Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Interesting discussion, just my $.02.
Rights aren't predicated on need. Need is superfluous.
Not sure where you are going but the right to self defense and the accompanying right to arms predates the Constitution. The 2A merely limits the government from infringing upon an already existing right. The population may be divided on the details of gun restrictions but I doubt you will find many who doubt the right of self-defense. Those that do are too few to matter.
Our right to self defense we maintain is God-given and no government may remove it. The right to self defense is the raison d'etre for the 2A. It ain't about hunting or target shooting.
CrossfireRacerX said:I just don't think pointing to our Second Amendment will convince many people that we need our collection of firearms.
Rights aren't predicated on need. Need is superfluous.
CrossfireRacerX said:Except the one where people say pointing to the second amendment as a suitable defense of our arms. Legally, for now, it might be. But the population is divided on gun rights, and it's important to be able to articulate why it is important for us to have them, both legally and common-sense wise, PAST the second amendment.
Not sure where you are going but the right to self defense and the accompanying right to arms predates the Constitution. The 2A merely limits the government from infringing upon an already existing right. The population may be divided on the details of gun restrictions but I doubt you will find many who doubt the right of self-defense. Those that do are too few to matter.
Our right to self defense we maintain is God-given and no government may remove it. The right to self defense is the raison d'etre for the 2A. It ain't about hunting or target shooting.