The Second Amendment DOES NOT Give US Citizens "the Right to Have Guns"

[mythociate]

I forget what the exact wording was, but the law was basically to provide that the people were not afraid of the government ... that the people could have an armed force separate from that of the rulers.

Now I get a report (from a conservative newsletter ... I think I joined it so I could MAKE FUN o` these guys  ) that's whining `coz some old fogey war-veteran got a letter that said he should give up his guns or else go to court. Then the newsletter got too 'preachy' for me to read much further ... maybe you can swallow it:

Feds Take Away Veterans’ Second Amendment Rights!    Dear Conservative, There’s not a lot coming out of Washington to celebrate nowadays. Every day brings a new battle where we must push back against an overreaching Federal government that is more interested in fostering dependency than promoting individual liberty. In many cases, we look at what the Federal government is doing, and just shake our heads… But sometimes, the news is so tragic and depressing that you can’t help but weep for how far this great country has fallen… While we have spent the past year fighting to protect the right of the People to keep and bear arms, the Obama administration has been quietly waging a war against the Second Amendment rights of our veterans. Most recently, Sgt. Pat Kirby (U.S. Army, ret.) received a letter from the Federal government ordering him to surrender his firearms or face jail time. Sgt. Kirby has never committed a crime of any kind and he was the recipient of numerous decorations and medals for his service in Vietnam (including multiple Purple Hearts). Why is he being stripped of his NATURAL right to keep and bear arms? The Veterans Administration (VA) has stripped him of his rights because an unelected bureaucrat deemed him to be “mentally defective” and “incompetent” since Kirby’s wife takes care of his finances for him. That’s right… This brave American hero has his wife pay the family’s bills, and because of that, the Federal government is taking away his Constitutional rights! You see, Pat Kirby went to the Veterans Administration to get treatment for the disabilities born out of his military service in Vietnam. While at the VA, Mr. Kirby filled out paperwork and wrote that his wife takes care of the family’s bills and finances. When a bureaucrat handled the paperwork and saw this, Mr. Kirby was labeled as “incompetent” and a letter was sent out ordering him to forfeit his firearms. This is unacceptable! Our brave veterans fought hard to preserve the Constitution and the Bill of Rights for all of us. Every breath of freedom that we take was paid for with the blood, sweat, and tears of our military veterans. And now, Barack Obama’s unelected bureaucrats are allowed to suspend these veterans’ rights because they don’t handle their own finances? This is UNACCEPTABLE! Think about how ridiculous this actually is. Sgt. Pat Kirby fought for his country in Vietnam, where he earned a Bronze Star and multiple Purple Hearts. This man is a hero, plain and simple. He is just one of the countless heroes who sacrificed to preserve our Constitution and our way of life. Now, he is being threatened with jail time if he does not give up his Second Amendment rights. The truth is, however, that Sgt. Kirby is just one of many veterans who have quietly been stripped of their constitutional rights this year. Since taking office, the Obama administration has stripped more than 100,000 veterans and their families of their Second Amendment rights! If that doesn’t make you furious, I’m not sure what will! When one of our brave veterans becomes eligible for disability benefits, they must go through an evaluation process at the VA. Currently, veterans are allowed to have someone else appointed as a bookkeeper to manage their disability benefits on their behalf. The atrocious part,though, is that if you are a disabled veteran who has a family member handling your finances, unelected bureaucrats in Obama’s Veterans Administration are free to label you “mentally defective” and enter you into the background check system as someone who can’t buy a gun! This is absolutely wrong! The last time I checked, the Second Amendment didn’t read, “the right of the people who handle their own finances…” The Second Amendment has been perverted and transformed over time beyond the straight-forward right it originally asserted. Today, there are a number of factors that can disqualify someone from gun ownership: felony conviction, a dishonorable discharge, or certain mental health diagnoses (among other factors). In my opinion, these restrictions are already overly strict because they give too few people far too much power to decide who does and who doesn’t get to enjoy constitutional rights. But what is perfectly clear is that unelected bureaucrats and paper-pushers CANNOT be allowed to suspend Veterans’ constitutional rights! These men and women fought to defend the Constitution. Now, when they are at their most vulnerable, the Obama administration is asserting that these military heroes can no longer be trusted with firearms. Last week, I warned you that the Obama administration was asserting the right to determine who is and who isn’t allowed to keep and bear arms. With these most recent executive orders, Barack Obama has once again changed the law dictating who is prohibited from possessing firearms. History has shown that when free people allow their government to dictate who can and cannot own firearms, disarmament, disenfranchisement, and sometimes even genocide, naturally follow. This isn’t about protecting the children and this isn’t about stopping dangerous individuals from owning guns. Rather, this is a deliberate attempt by the Obama administration to disarm anyone who could possibly challenge the President’s authority! Thomas Jefferson wrote that “the Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” The Second Amendment isn’t about hunting or target shooting. The Second Amendment is our last defense against tyranny; a failsafe to allow the People to reclaim their right to self-governance from overbearing tyrants. The Constitution doesn’t give us the right to keep and bear arms. This is a natural right that was endowed to us by our Creator. The Second Amendment reads that this right “shall not be infringed” because government cannot take away that which was given to us by a higher power.  The Constitution is nothing but a piece of paper that codifies this natural, unalienable right. Yet, the Obama Administration sees this differently. In King Obama’s world, subjects must seek government’s permission to exercise their natural rights. Obama wants to be able to make this decision, and I regret to inform you that he is close to realizing this goal! So far, over 100,000 of our country’s military veterans have had their Second Amendment rights revoked. These men and women fought for this country. They bled for this country. And many had to watch their friends pay the ultimate sacrifice for this country. Now that they have returned from war, they’re finding that the Constitutional rights they fought for apparently no longer apply to them. Why? Because they need someone to help them with their finances! Senate Bill 572, The Veterans Second Amendment Protection, has collected dust on Harry Reid’s desk since last July. While it is certainly easy to blame Sen. Reid, the same bill has also been stuck in the House Veterans Affairs Committee since last February. This common-sense bill would stop unelected bureaucrats from labeling veterans mentally defective, but Congress isn’t interested in protecting our veterans’ rights. This is unacceptable and un-American! Our veterans have fought to preserve our way of life and to ensure that the natural rights enshrined in the Constitution would survive for future generations. We owe them everything for their sacrifice, and we MUST force Congress to protect our disabled Veterans’ rights from the Obama Administration. Pres. Obama is targeting our veterans and taking away the very rights that they fought for. They answered the call and fought for us… now is the time to fight for them! Sincerely, Joe Otto Conservative Daily

'The right to bear arms' IS NOT "the right to own a gun" (and no, I'm not bringing up the 'TANK-TOP LIBERTY'-pun); it is the right to a private militia, made up of sane, law-abiding citizens. It sounds like the 'bureaucrat' taking the vet's arms is another sane, law-abiding citizen.

This reminds me of an old woman who stands up at church every week (when they ask us congregants what praises-&-prayers we have) and announces, "I NEEEED A REALLY NICE CAR REAL-SOON!" and who then goes on to say that she's been praying for it for several years (we know, we were there; I feel like saying).

This lady---well, next week I think I'll stand up & praise God that 'drivers like the old lady' are OFF THE ROADS!

For pretty-much the same reason I'm glad the old vet CAN'T have his guns: because he's OLD, & old people JUST DON'T CARE ANYMORE ... which makes them dangerous if we let them have unfettered access to guns, automobiles & any other dangerous equipment.[/td][/tr][/table]

[BlackSheepNY]

Hahaha!!!  So I take it you're one of those people who will "*bleep* their pants" if an intruder breaks in your home hoping that this will scare that intruder away.  Or maybe you'll blow a whistle, hoping the Keystone Cops show up in time to save your pitiful butt from being shot/beat/raped by your intruder.  By the way, do you know any criminals that follow ANY laws?  I didn't think so.

Yeah, that was a good one!  LMAO - thanks for posting!!!

[mythociate]

Hahaha!!!  So I take it you're one of those people who will "*bleep* their pants" if an intruder breaks in your home hoping that this will scare that intruder away.  Or maybe you'll blow a whistle, hoping the Keystone Cops show up in time to save your pitiful butt from being shot/beat/raped by your intruder.

Possibly so. If an intruder breaks in, I'm not going to shoot it. I'm not even trained to use a firearm, so I'd only have a 30% chance of success with the weapon (if I had it, if I were going to use it). Plus, I'm a brain-injury survivor. Partly-blind in one eye. and slightly-psychotic (slightly more-so at night) You wouldn't want me (or the several-dozen/hundred/thousand/million others who don't really care anymore) to have access to firearms---law-abiding or not.

See, even the most straight-laced, genteel among us are ALWAYS on the edge of complete 'psychopathism' (psychopathica? psychopathia?) And I'm sure we can pass all the 'tests' to get guns when we're fully-conscious, but there are states-of-consciousness that don't seem to let the rules of 'fully' apply! 

[lvstephanie]

You're right in that the 2nd Amendment doesn't give us a right to a gun.... First of all, the constitution doesn't "give" the people any rights; rather our rights are self-evident ideas that the people are naturally granted just by being alive. The constitution is rather a contract between the people and the governments that states what the government responsibilities are to guarantee that our rights are not taken away unjustly by anyone else. So in this particular case, the right to keep and bear arms was seen as the way to ensure that people could protect their other rights to life, liberty, their possessions, etc. from anyone, be they a criminal trying to murder or steal from you or from some government agency (either our own or some invading force).

[mythociate]

... the right to keep and bear arms was seen as the way to ensure that people could protect their other rights to life, liberty, their possessions, etc. from anyone, be they a criminal trying to murder or steal from you or from some government agency (either our own or some invading force).

I don't think so. As I might've said above, 'the right to keep & bear arms' was more like the right of 'the people' to maintain a private militia ('private' in that it's separate from the government).

Either way, that was a right granted to optimal citizens ('optimal' here-meaning without substantial disability ... disability like blindness, paralysis, or senility). Are old, paralyzed or blind people lesser-citizens, you might ask. Yes, in much the same way that children are 'lesser citizens.'

[kimmy29]

Hahaha!!!  So I take it you're one of those people who will "*bleep* their pants" if an intruder breaks in your home hoping that this will scare that intruder away.  Or maybe you'll blow a whistle, hoping the Keystone Cops show up in time to save your pitiful butt from being shot/beat/raped by your intruder.  By the way, do you know any criminals that follow ANY laws?  I didn't think so.

Yeah, that was a good one!  LMAO - thanks for posting!!!