Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

jody

(26,624 posts)
8. The right to self-defense ranks at or near the top of natural rights. Arms are effective tools for
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:24 PM
Dec 2012

that job and firearms are the most effective, efficient tools for it.

PA (1776) and VT (1777) in their constitutions declared rights.

The following is for PA, VT used the same except for substituting "unalienable" for "inalienable".

A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 28 Sept. 1776
"That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
And
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

SCOTUS said it pre3existed our Constitution and does not depend upon words on paper.
Because of the stupid fucking 2nd amendment LibAsHell Dec 2012 #1
I always have had the faith that law, in the long run, is fair and impartial ... srican69 Dec 2012 #5
The Constitution? n/t jmg257 Dec 2012 #2
Cars are not in the Bill of Rights. Guns are. nt hack89 Dec 2012 #3
Because there were no motor vehicles in 1789? yellowcanine Dec 2012 #4
+1 joeybee12 Dec 2012 #6
+1 SugarShack Dec 2012 #13
The basis for the "right" is the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights DefenseLawyer Dec 2012 #7
It has only been interpreted that way for 4 years. If you throw you lot with Scalia, Thomas, Alito, byeya Dec 2012 #14
Even if one concedes that it is an individual right though it does not mean no regulation. yellowcanine Dec 2012 #19
Absolutely DefenseLawyer Dec 2012 #31
The right to self-defense ranks at or near the top of natural rights. Arms are effective tools for jody Dec 2012 #8
I'd be fine... LP2K12 Dec 2012 #9
We have the "right to travel" (an unenumerated right protected by the ninth) X_Digger Dec 2012 #10
The Constitution. Also, public roads Recursion Dec 2012 #11
Prior to 2008 it was perfectly legit for a jurisdiction to ban handguns. In 2008, the Filthy Five of byeya Dec 2012 #12
The 4 minority justices recognized the right, citing PA & VT constitutions but held the 2nd was not jody Dec 2012 #15
translation please ... I have a PhD in systems engineering but somehow its not helping srican69 Dec 2012 #16
Perhaps you need to read the Heller decision. I'm not impressed by your PhD. jody Dec 2012 #18
what !! really srican69 Dec 2012 #21
Big deal what if I claimed to have two? Would that impress you? nt jody Dec 2012 #23
Honestly - it would. srican69 Dec 2012 #29
It most certainly does not. You are wrong. You are spreading NRA lies. byeya Dec 2012 #17
Read the Heller decision and cite passages to rebut my assertion. jody Dec 2012 #20
Delicate Flowers always get the 2nd Amendment wrong bongbong Dec 2012 #25
Your posts suggest you have not read the Heller opinion and dissent. I would give you a link but in jody Dec 2012 #28
LOL bongbong Dec 2012 #30
Yes, there are a number of parrots spreading NRA lies on DU bongbong Dec 2012 #26
In 1981 Morton Grove. IL. banned the ownership of handguns and on appeal the appeals byeya Dec 2012 #22
It would be a right were we writing the Constitution today in the spirt of those writing it then. ieoeja Dec 2012 #24
Serious answer, in my mind a flawed interpretation nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #27
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»another legal question. W...»Reply #8