Court victories but social defeats / 2nd Amendment dangers?

P

Playboypenguin

Moderator
We seem to be in a time where, even though gun rights are winning some major court battles, public opinion seems to be turning against us.

I have really been noticing that more and more people seem to be turned more anti-gun every year. It seems some people even get more turned off to the pro-gun movement because of what they feel to be "money talks" type bullying in the court systems.

It is this attitude that makes me fear that the 2nd Amendment could someday be radically changed if not repealed. We already live in a country where most people do not agree on what the amendment even says and means. All I fear it would take is the right gun related disaster at the right time to set a change to the constitution in motion.

This is one of the reasons I have always held the opinion that a person should never use the 2nd Amendment as heir primary argument for gun rights. The constitution is a fluid document. It has changed in the past and it can change in the future. It is, after all, a document made by men for men.

That is why I have felt for years that it is necessary for us pro-gunnies to start using better arguments. "Because these guys said so 200 years ago" is just not that strong of an argument in the modern world.

I prefer to rely on true statistics of personal protection, realistic portrayal of gun dangers vs. their advantages, and stressing the general overall value of an armed nation against a corrupt government.

Am I alone in this boat or do any others think the same way and see the same potential dangers? Or do most of you think if we just keep thumping our chests and holding up the constitution we will achieve our goals? (I know that is a very biased way of wording the question but you get the point :))
 
This is one of the reasons I have always held the opinion that a person should never use the 2nd Amendment as heir primary argument for gun rights. The constitution is a fluid document. It has changed in the past and it can change in the future. It is, after all, a document made by men for men.

That is why I have felt for years that it is necessary for us pro-gunnies to start using better arguments. "Because these guys said so 200 years ago" is just not that strong of an argument in the modern world.
Click to expand...
I know what you're saying, but I don't quite think of it that way.

A population has the right to have weapons on par with those of its government's enforcers simply because no one has the right to have absolute power over anyone else. There's no such thing as the "right to rule" -- not even when a government is democratically elected, since the majority isn't necessarily right about anything. So in order for "government by consent of the governed" to be assured, the governed have to have the power to put their will into effect.

Thus, even if there were no Second Amendment, I would affirm my own right to have weapons. Again, we can reason that if there's no "absolute right to rule," then the Second Amendment follows by default. I've made this argument with anti-gun folks and even converted a few. Pointing to incidents like the Tiananmen Square massacre helps as well.

Then again, maybe you already take this viewpoint, as you did say this:

I prefer to rely on true statistics of personal protection, realistic portrayal of gun dangers vs. their advantages, and stressing the general overall value of an armed nation against a corrupt government.
Click to expand...

Not to hijack your thread, but I see the greatest threat to the Second Amendment as being the development of technology, available only to the government, that can make the enforcers of a corrupt government immune even to rifle fire. E.g., a full-body, lightweight suit of body armor could be developed using shear-thickening fluids that could stop just about any round fired at it. Such technology is already under development, and although people cheer about it saving US lives, it could also spell the end of government accountability and the beginning of tyranny. Technology is definitely a double-edged sword.
 
That's why reliance on arguments of utility will eventually prove unproductive.

We must emphasize that being armed is a right just like press, speech, religion are and when we speak of gun control, we refer to the pol that proposes such bills an anti-rights and not anti-gun when ever we enter into a conversation about him or her.

That immediately puts the ball in their court, and easily kept there.
 
Pat H

But what happens when public sentiment has swung to where politicians are more afraid of offending anti-gun people than they are pro-gun people. When being tough on guns starts to be seen as a good thing by the majority (which is already happening)...when politicians start to think that altering the 2nd will get them more votes than defending it will.

Where will your "it's a right" argument get you then?
 
By that time the country will begin to break up, secession becoming the thing to do.

It's inevitable.

We can't let the northeast and the west coast run the country, at least, not our part of the country.
 
By that time the country will begin to break up, secession becoming the thing to do.

It's inevitable.

We can't let the northeast and the west coast run the country, at least, not our part of the country.
Click to expand...
I do not see that as inevitable at all. I think you are wrong about how much emphasis the standard american puts on the right to own a firearm. I think most would not be affected at all by strict gun control since guns are not a part of their lives now. I do not think it would ever be an issue that would tear apart the country.

Once the vocal minority was washed over by mass indifference I think most people would not even think twice about it.

I also think that the "us vs. them" or the "west/east coast vs. middle america" approach to thinking is very dangerous because it invites conflict instead of agreement.
 
I do not see that as inevitable at all. I think you are wrong about how much emphasis the standard american puts on the right to own a firearm. I think most would not be affected at all by strict gun control since guns are not a part of their lives now. I do not think it would ever be an issue that would tear apart the country.
Click to expand...

I do not agree with this statement. I am always amazed at what a light sleeper the "slumbering giant" is...and at just how the ire of even the "average Joe" stirs whenever the Bill of Rights is seriously challenged and/or infringed upon. You underestimate the willingness of the masses to protect the BoR. I would offer the very existence of this and other like-minded forums as proof of that.

"Because these guys said so 200 years ago" is just not that strong of an argument in the modern world.
Click to expand...
I heartily disagree with that premise. I do not think this argument has lost any of it's luster or power.
 
I think Public Opinion has been flowing in our direction for some time, the antis are largely fighting rearguard actions, anti-RKBA sentiment is limited to
about 5 states, several cities-New York, Chicago, a few other which are trying to set themselves up as semi-autonomous city states trying to practice
Cafeteria Constitutionalism. At the federal level, what I call salami slicing tactics, taxes on ammunition, import bans, trying to expand the numbers of would be buyers who can be flagged in NICS checks, etc., as well as possible attempts to pressure states to repeal "shall issue" CCW laws by threatening to withold federal monies for transport, etc. Biggest threats to the shooting sports are loss of hunting areas and shooting ranges due to creeping suburbanization, and sociological-the disintegration of the American family due
to divorce and illegitimacy means fewer and fewer of the young are being exposed to shooting and hunting by a parent or family member.
 
anti-RKBA sentiment is limited to about 5 states, several cities-New York, Chicago, a few other which are trying to set themselves up as semi-autonomous city states trying to practice
Cafeteria Constitutionalism.
Click to expand...
Don't fool yourself. I just spent several weeks in WV, MS, and AL. The sentiment there seems to be very anti-gun in the majority of middle class areas. They very much seem to feel that "guns are bad" and "people with guns do bad things" and in the lower class areas guns are being targeted a scapegoats for why there is so much crime instead of taking personal responsibility for lack of parenting, education, and involvement.
 
Where I live in New Jersey there are a lot of liberals who are "closet" gun owners, the last governor who was militantly anti-gun-Florio-became the
first sitting NJ governor to be defeated for re-election.
 
For every young doofus that starts to lean anti, there is an older anti that starts to see the light. If you only see one side of the equation, you may think they are gaining ground but in reality they are just treading water.

I've accounted for a good number of converts, though, so maybe my optimism is slanted in the other direction, but I bet they even out.

That's my best guess, anyway.
 
Where I live in New Jersey there are a lot of liberals who are "closet" gun owners, the last governor who was militantly anti-gun-Florio-became the
first sitting NJ governor to be defeated for re-election.
Click to expand...

He was not defeated because he was anti gun. As I remember he had raised taxes which pissed a lot of people.
 
Florio acknowledged that his AWB was one of the factors resulting in the
Democrats losing both houses of legislature in the 1991 elections.
 
We seem to be in a time where, even though gun rights are winning some major court battles, public opinion seems to be turning against us.
Click to expand...

I think that public opinion is going the opposite. I remember after JFK and then after MLK and RFK There was quite a lot of anti-gun setiment in the public. This was the time of peace and understanding so that played a huge part in it especially with the anti-war movement for Viet Nam. It pretty much leveled off until Reagan was shot and then Sara Brady began her campaign. I don't think her radical attitude helped her cause very much for the general public and she was lost in the other radical causes of the day.

Then came 9/11, VT, even Columbine and I see much less anti-gun movement and public opinion these days and more toward anti-certain individuals having guns. I don't see the general public wanting to ourright ban guns as I did many years ago but more limiting of who has guns. I don't see the general public listening to radical ideas like gun-bans or absolute 2A rights like in the past but more people willing to listen and compromise.

The general public has been through the radical stage and is ready to move on. We have to keep pushing but I don't think a no compromise solution is going to work right now and can easily backfire like I think it has done on the Brady Bunch. When is the last time they have actually gotten anything meaningful accomplished? It sure didn't help Bloomberg in his idea of running for President.
 
I see much less anti-gun movement and public opinion these days and more toward anti-certain individuals having guns.
Click to expand...

This. More people are starting to view this not as a black and white issue, but of an issue of many colors. More people are becoming aware of the dismal state of mental health care in the US and other issues as well. Bush probably did allot too by making many on the left side realize that even our government is not infallible and citizens needing arms is a reality.
 
A natural right

Forget for a moment the idea that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to own guns, because it does not. The right to be armed is a "natural" right, as our founders understood. They called them unalienable (or inalienable), God given, or natural rights. Rights we possess because we draw breath. Rights we possess because we exist. Rights that cannot be bargained ow given away, just as a leopard cannot (and of course, would not) give away his claws or teeth, nor a buffalo it's horns or hooves.

Man has a natural right to self defense, just as all animals have. Without fang and claw, we developed tools. Knives, swords, bows, spears, axes, and finally guns.

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution gives us nothing, and the popular idea that it does is one of our greatest weaknesses. What the 2nd Amendment does (and so do the other amendments that make up the Bill of Rights) is place limits on the authority of the government.

We are not given the right of free speech, the government is prohibited from interfering with it. We are not given freedom of religion, the government is forbidden to interfere with our exercise of it. And so forth. The right to bear arms is not granted by any piece of paper or social contract. The paper of the bill or rights is our social contract stating that the government may not infringe on our rights. And that contract has long been chiseled at, by those who seek personal power and greater authority either for themselves or their social agenda.

Even the most radical social liberals have a hard time arguing that we don not have a right to self defense. What torques them off is the fact that we chose guns as the most effective and efficient tool for that defense. And yes, I include defense against tyranny under self defense.

Another argument you may use to defuse rabid antis, or more likely just those ignorant souls who have been taught nothing else except that "guns = bad", is what about "Americans with Disabilities"? I don't mean mental disabilitities, I mean actual physical handicaps, to include the aged and infrirm. Ask the antis "we have passed numerous laws requiring these people have access to buildings, toilets, even jobs, and you would deny them the ability to defend themselves? (You can probably phrase it better, but you get my drift)

Take guns out of the picture, and you reduce our civilization to the law of the jungle. The strongest do as they please with anyone weaker than they are. Sure, the police will have guns. And when seconds count, they are usually there in minutes!

I do believe that the antis are fighting a rear guard action, but they haven't given up. However, their strident cry that all the evil in our land comes from the barrel of a gun is not heeded as much today as it was just 10 years ago. The one good thing to come from the terrorist attacks that September day was the general public (and political) realization that you don't need guns to cause tremendous harm and death, all you need is the will. The tool doesn't matter compared to the will of the user.

While the ability to legally own military utility weapons is the birthright of every American citizen, as we are all, at need, the militia, the argument that we need our ARs etc. to be able to overthrow a tyrannical govt actually weakens our credibility with those who are either or the fence or not deeply committed anti gun. They see that argument as ludicrous, and believe we are nuts to make it. It is bad for our public image. And even though in truth we do have the right, and must keep it against future need, sadly, it don't play well to the public anymore. Let's save that one for ourselves, and the courts, who do still have to at least pretend to recognise the laws as written.

So, everytime some villian injures the innocent (with a gun or without), everytime some deranged individual opens fire in public seeking their 15 minutes of fame posthumouosly, or seeking their version of paradise through the deaths and injuries of "unbelievers", and the cops get there in time to clean up the mess and photograph the evidence, ask the antis what might have happened had there been another gun or three, in the hands of ordinary citizens. AND if those same citizens didn't have to risk their entire life and freedom if they acted.

Once upon a time (like a fairy tale) that was the way this country operated. Bad men, even bank robbers were gunned down by ordinary citizens, deputised or not, who suffered no consequences from it. No lawsuits, no prosecutions, hell, sometimes they even got rewards!

Can you hear them screaming? "We can't allow that! It would be a bloodbath!!!" Well, from where I sit, looks like we get the bloodbaths anyway. So what do we as a society really have to lose? Our lives, our freedom, and our sacred honor?
 
Forget for a moment the idea that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to own guns, because it does not. The right to be armed is a "natural" right, as our founders understood.
Click to expand...
I just don't buy that. I do not believe there is any such thing as a "natural right."

The only right you would have in nature, beyond the law of man, would be survival of he fittest.
 
The only right you would have in nature, beyond the law of man, would be survival of he fittest
Click to expand...

I agree. I dont think there are any "natural" or "god given" rights either, other than what you give (or take) for yourself.

I feel one day, the argument of "because the founding fathers said so" will not be enough.
 
We could say that "natural rights" are rooted in our human instincts (whether evolved or God-given) about what we and our fellow humans are entitled to do.

My instinctive view is pretty simple: if I don't have any business walking up to a stranger on the street and demanding (perhaps at gunpoint) that he do or not do something, then neither does the government have any business doing so.

Some examples:

(1) I see a man ripping off a struggling child's clothes and trying to sexually assault her. Do I have a right to stop him? Hell yes! Thus, so does the government.

(2) I look through my neighbor's window and see him smoking a doobie. Do I have the right to kick in his door and harm him or his property because of that? Obviously not. It's none of my business what he does with his health. Therefore, government has no business getting involved, either.

(3) I see a man dumping toxic waste into a river. Do I have the right to stop him? I would say yes. The waste could eventually get into the water supply and affect the health of innocent people. This is why I support environmental regulations (as long as they're based on well-founded science).

I think this rule of thumb works very well, though as always, there are gray areas.

At the end of the day, though, I agree that in the real world, the only rights you have are those you're willing to fight for. This is why unarmed or under-armed people are ALWAYS enslaved, even if their masters give them lots of privileges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top