2nd Amend' & The Minuteman Project

C

Charley

New member
I think most readers of this forum support the 2nd Amendment or they wouldn't be here. There have been many threads on the issue of illegal immigration, and many opinions on, well, both sides of the border, pun intended.

I was reading a sister thread on the "language" of the 2nd Amendment, and it got me thinking: what does the 2nd Amendment have to do with the Minuteman Project scheduled for this April, and discussed in some length on other threads in this forum?

It struck me instantly: There would be no Minuteman Project if it were not for our 2nd Amendment.

The Minuteman Project has stressed that the event is intended to be a non-confrontational, non-violent affair. However, they are not blind to the fact that there may be drug dealers, gangs, or instigators from pro-illegal groups that may try and use violence against the Minuteman volunteers. Therefore, while the MMP is not advocating violence, they are not disallowing the volunteers to carry arms as long as they follow Arizona law.

Would I even consider attending a border watch along the Mexican border if I were not allowed to carry a firearm? No, of course not. All you have to do is pick up a paper and you will read about the violence along our southern border. To go there completely unarmed would be ludicrous.

Now, does this mean I am advocating violence? No. Absolutley not. I am simply using my 2nd Amendment right to be prepared. It is no different that keeping a gun in your nightstand, or carrying when you go out on the town. That is what the 2nd Amendment is really all about.

I bring this up because in debates with anti-gunners, I often get the response that the 2nd Amendment is somehow outdated, that it no longer applies in this modern, civilized world of ours. That it is somehow detached from and less important that other rights, such as free speech.

It has occured to me that the Minuteman Project, whether you agree with its purpose or not, is a prime example of the 2nd Amendment in action. Yes, it is about an individual's right to defend against a personal attack, and thus it allows many such individuals to congregate in what could be a dangerous place...in order to stage a protest against governmental policies that are believed to be threatening our country's security and stability.

Many times I have heard that without the 2nd Amendment, we would have no other rights. Amen to that. The Minuteman Project is a prime example. Hopefully, it will occur without any violence. Without the 2nd Amendment, I dare say it would not have been allowed to take place at all.
 
MMP is not allowing it's people to carry long arms. Just hand guns are allowed by their rules.

Why? Cause they are worried about offending the media.

I would not show up under this situation as a handgun is no defense against a rifle attack.
 
The MMP is doing what it can upfront and behind the scenes to secure the safety of the participants. Is there a level of danger? Yes, you bet.
The MMP is walking a fine line. No one is under the illusion that one month in the desert is going to stop the hoards of illegals crossing over into the country. To a large extent, this operation is about bringing awareness to the American people and putting the present administration on the spot for their open door policies.
It is a question of whether one thinks the issue is of upmost importance, or not. I realize that there are those who feel that if we ignore the problem, trust our government to do the right thing, or simply throw quarters at the problem...in time the issue will fade away. I am not in that mind frame.
The issue of personal safety is a real concern. Do the threats of violence worry me? Sure, I'm not stupid. But stay home and scribble off more letters that I know will simply be thrown in the trash? No, I think I'll take my chances. If the movement falls apart, or turns into a three ring circus...or worse...then I guess I am the damn fool. I'll take that. There are worse things than stepping up to the plate for something you believe in.
 
Charley,

I agree with you there on the second amendment. I think people wandering the wilderness, for any reason, in a sane world ought to have means of defense. If you ask me, this is an issue because of a somewhat popular presumption that carrying guns means looking for trouble. And I think this will be even more of a problem for gun owners as kids in America's cities grow up with less and less exposure to responsible firearms use.

That said, I can see why the minuteman project would not want long guns involved. There are some major liability issues there. If even one nut case showed up to the project and murdered an unarmed illegal immigrant (eg, hiding in the bushes and shooting at a group), the project would have a HUGE liability concern, and the political fallout would ruin any similar efforts, IMO.
 
self preservation

the "right to privacy" cannot be found in a reading of the US Constitution, yet the Sp Ct assures us it is there..as a result our kids can get abortion under age and we need not even be told (although wee still buying the groceries, etc)...and we are told even though the 2d amend is pretty clear..that it applies only to the organized militia (ie, Nat Guard)...BUT, ALSO...SELF PRESERVATION is a particularly obvious natural right...and the 2d amend is not about duck hunting.
 
That Vicente Fox article is kind of interesting. Its funny that he says they have no evidence of terrorists entering across the southern border. I have never been concerned with either the terrorists or legal migrants that cross the border. The ONLY problem I see is the stream of illegals entering the country. I even encourage Mexicans to legally enter the country and help improve things. I however feel that illegals need to be stopped, and since open borders dont seem to be working, I am all about walls and guards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top