Finally someone understands the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution

[12many]

Not sure if my title is appropriate or not, but I'm hoping the Ukrainian people get this passed.

Ukrainian Gun Owners Association: People Have The Unconditional Right to Bear Arms - Katie Pavlich

 

[Throop210]

Good for them. Hope it goes through as well.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'd be shocked If this even remotely gained traction. No govt on the planet would allow "our" 2nd to be mirrored and understood in the way we do.

 

[Mark 1911]

I'd be shocked If this even remotely gained traction. No govt on the planet would allow "our" 2nd to be mirrored and understood in the way we do.

I agree. But lately, it seems even our own (federal and some state's) government no longer understands it as it was intended to be understood.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

All was going pretty well until:

Exercising the right to free possession of firearms is governed by applicable law and may be limited only by the court on the individual. "

I guess it'd still be better than where they are now but we have an amendment that says "shall not be infringed" and we see how it''s constantly under attack. I can only imagine how watered down this right will be for the Ukrainians.

 

[AtTheMurph]

The biggest mistake our founders ever made was including a Bill of Rights onto the Constitution.

It was understood at the time that Federal Government only possessed the enumerated powers listed in the document. Once they laid out that the People had certain rights those rights were then subject to encroachments such as you have a right to bear arms, but only the type of arms that government decides you are allowed to have and only in places the government decides you can bear them.

It is the very reason that the last amendment in the Bill of Rights was added - the 10th- after much argument that the BofR's even was needed. The entire Bill of rights was a nod to the anti-federalists to get them to drop their opposition to the Constitution.

Here is an excerpt from Alexander Hamilton's Federalist #84

" I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

He was right but that certainly is not the modern interpretation where we are led to believe that our 2nd amendment "rights" or any others are somehow granted by the Constitution. There is a reason that government fosters this idea that we are granted rights and liberties and it ain't for our benefit.