not "Bill of Granted Rights"

 

It is most important to understand that the Bill of Rights is a basic declaration of the individual rights of the people which are RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE - an important distinction to keep in mind when discussing any of the many Constitutionally protected rights. The rights already existed in the individual citizens and are NOT GRANTED by the Constitution but preserved and not limited by it as such. The Constitution is a limiting document which grants certain very limited powers to the federal government and more powers to the several states and the rest, residue and remainder are retained by the people. Only by Constitutional amendment through the prescribed process can individual's rights be restricted, reduced, taken away or otherwise limited by any governmental authority. So, it is not a Bill of Granted Rights but rather more aptly expressed as a Bill of Rights Retained by the People over which the government has no power to limit.

Of course, like so many laws and actions by our various levels of government, aided and abetted by judges who fail to read and follow the Constitution's declarations carefully enough, over a couple centuries, the rights of the people have been watered down, limited and otherwise modified by laws, regulations, court rulings, etc. In other cases, such as abortion rights and other so called 'rights to privacy' for example, there have been 'rights' (more aptly thought of as privileges really) which are judicial creations. Created basically out of broad 'reading' or interpretation of the Constitution as a whole without finding specific language therein to support such creations. This judicial activism or judicial law making is more like legislating from the bench and represents a reach beyond the intent and spirit of the Constitution and its drafters. The Supreme Court has taken it upon itself to be a super legislative body with the power to override and impose the will of a select few judges appointed for life tenure to declare new 'rights' and privileges to both the government and or the people that were not contemplated by the founders and the several states in the enactment process. This doctrine of judicial review, as the Court has referred to it, was also simply created by the Court long ago, in the effort to apply the Constitution's provisions to the cases and controversies that naturally arise in society within and without government's functions. Fortunately, until recently, the Court exercised great self control and often declined to intervene in the affairs of the people and their dealings with government and each other. Many scholars would argue, quite correctly in my view, that the Court has gone far beyond the bounds of what was ever imagined for the role of the Supreme Court as a separate but equal branch. We are now to the point where the Court, coupled with the cooperation and overreaching by the legislative and executive branches, has allowed or even directed, government action in areas clearly beyond the limited powers available to them.

 

In regard to the 2nd Amendment's unequivocal and plain language protecting the individual's right to keep and bear arms, there are so many rules, regulations, statutes, court decisions and other restrictions on the individual's gun ownership and use rights that the 'right' has effectively been reduced to a limited privilege basically. There are controls over who, what, where, when and how one may buy, sell, own, carry, possess, use and etc. The 2nd Amendment Right is more limited than any other Constitutionally protected right by far. Oddly, there are relatively few case decisions by the Supreme Court and until the NRA got involved, the typical individual was virtually powerless to fight the government's actions due mostly to the cost and long time process required to assert and maintain those rights. The NRA opposes most new gun limits on law abiding citizens because the tolerance of any more direct restraints of one's liberty in this area of the law threatens all individual rights. Broad controls imposed on long guns vs. hand guns any of the myriad of types of guns are direct threats to the liberty of all Americans. Inherent and perhaps most important within the right to keep and bear arms is the most fundamental civil right of any human and that is the right to self defense. The right to protect one's self from the actions of government and or individuals is so fundamental and basic to life as to be, arguably, the most important civil right of all. If a person loses to right to defend one's self, then all other rights become meaningless. The founders were acutely aware of the dangers to freedom and democracy and the society that they all envisioned to come from the entirely new and never before tried governmental structures created by our Constitution, that they designed the fundamental structure of the government in three co-equal but divided branches to prevent any of them from going to far and encroaching on the rights of the individual to be free and live with an absolute minimal interference by government and certainly no King or other authority beyond the restraints of the people using the power of the vote.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

But with 2nd Amendment rights, why is that person an idiot? If the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to carry that weapon, then... what's the issue?

 

It seems there's a societal taboo against actually enjoying the freedom the 2nd Amendment gives us. Is that not so?

I guess I'm making a judgement on why the guy is doing it.

 

He isn't doing it because he loves carrying it around. He isn't doing it so that he is safer. He is purposely trying to cause a stir and hopefully catch something on camera of someone trying to prevent him from "exercising his second amendment rights.

 

There is a difference between doing something because that's what you want to do and doing something trying to make a scene.

 

Hey....people have the 1st amendment rights to say what they want. That doesn't mean they aren't total idiots for saying some of the things they say.

 

In this guy's case, he is purposely trying to make people uncomfortable by carrying it around.

 

I see where you're coming from. It seems to me, though, that as a freedom granted by the 2nd Amendment (TAKODA's explanation notwithstanding), John Smith American Citizen should be allowed to openly carry his gun anywhere. It's a weird thing, that we have this right, but most people wouldn't be comfortable with it. I know I wouldn't be comfortable with a guy carrying a long rifle downtown.

 

Almost all gun owners are cognizant that there are some people who are scared of guns and especially if someone is just walking down the street in the Haymarket in Lincoln carrying an AR or 30-06. These people don't want other people to feel uncomfortable.

 

Also, why the hell would I want the responsibility if I'm carrying an AR walking through the mall and I forget to put the safety on and it goes off killing someone?

 

These are why 99% of gun owners don't do what these idiots are doing. The only reason why they are doing it is to try to catch something on video that they can make a big stink about and have their video go viral.

[TAKODA]

 

 

But with 2nd Amendment rights, why is that person an idiot? If the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to carry that weapon, then... what's the issue?

 

It seems there's a societal taboo against actually enjoying the freedom the 2nd Amendment gives us. Is that not so?

 

Knapp, don't pretend like you don't have your agenda. Starting this thread and posing the questions, thus obtaining the reasonable deduced responses to your questions was part your goal!

 

There, I used one of those silly terms.

 

"Rights" as I have stated before in the gun thread, (IMO) are not a forgone conclusion and come with restraints.

 

It is important to remember, "Bill of Rights" not "Bill of Granted Rights"

 

It is most important to understand that the Bill of Rights is a basic declaration of the individual rights of the people which are RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE - an important distinction to keep in mind when discussing any of the many Constitutionally protected rights. The rights already existed in the individual citizens and are NOT GRANTED by the Constitution but preserved and not limited by it as such. The Constitution is a limiting document which grants certain very limited powers to the federal government and more powers to the several states and the rest, residue and remainder are retained by the people. Only by Constitutional amendment through the prescribed process can individual's rights be restricted, reduced, taken away or otherwise limited by any governmental authority. So, it is not a Bill of Granted Rights but rather more aptly expressed as a Bill of Rights Retained by the People over which the government has no power to limit.

Of course, like so many laws and actions by our various levels of government, aided and abetted by judges who fail to read and follow the Constitution's declarations carefully enough, over a couple centuries, the rights of the people have been watered down, limited and otherwise modified by laws, regulations, court rulings, etc. In other cases, such as abortion rights and other so called 'rights to privacy' for example, there have been 'rights' (more aptly thought of as privileges really) which are judicial creations. Created basically out of broad 'reading' or interpretation of the Constitution as a whole without finding specific language therein to support such creations. This judicial activism or judicial law making is more like legislating from the bench and represents a reach beyond the intent and spirit of the Constitution and its drafters. The Supreme Court has taken it upon itself to be a super legislative body with the power to override and impose the will of a select few judges appointed for life tenure to declare new 'rights' and privileges to both the government and or the people that were not contemplated by the founders and the several states in the enactment process. This doctrine of judicial review, as the Court has referred to it, was also simply created by the Court long ago, in the effort to apply the Constitution's provisions to the cases and controversies that naturally arise in society within and without government's functions. Fortunately, until recently, the Court exercised great self control and often declined to intervene in the affairs of the people and their dealings with government and each other. Many scholars would argue, quite correctly in my view, that the Court has gone far beyond the bounds of what was ever imagined for the role of the Supreme Court as a separate but equal branch. We are now to the point where the Court, coupled with the cooperation and overreaching by the legislative and executive branches, has allowed or even directed, government action in areas clearly beyond the limited powers available to them.

 

In regard to the 2nd Amendment's unequivocal and plain language protecting the individual's right to keep and bear arms, there are so many rules, regulations, statutes, court decisions and other restrictions on the individual's gun ownership and use rights that the 'right' has effectively been reduced to a limited privilege basically. There are controls over who, what, where, when and how one may buy, sell, own, carry, possess, use and etc. The 2nd Amendment Right is more limited than any other Constitutionally protected right by far. Oddly, there are relatively few case decisions by the Supreme Court and until the NRA got involved, the typical individual was virtually powerless to fight the government's actions due mostly to the cost and long time process required to assert and maintain those rights. The NRA opposes most new gun limits on law abiding citizens because the tolerance of any more direct restraints of one's liberty in this area of the law threatens all individual rights. Broad controls imposed on long guns vs. hand guns any of the myriad of types of guns are direct threats to the liberty of all Americans. Inherent and perhaps most important within the right to keep and bear arms is the most fundamental civil right of any human and that is the right to self defense. The right to protect one's self from the actions of government and or individuals is so fundamental and basic to life as to be, arguably, the most important civil right of all. If a person loses to right to defend one's self, then all other rights become meaningless. The founders were acutely aware of the dangers to freedom and democracy and the society that they all envisioned to come from the entirely new and never before tried governmental structures created by our Constitution, that they designed the fundamental structure of the government in three co-equal but divided branches to prevent any of them from going to far and encroaching on the rights of the individual to be free and live with an absolute minimal interference by government and certainly no King or other authority beyond the restraints of the people using the power of the vote.

 

 

84, no disrespect intended dude but, I know you don't expect me to read all that to find out what you are trying to point out!

[NM11046]

 

 

 

But with 2nd Amendment rights, why is that person an idiot? If the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to carry that weapon, then... what's the issue?

 

It seems there's a societal taboo against actually enjoying the freedom the 2nd Amendment gives us. Is that not so?

 

Knapp, don't pretend like you don't have your agenda. Starting this thread and posing the questions, thus obtaining the reasonable deduced responses to your questions was part your goal!

 

There, I used one of those silly terms.

 

"Rights" as I have stated before in the gun thread, (IMO) are not a forgone conclusion and come with restraints.

 

It is important to remember, "Bill of Rights" not "Bill of Granted Rights"

 

It is most important to understand that the Bill of Rights is a basic declaration of the individual rights of the people which are RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE - an important distinction to keep in mind when discussing any of the many Constitutionally protected rights. The rights already existed in the individual citizens and are NOT GRANTED by the Constitution but preserved and not limited by it as such. The Constitution is a limiting document which grants certain very limited powers to the federal government and more powers to the several states and the rest, residue and remainder are retained by the people. Only by Constitutional amendment through the prescribed process can individual's rights be restricted, reduced, taken away or otherwise limited by any governmental authority. So, it is not a Bill of Granted Rights but rather more aptly expressed as a Bill of Rights Retained by the People over which the government has no power to limit.

Of course, like so many laws and actions by our various levels of government, aided and abetted by judges who fail to read and follow the Constitution's declarations carefully enough, over a couple centuries, the rights of the people have been watered down, limited and otherwise modified by laws, regulations, court rulings, etc. In other cases, such as abortion rights and other so called 'rights to privacy' for example, there have been 'rights' (more aptly thought of as privileges really) which are judicial creations. Created basically out of broad 'reading' or interpretation of the Constitution as a whole without finding specific language therein to support such creations. This judicial activism or judicial law making is more like legislating from the bench and represents a reach beyond the intent and spirit of the Constitution and its drafters. The Supreme Court has taken it upon itself to be a super legislative body with the power to override and impose the will of a select few judges appointed for life tenure to declare new 'rights' and privileges to both the government and or the people that were not contemplated by the founders and the several states in the enactment process. This doctrine of judicial review, as the Court has referred to it, was also simply created by the Court long ago, in the effort to apply the Constitution's provisions to the cases and controversies that naturally arise in society within and without government's functions. Fortunately, until recently, the Court exercised great self control and often declined to intervene in the affairs of the people and their dealings with government and each other. Many scholars would argue, quite correctly in my view, that the Court has gone far beyond the bounds of what was ever imagined for the role of the Supreme Court as a separate but equal branch. We are now to the point where the Court, coupled with the cooperation and overreaching by the legislative and executive branches, has allowed or even directed, government action in areas clearly beyond the limited powers available to them.

 

In regard to the 2nd Amendment's unequivocal and plain language protecting the individual's right to keep and bear arms, there are so many rules, regulations, statutes, court decisions and other restrictions on the individual's gun ownership and use rights that the 'right' has effectively been reduced to a limited privilege basically. There are controls over who, what, where, when and how one may buy, sell, own, carry, possess, use and etc. The 2nd Amendment Right is more limited than any other Constitutionally protected right by far. Oddly, there are relatively few case decisions by the Supreme Court and until the NRA got involved, the typical individual was virtually powerless to fight the government's actions due mostly to the cost and long time process required to assert and maintain those rights. The NRA opposes most new gun limits on law abiding citizens because the tolerance of any more direct restraints of one's liberty in this area of the law threatens all individual rights. Broad controls imposed on long guns vs. hand guns any of the myriad of types of guns are direct threats to the liberty of all Americans. Inherent and perhaps most important within the right to keep and bear arms is the most fundamental civil right of any human and that is the right to self defense. The right to protect one's self from the actions of government and or individuals is so fundamental and basic to life as to be, arguably, the most important civil right of all. If a person loses to right to defend one's self, then all other rights become meaningless. The founders were acutely aware of the dangers to freedom and democracy and the society that they all envisioned to come from the entirely new and never before tried governmental structures created by our Constitution, that they designed the fundamental structure of the government in three co-equal but divided branches to prevent any of them from going to far and encroaching on the rights of the individual to be free and live with an absolute minimal interference by government and certainly no King or other authority beyond the restraints of the people using the power of the vote.

 

 

84, no disrespect intended dude but, I know you don't expect me to read all that to find out what you are trying to point out!

 

I read the first sentence and I think he meant to say, "I agree Takoda".

[huKSer]

 

At work in active shooter training we were told 1) run 2) baracade and 3) no other option fight - and if you disarm the intruder DO NOT HOLD THE GUN ON HIM OR HER because the police might shoot you.

[NUance]

 

 

But with 2nd Amendment rights, why is that person an idiot? If the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to carry that weapon, then... what's the issue?

 

It seems there's a societal taboo against actually enjoying the freedom the 2nd Amendment gives us. Is that not so?

 

Knapp, don't pretend like you don't have your agenda. Starting this thread and posing the questions, thus obtaining the reasonable deduced responses to your questions was part your goal!

 

There, I used one of those silly terms.

 

"Rights" as I have stated before in the gun thread, (IMO) are not a forgone conclusion and come with restraints.

 

It is important to remember, "Bill of Rights" not "Bill of Granted Rights"

 

It is most important to understand that the Bill of Rights is a basic declaration of the individual rights of the people which are RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE - an important distinction to keep in mind when discussing any of the many Constitutionally protected rights. The rights already existed in the individual citizens and are NOT GRANTED by the Constitution but preserved and not limited by it as such. The Constitution is a limiting document which grants certain very limited powers to the federal government and more powers to the several states and the rest, residue and remainder are retained by the people. Only by Constitutional amendment through the prescribed process can individual's rights be restricted, reduced, taken away or otherwise limited by any governmental authority. So, it is not a Bill of Granted Rights but rather more aptly expressed as a Bill of Rights Retained by the People over which the government has no power to limit.

Of course, like so many laws and actions by our various levels of government, aided and abetted by judges who fail to read and follow the Constitution's declarations carefully enough, over a couple centuries, the rights of the people have been watered down, limited and otherwise modified by laws, regulations, court rulings, etc. In other cases, such as abortion rights and other so called 'rights to privacy' for example, there have been 'rights' (more aptly thought of as privileges really) which are judicial creations. Created basically out of broad 'reading' or interpretation of the Constitution as a whole without finding specific language therein to support such creations. This judicial activism or judicial law making is more like legislating from the bench and represents a reach beyond the intent and spirit of the Constitution and its drafters. The Supreme Court has taken it upon itself to be a super legislative body with the power to override and impose the will of a select few judges appointed for life tenure to declare new 'rights' and privileges to both the government and or the people that were not contemplated by the founders and the several states in the enactment process. This doctrine of judicial review, as the Court has referred to it, was also simply created by the Court long ago, in the effort to apply the Constitution's provisions to the cases and controversies that naturally arise in society within and without government's functions. Fortunately, until recently, the Court exercised great self control and often declined to intervene in the affairs of the people and their dealings with government and each other. Many scholars would argue, quite correctly in my view, that the Court has gone far beyond the bounds of what was ever imagined for the role of the Supreme Court as a separate but equal branch. We are now to the point where the Court, coupled with the cooperation and overreaching by the legislative and executive branches, has allowed or even directed, government action in areas clearly beyond the limited powers available to them.

 

In regard to the 2nd Amendment's unequivocal and plain language protecting the individual's right to keep and bear arms, there are so many rules, regulations, statutes, court decisions and other restrictions on the individual's gun ownership and use rights that the 'right' has effectively been reduced to a limited privilege basically. There are controls over who, what, where, when and how one may buy, sell, own, carry, possess, use and etc. The 2nd Amendment Right is more limited than any other Constitutionally protected right by far. Oddly, there are relatively few case decisions by the Supreme Court and until the NRA got involved, the typical individual was virtually powerless to fight the government's actions due mostly to the cost and long time process required to assert and maintain those rights. The NRA opposes most new gun limits on law abiding citizens because the tolerance of any more direct restraints of one's liberty in this area of the law threatens all individual rights. Broad controls imposed on long guns vs. hand guns any of the myriad of types of guns are direct threats to the liberty of all Americans. Inherent and perhaps most important within the right to keep and bear arms is the most fundamental civil right of any human and that is the right to self defense. The right to protect one's self from the actions of government and or individuals is so fundamental and basic to life as to be, arguably, the most important civil right of all. If a person loses to right to defend one's self, then all other rights become meaningless. The founders were acutely aware of the dangers to freedom and democracy and the society that they all envisioned to come from the entirely new and never before tried governmental structures created by our Constitution, that they designed the fundamental structure of the government in three co-equal but divided branches to prevent any of them from going to far and encroaching on the rights of the individual to be free and live with an absolute minimal interference by government and certainly no King or other authority beyond the restraints of the people using the power of the vote.

 

 

word.