We have ahd gun control in this country since well before it was founded. CCW has never been a right nation wide, NEVER. Its also a new concept. Up until just recently concealing a gun was viewed as something only crimals did.
If you look at the history of this country, its only about the last 75ish years that "uninfringed" has been taken to mean, no restrictions what so ever. FWIW, we have no rights that are not retstricted. Every single one of them has some type of restrcition on it, why should the 2a be diffrent from the rest?
A typical Tab response, but still not at all true. Starting at the top:
Early gun control in this country was to mandate ownership of firearms and sufficient powder and ball to serve in the militia. Rather different than today's gun-grabber version.
OK, you got one - CCW is a new concept. See next paragraph.
CCW is a modern concept used because states fear gun-bearing citizens and compromised on CCW to allow State approved (like that phrase?) citizens to carry. Therefore, as a "right" to keep and bear arms, it is viewed today more as a gummint approved privilege and not a right as enumerated in the US Constitution (and numerous state Constitutions as well)
Concealing firearms - for a while everyone carried concealed, it was assumed in the violent and rough cities and in the old West, gentlemen were always assumed to be carrying. Where did all of those small pocket revolvers - and John Moses Browning's early automatics - come from? Why were these invented? To fill a need of course. Old urban papers had numerous ads for pocket holsters, pants with reinforced pockets for carrying a pistol that could be easily retrieved. If you read the accounts of the gunfight at the OK Corral (a nearby alley actually, but that is another conversation), Wyatt Earp had his revolver in his coat pocket. Virgil had stuck his in his pants waistband near the small of his back after Behan had informed them that the cowboys had been disarmed. Carrying concealed was SOP.
"Uninfringed" - wrong, the language was used in the 2A because it was intended to be absolute. Having just come out of the Revolutionary War, where arms were required, and in fact the people were products of the very culture that mandated arms, they would not have been in a mindset of "well, sometimes yes, sometimes, no". Read the anti-Federalist papers especially, as well as some of the correspondences among the key players and it is clear that they never intended for there to be "reasonable" restrictions on the rights in the Bill of Rights.
Those restrictions are a fairly recent idea, although violating the Constitution by the gummint and President does go way back almost to the beginning.
Consider:
- the Kelo case which gutted the second part of the 5th Amendment,
- the idea that a judge can grant immunity to violate the first part of your 5A rights,
- the morphing into law all sorts of PC nonsense violating part of the 1a,
- warrantless searches violating the 4th Amendment
- the lawsuits (and threats) violating the second part of the freedom of religion clause of the 1A which everyone (especially activist judges) like to ignore - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "- the wholesale abandonment of the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Not to mention the adoption of the idea of citizens' "privileges" which violate rights to "liberty and pursuit of happiness" so that states and Feds can tax the crap out of an activity. Think driving, licenses (you and the vehicle) and the taxes on cars, gasoline, etc.
Oliver Wendell Holmes (a man I used to admire, like Lincoln, but who now I see as instrumental in destroying the Constitutional basis of this country) made his famous comment about not having the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. I covered that in another post - you have a right (and an obligation if there is a fire) to yell fire falsely in a crowded theater, but as with all rights come responsibilities. If you shoot out a lamppost with a firearm and kill someone on the second floor of a building, you can and will be charged with some crime because you had the right to keep and bear arms, but you did not have the right to kill that person. Same with yelling fire - you have the right, you also have the onerous responsibilities that come with it.
The restrictions have been added by people who do not understand or value the US Constitution - people in various gummints positions, not citizens. Think Cynthia McKinney who became a representative solely to get rid of gun rights because her husband was killed on the LIRR. Short sighted and ignorant, but she is there.
That is how we get the so-called "reasonable restrictions" on our rights. It's not that they are "normal" - they are added by people with political and financial agendas.
MBTV
Forum Index
Help
Calendar
Contact Info
Register as a member
