2nd amendment? I think "they" are right.

T

twoblink

New member
I have a friend, she's very cute, very ignorant. She hates guns. She's sick of people like those on TFL who say 2nd amendment this, 2nd amendment that etc.. It's always about the 2nd amendment. I tried to correct her.

But, lately, I started getting pulled into her line of thinking, and you know what? I think she's correct (sort of).

The issue isn't / shouldn't be about the 2nd amendment. That's one of the ancillary by-products of the what we want, not the actual product itself. So the real problem is never address by us, and I think it's time that it is.

Here's in lies the problem. I don't really care too much about my 2nd amendment rights to be honest with you. I got into guns because Clinton says I can't have them, and so being the libertarian that I am, I went out and bought one that same day. WOW, what a thing for a libertarian to say huh, that he doesn't care about his 2nd amendment rights?

Here's what I do care about though. My 1st amendment rights. I refuse to live in a Gestapo State. I want freedom of the press, I want to have peaceful assembly if for nothing but to gather and trade my pokemon cards... :-)

Here in lies the problem that the Democrats aren't seeing. The second amendment isn't about the second amendment, it's about the 1st amendment. The only way that the 1st amendment can be protected (and all the other amendments for that matter) is by the 2nd amendment. I would be more than happy to do away with the 2nd amendment _IF_ there was some way to guarantee the citizens protection against the police state.

There isn't. Nobody will knock you for your desire for the 1st amendment. So I explained to her, she is right, it really has not too much to do (initially) with the 2nd amendment, it really has to do with the protection of all the other amendments that make this a free country.

That was FAR more easier for her to digest than "I want my guns!".

Comments?

Albert.

Oh, by the way "I want my guns!" :-)
 
I think the basic tenet behind the 1st and the 2nd that they are aknowledgements of preexisting rights, not grants of rights. In that sense, the lack of 2nd doesn't mean the lack of rights, merely the lack of recognition by the government. And that boils down to might making right and a flat, pockmarked and charred US of A. Sigh.

------------------
Oleg "peacemonger" Volk

http://dd-b.net/RKBA
 
twoblink, there have been many discussions here as to how to explain the 2nd to non-believers, the concensus of which is that the effort is a waste of time. It's antiquated, the anti's will argue. Or it's irrelevant, because our nation would never do what so many others have. That view is, of course, myopic and a perfect example of a denial of history.

What the 2nd does do is reaffirm a right that is either God-given or, if you prefer, a right of nature: the right to self-defense. Every creature has been endowed with a means of defending itself against its predators. As mankind has evolved, so have the predators within its ranks, and the only means to defend against those predators effectively is to use the technology available. 911 doesn't cut it.

There are those within the anti camp who argue against self-defense, but they likely haven't been in a situation where they needed to defend themselves. They are in denial, and they ignore even the lessons of the Nature that so many of them worship.

25 years ago when I was a photo student, I had a project to do. I was going to do an ad photo for birth control pills. The package was pink, and I had the idea to have the package surrounded by white bunny rabbits, the ones with the cute pink eyes. The local pet store rented me the rabbits and, rather than leave them in the cage, I put them in the bathroom of my apartment for the evening.
The next morning I went to get them. They had
tried to bore through the plaster. And when I approached them, they bared their teeth and howled ferociously at me. They were backed into the corner, and they were ready to fight.

The lesson I learned was that every creature has a way of defending itself. More importantly, I learned that even the most timid will, if pushed far enough, fight with a vengeance to survive. The latter lesson is one that is repeated here on TFL legal/political discussions time and again.

Dick
Want to send a message to Bush? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.
 
If you can pull an anti in past the "guns are baaaaad" and get them talking about rights, you've made significant progress.

Its always about force. We can pretend its about self defense or hunting or target shooting but in the end, its about maintaining sufficient firepower to keep fed.gov in check.

Anyone who thinks that this is no longer necessary needs only look at Britian, where they've recently done away with trial by jury in some cases to "streamline" the process. Now just a judge makes a determination of guilt or innocence. For the British, all this begs the question of "what are you gonna do about it?"

The answer is, they're going to take it and like it. What else can they do?
 
I have always believed that the first ten amendments are a package deal - The Bill of Rights. Keep them all or repeal them all. They were listed together because they are all required for a free society. Others have been added, but, unless I'm mistaken, the first ten have never been edited. John
 
I'm with you on that Johnbt...

But what I tried to do was let them see that without the second amendment, the first, the 5th etc... won't exist, if they do, not for long!!!

OK, here's my plan:

Buy catalina (the island) if it's not for sale, which it's not, buy every property on it, declare it a sovereign country, and make it into a freeport. Anybody else with me?
 
The more I read about the Second Amendment, the more I realize that it is the teeth in the Constitution that will defend "The People" from an oppressive government.

My take on the Second, simplistically, is that it prohibits the Federal Government from passing any law that pertains to private firearms ownership. The Ninth Amendment states that since this power to regulate firearms is prohibited from the federal government, the power to regulate firearms is reserved by the States, or the People. Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable for a state to pass laws regarding firearms, providing that the state constitutions do not restrict such laws.

From where I sit, all Federal Firearms laws are illegal and unconstitutional. From all the way back in 1934 through 1994 and up 'til today.

Unfortunately, Ohio has some pretty restrictive gun laws, but they're not as bad as some others. (CA, NJ, NY, MD, MA, IL, Etc.) The good thing is that Ohio has a very strongly worded compliment to the United States Second Amendment. Just like the Fed, though, it doesn't stop them from passing and enforcing unconstitutional laws.

See my signature.

------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4
Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
 
BluesMan,

I don't understand. If the second is an individual right, then how can a state deny or infringe on those rights? Such as the 3rd, can a state force an individual to house a soldier? Or the the 20th. Can a state pass laws reguading women voting rights? This doesn't make sense either. I am no constitutional expert, but this does not make sense. Aren't our rights protected by the constitution no matter where we live in the US. (I'm talking hypothetically of course, Kalifornication, Jersey and others.) Doesn't the 14th recognize the rights of citizens in all states?

twoblink, you are right, the 2nd is not only about guns or gun rights, but more about freedom. And no government agency gives you freedom, You earn it and keep it. Our founders earned it and we're loosing it. It's being stolen from us an inch at a time. Kind of like being eaten alive by a pack of rabid ducks.

regards
 
The BoRs only recognizes what the gov is not allowed to do - it's an affirmation of our inalienable freedoms by nature of our very existence regardless of any Constitution or, frankly, any God or god) & something that cannot be ever taken away.

If you commit some (legal) crime, then you have "voluntarily" yourself given 'em up.

Regarding states regulating rights that are inalienable ... how can they? These rights are by very nature those that supercede any other power - except for your own actions in which you (rhetorically) have screwed the pooch & aren't responsible enough to exercise them.
 
Going along with the others' here.

Consider this small, but very significant fact...
How many States ratified the newly designed Constitution the first time around? You say none! Ever wonder why this happened?

It's easy to understand. The Leaders of these States, found themselves at the point where thay could prevent the formation of a government they had just survived fighting, and escaping from.
Why the Hell create another one like it to live under?
So, the Framers were tasked with including guarantees to the States, and people against a government that might someday grossly overstep it's legal boundaries, and try to revert to a Kingdom. Or even worse, a tyrannical government.

I would highly recommend you read "The Second Amendment Primer", by Les Adams.

I would also read the Federalist Papers,
located here:http://www.mcs.com/~knautzr/fed/fedpaper.html

Never, under any circumstances, consider giving up any of the original 10 Amendments.
For once you do, you're definitely on the road to self-inflicted slavery.

Now there's a topic to consider. Does anyone here believe for a second that slavery would have ever been, if the intended had been armed with firearms?

[This message has been edited by Donny (edited August 18, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Donny (edited August 18, 2000).]
 
First, the Second.

Second, the First.

As for not finding the Second Article of any value, so long as the govenrment promised it would not establish a Police State, I have to believe that whoever believes that, has never had a vicious thug attack him or her, and knows absoultely nothing about real criminals.

Suppose there is no Police State, but we have no firearms for self defense. Does that mean that millions of vicious thugs have suddenly had a change of heart and that they've taken up a different profession? I don't think so.

My Colt .45 has saved my life from some rotten pieces of dog puke! And that wasn't in a Police State. Nope, I'll keep my guns.

J.B.
 
All articles of the Bill of Rights are linked together for one purpose, to limit and fight against government power.

The 1st allows us to get out the message.

The 2nd allows us meaningful power to resist.

The 3rd keeps troops off our property.

The 4th keeps them out of our lives without third party approval (now too often a rubber stamp).

The 5th protects our property and our tongues.

The 6th and 7th say that the government is not the final say, that a (fully informed) jury of our peers must act as a buffer and may block the enforcement of unjust laws.

The 8th bars excessive punishment.

The 9th makes it clear that just because we saw fit to enumerate a few of our numerous rights, it does not mean that they are the only ones.

The 10th emphasized the designed limited power of the Federal government.

Many will tell me that these rights are weakened. And they are correct. It was often said that when the 2A is gone there goes the rest of them. They are wrong. They will take them all bit by bit whenever they see an opening.

Rick

------------------
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American." Tench Coxe 2/20/1788
 
Dick, I have to admit ... I was fascinated by your 'mad' rabbit story. Never let it be said that you are not a brave man. ;)


In my relatively short experience, I find that it is usually fruitless to discuss the 2nd Amendment with anti's or fence sitters. Instead, I help them see the reality and logic of self defense. If they can't understand that, then there is no chance they'll care about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, genocide, registration = confiscation or any of the rest.

OTOH, if they begin to understand the self defense argument, then they usually begin to open up on the rest of the arguments. Besides ... IMHO, defending yourself from your government, and defending the Constitution is simply an extension of personal self defense.

Live and let live. Regards from AZ
 
Johnbt:

They may not have been amended, but they have been clarified through the 14th. The states are now held to the same standard of non-violating them as is the feds. When we get court decisions such as the California SC just ruled on the 89 Assualt weapons ban.... Our courts are no longer legit. They are basing their judgements upon personal beliefs rather than the rule of law.

Here's hopeing that Emerson will set them straight.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
Have any of you guys ever read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? All of it?

Note, then, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights.

It states the purpose of the BoR. The pertinent phrase is, "...in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers,..."

The obvious question, then, is how any of the first ten amendments can be other than restraints upon the federal government, rather than any restraints on the citizenry?

They must all be individual rights, unless a state such as Texas or Illinois "speaks", has a religion, or lives in an individual house or somehow can be brought to trial and not have to self-incriminate itself! That is, these rights speak to people's rights, not any collective or states' rights, except as specifically stated in the 10th amendment.

Regards, Art
 
Dick, I'm just kidding with you.

I kid my wife that I'm brave, because I go after our pesky rabbits with a one-shot air rifle ...

Live and let live. Regards from AZ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top