In Defense of the Freedom to Arms

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Interesting discussion, just my $.02.

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.

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.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The implication that the population is divided on gun rights seems to suggest something like a 50 - 50 split or that a majority oppose gun ownership.

Perhaps, the OP could reference the legit literature that suggests such a bleak situation.

IIRC, 40 states have now passed shall issue legislation. Gun sales have boomed. It is true that some bastions of antigun sentiment hang tough like MA, CA, IL or NY with restrictive laws - but even in these there are strong progun groups.

So how about a little research to flesh out the straw man about the general population value. A hint - most folks support gun ownership but want laws that will restrict access to lawbreakers and folks with some sort of diminished capacity.

That point is overlooked in the typical tabloid like survey. But, a competent researcher could find the studies that make the difference I mention.

 

[justinfranks]

Assuming what they may or may not have meant about what CONGRESS can or can't do about certain things isn't the most important thing to me. The most important thing to me is that the second ammendment states:..." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.." That ALONE means it CAN NOT be infringed upon by anyone. I don't care if it's congress, federal government or state. It says "shall not be.." not shall not be by the feds but can be by the state. Read it as it is written.

 

[CrossfireRacerX]

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

quick google search turned that up as one of the first links.

 

[BlueTrain]

I wanted to point out, before this thread is locked down, that the Federalists, authors of the Federalists Papers, were in favor of a strong central government. True, things might have been different if the other side had its way, but things seem to have been turned on their heads lately, I'd say. It is starting to sound like it is time for another convention.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

A URL link is not adequate research or discussion. Clear to me that the OP just wants to play with a new first post. Bathetic, IMHO.

Closed.