[GHook93]

Quote by: PubliusInfinitu Well, what you don't seem to be grasping here, is the principle... You were born with an inalienable right to your life and to pursue the fulfillment of that life; furthermore, with that right comes the sacred duty to defend that life and right (along with the life and rights of your neighbors) as well as the means to exercise the pursuit of the fulfillment thereof, from usurpation by those determined to do so...

I have done pretty well in my constitution law classes. All the amendments are not absolute, that is not unconstitutional or leftist mumbo jumbo that that is a fact. I like to stick closest to the constitution as possible, but I now question the consequences of the sale of concealed handguns. I think a lot more deaths can be prevented by stricter gun control, then looser gun control.

Now these days many people have been indoctrinated to believe that rights are a function of government fiat... Meaning you may be under the impression that you get your rights from the government; that rights are those things you 'get to do'... with no further obligation required on your part. But here's the thing... for a right to be valid, it must bring responsibility; meaning that through your own actions, you perpetually maintain the viability of the right itself.

The government's job is to make sure those rights are being protected. If they don't protect them then its like you don't have them.

Thus where there is no responsibility, there can be no right. Thus, where you set aside your responsibility to defend your life and those of your neighbors, you set aside the right.

Or were there is no enforcement there are no rights. If there is a law that states you can't j-walk, but its not enforced. Rarely are people going to follow it.

Is it your intention to set aside your inalienable right to your life?

How am I doing that, when all I am doing is questioning the 2nd amendment.

I question the 14th amendments birth right clause. I question 16th amendments income tax clause (I prefer it and all taxes to be replaced by the Fair Tax) and I question the 26th amendment (suffrage for 18 year olds).

HOWEVER, I would not want the Supreme Court creating laws of there own interpretation. I would rather have the legislatures amend the constitution itself. That is 100% constitutional pursuant to Article V - Titled: Amending the Constitution!