This post in another forum says some interesting things:
A whole lot of folks don't seem to understand what a Right is. Nor do they understand the function and purpose of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights are essentially rules for the government defining what it cannot do. These founding documents do not grant any rights nor do they impose any rules or laws on the People. They are a set of controls on the Federal government.
A Right is not granted by the government or any human. The founders were Christian so they wrote that "our creator" grants rights. If you don't believe in God, a Right is something you have by default of your existence.
For example - you have the freedom worship as you see fit. Not because the governement allows it. The BOR simply states that the governement cannot dictate how people worship. In fact, a Right applies to all humans - not just Americans.
Same thing with freedom of speech, right to due process and the right to bear arms. The Right to bear arms is very specific about what the government can't do - it says "...shall not be infringed". That's pretty strong language compared to the other amendments.
Of course, if it's not mentioned in the Constitution it's left up to the states. Why do you suppose that is?
It is because we have the right to interstate travel. Leaving other issues up to the states keeps the control with the people. Let's say you have a certain set of beliefs and your state's population decides to pass laws that disagree with those beliefs. You can simply move to a state where the populace is like minded.
However, if the Federal government makes laws that apply to all the states, the populace would have no way to escape it. This is why state rights is so critical to freedom.
Every law pertaining to regulating guns is unconstitutional. Period.
Let me preempt the gun grabbers by disecting their inevitable arguments with regard to this fact.
1. "The BOR says a 'well regulated militia' so that means regulations and an organized government run military".
Nope. Further reading of a variety of sources from the founders including the Federalist Papers expand greatly on what that language means and the purpose of the 2nd amendment. When the BOR was written, "regulated" did not mean "controlled by government". It meant "properly trained and disciplined". The word "militia" does not refer to a government entity - in fact, it means exactly the opposite. A militia is made up of volunteer citizens working together independent of the government.
2. The Heller Decision maintains that the right to bear arms has limitations"
While the SC did rule this way, one must understand the way the SC's role has "evolved" over time. The Supreme Court was created to ensure the Constituion was upheld. However, in the last 50 years or so, we have seen the rise of a politically driven SC that "interprets" the Constitution.
Since the SC is completely in the wrong to even rule on whether or not a Right can be limited (remember, by definition, a Right is not granted by humans or governement - therefore a Right cannot be regulated, limited or otherwise abridged by any court) the use of the Heller decision to defend limits on freedom is null.
The framers were not perfect, nor were they omnipotent. They were brilliant men who came from a place of government oppression. This intimate knowledge of how governments become dictatorships was first hand knowledge. They were also very studied in the ways of history.
This is how they could, in a sense, see the future. The concepts in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are timeless. While we have many more ways to express ourselves, our Right to free speech is the same as it always has been.
No matter if we are yelling from rooftops or broadcasting by satellite. Our right to defend ourselves from enemies foreign or domestic has no expiration stamp whether we are using rocks tied to bones or modern weaponry.
Get this straight and decisions are simple.
