CrossfireRacerX
Inactive
Hi all. This is my first time posting, but I've been lurking for a long while. I felt the need to register to post my mind, however, on this one issue: the defense of the freedom to arms.
Now recently, I've read many pro-firearm advocates arguing against anti-gun legislation with the same old "it contradicts the constitution! It contradicts the second amendment!"
While I agree that gun-restricting legislation should be fought against, I find the above argument a futile one which ultimately shows the ignorance of the person asserting thus. I'd like to point you to the wording in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. "CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
I italicized what I perceive to be the most important word in that first amendment: Congress. CONGRESS can't pass laws regarding the establishment of religion, the meaning being there can never be a NATIONALLY established religion. If you read the Federalist Papers, it becomes clear that the founding fathers advocated a very weak national government with stronger state and local governments. In fact, there have been historical examples where STATES have had established churches (if I remember correctly, Connecticut and Maryland both had established churches, feel free to correct me).
In the same way, CONGRESS can not pass a law infringing on our right to keep and bear arms. The NATIONAL government can not pass these laws. The intention of the founding fathers was, again, that if states so chose to, they could pass laws preventing our arms-bearing right, and be fully justified in doing so by the Constitution.
Therefore, when someone points to California or Chicago and says "they're infringing on our 2nd amendment rights," that person is actually incorrect. These places might be wrong in passing these anti-gun laws (and indeed its a simple enough task to show why anti-gun legislation is such a bad idea), but they are not wrong because of the 2nd amendment.
And so, I'd like to open a discussion of more logical, and ultimately more productive, arguments against the gun-seizing leftist movement. In order to defend our gun rights, it is important to know the reasons why it is important for us to own these guns. The founding fathers had their reasons for preventing the national government from taking away our guns, which they laid out in the Bill of Rights (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed). What arguments can we put forward against those proposing localized gun-banning legislation? Self-defense? Sport? I have found it much more to be a much more logical and compelling argument to provide reasons such as these, with examples such as Switzerland and Kennesaw, GA.
In order for us to more adequately defend our freedom to arms, we should first all have a common understanding of why this freedom is important to us. Pointing to the Second Amendment is simply an inadequate and inaccurate argument, which ultimately proves nothing for our side. Those proposing the gun-restricting legislature obviously know about the 2nd Amendment, and obviously they have gotten laws passed preventing guns in certain areas (Chicago or California, for example).
With an overall stronger, more unified firearms-defensive front in mind, what arguments can you all come up with to defend our freedom to arms? I know there are a bunch of smart people on here, and I'd love to see what you all say.
Also, I'd like to hear any responses you might have to what I've said above with regards to the whole "Second Amendment!!!!" argument being erroneous.
I'm not trying to start a fight, nor am I trying to break any rules by posting this (If I am, then disregard this entire post). I'm just trying to establish a more unified defense against the gun-seizing legislators currently in office.
With all that said, have at it
Now recently, I've read many pro-firearm advocates arguing against anti-gun legislation with the same old "it contradicts the constitution! It contradicts the second amendment!"
While I agree that gun-restricting legislation should be fought against, I find the above argument a futile one which ultimately shows the ignorance of the person asserting thus. I'd like to point you to the wording in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. "CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
I italicized what I perceive to be the most important word in that first amendment: Congress. CONGRESS can't pass laws regarding the establishment of religion, the meaning being there can never be a NATIONALLY established religion. If you read the Federalist Papers, it becomes clear that the founding fathers advocated a very weak national government with stronger state and local governments. In fact, there have been historical examples where STATES have had established churches (if I remember correctly, Connecticut and Maryland both had established churches, feel free to correct me).
In the same way, CONGRESS can not pass a law infringing on our right to keep and bear arms. The NATIONAL government can not pass these laws. The intention of the founding fathers was, again, that if states so chose to, they could pass laws preventing our arms-bearing right, and be fully justified in doing so by the Constitution.
Therefore, when someone points to California or Chicago and says "they're infringing on our 2nd amendment rights," that person is actually incorrect. These places might be wrong in passing these anti-gun laws (and indeed its a simple enough task to show why anti-gun legislation is such a bad idea), but they are not wrong because of the 2nd amendment.
And so, I'd like to open a discussion of more logical, and ultimately more productive, arguments against the gun-seizing leftist movement. In order to defend our gun rights, it is important to know the reasons why it is important for us to own these guns. The founding fathers had their reasons for preventing the national government from taking away our guns, which they laid out in the Bill of Rights (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed). What arguments can we put forward against those proposing localized gun-banning legislation? Self-defense? Sport? I have found it much more to be a much more logical and compelling argument to provide reasons such as these, with examples such as Switzerland and Kennesaw, GA.
In order for us to more adequately defend our freedom to arms, we should first all have a common understanding of why this freedom is important to us. Pointing to the Second Amendment is simply an inadequate and inaccurate argument, which ultimately proves nothing for our side. Those proposing the gun-restricting legislature obviously know about the 2nd Amendment, and obviously they have gotten laws passed preventing guns in certain areas (Chicago or California, for example).
With an overall stronger, more unified firearms-defensive front in mind, what arguments can you all come up with to defend our freedom to arms? I know there are a bunch of smart people on here, and I'd love to see what you all say.
Also, I'd like to hear any responses you might have to what I've said above with regards to the whole "Second Amendment!!!!" argument being erroneous.
I'm not trying to start a fight, nor am I trying to break any rules by posting this (If I am, then disregard this entire post). I'm just trying to establish a more unified defense against the gun-seizing legislators currently in office.
With all that said, have at it
Last edited: