USA Today Poll

Appears most folks understand the 2nd Amendment much more clearly than the Chicago machine & others . . .
 
You guys don't know that the constitutionally correct answer is "NO"?

The 2nd does not "give" the people the right to arms.

The right is pre-existing and the people possess it because no power was ever given to government to impact in any manner, the right to arms of the citizen.
 
Last edited:
I might be mistaken, but this floats around the internet periodically. I believe its about four years old.
 
Abatis said:
You guys don't know that the constitutionally correct answer is "NO"?

The 2nd does not "give" the people the right to arms.

The right is pre-existing and the people possess it because no power was ever given to government to impact in any manner, the right to arms of the citizen.
Click to expand...

A fine point. The 2nd Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." Such language only makes sense if the drafters believed the right was already in existence, the amendment being added to provide a written guarantee of its continuation under the new constitution. A good dicussion of this point can be found in Yale law professor Akhil Amar's excellent book, The Bill of Rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top