Reality Check: The very politically incorrect truth about the Second Amendment

P

PT-92

New member
To me one of the problems that I see in the "Gun Debate" is that neither side (in general) ever really addresses what the Founding Fathers actual intention was when they brilliantly crafted the 2A. The antis claim it was so we could hunt and most of the Pro-2A supporters maintain that its major intent was so that we can protect ourselves from perps.

Here's a very quick three minute video that I believes sums up what The 2A is actually all about:

http://www.fox19.com/story/20399062/the-very-politically-incorrect-truth-about-the-second-amendment

--Happy Holidays
 
And exactly how does that help us in our efforts to preserve and expand the RKBA?

Our ultimate success will depend on how well we can present gun owners and gun ownership in a positive way to win the support of our neighbors, the people in our communities,the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc.

How does that help?
 
Yup, that's the way I learned it. The 2nd is to ensure our right to defend our country and to defend ourselves from our country if the need arises.
 
Frank,

I'm not sure I understand.

If we "agree" that the primary purpose of the 2A is to protect ourselves from a potentially tyrannical government, would this not preclude via the Law their (the antis) continued regulation and potential confiscation?

So how does this help?

Well, if one believes in the U.S. Constitution (including the antis), they cannot contradict this by "redefining" the 2A which is tantamount to ignoring the Law of the Land (or better said, interpreting the Law as "THEY" see fit at our peril). They are making a "half-pregnant" argument whereby maybe they will agree that the 2A allows for a bolt-action hunting rifle but no more, or this, or that....

Personally speaking, when I present this side of the equation to the antis I would do so with the utmost respect and actually appreciate their response (honestly with bated breath as I think their position, constitutionally speaking, is in error, utterly indefensible).

In essence, we must make this the crux of our argument while "defending" the 2A. Now, if the Nation decides to amend the Constitution via the legal channels, I will abide.
 
Saw the video, but while they are correct, this, and virtually every other discussion I have heard in many years about the 2nd Amendment misses one fundamental point.

And that is, that the Amendment is NOT about our right to arms, but about what the goverenment may DO about our right to arms. And that is the key point "shall not be infringed".

The Constitution & Bill of Rights does NOT give us any rights. Our rights, ALL OF THEM come from our Creator, and are God given or if you prefer, Natural Rights. We have them simply because we draw beath in this nation. They do not come from the govt. They are an inalienable part of us, simply because we exist.

The Bill of Rights is just a list of things the government CANNOT DO with, and about our rights.

Its not about hunting, and not about personal protection. The 2nd Amendment isn't even directly about us having that "equal force" to the military, its about the govt not being legally able to prevent us from having that "equal force" while remaining within the boundaries of the Constitution.

Look also at the wording of the First Amendment. It doesn't say we have the right to free speech, religion, & assembly (those were understood). It says "Congress shall make no law...."

It is a check on the power of the government, not a gift of rights to the people. Our founders believed our rights did not come from a government, neither a king, nor a democracy.

Is it important to the current gun control discussion? I don't know. What I do know is that our Constitution is a list of rules for the Government, NOT us, the citizenry. The Founders set it up to control the government, NOT the people. They felt the government should be restricted, and the people should be free.

Seems to me, that hasn't been the case, for far too long. Perhaps, that is part of the reason we are where we are today?
 
The 2nd codifies the right to revolution from the Declaration of Independence.

Well for the states, not necessarily the people.
 
PT-92 said:
...If we "agree" that the primary purpose of the 2A is to protect ourselves from a potentially tyrannical government, would this not preclude via the Law their (the antis) continued regulation and potential confiscation? ...
Click to expand...
Why? How? Any Supreme Court decisions that support that conjecture?

PT-92 said:
...if one believes in the U.S. Constitution (including the antis), they cannot contradict this by "redefining" the 2A which is tantamount to ignoring the Law of the Land (or better said, interpreting the Law as "THEY" see fit at our peril). They are making a "half-pregnant" argument whereby maybe they will agree that the 2A allows for a bolt-action hunting rifle but no more, or this, or that....
Click to expand...
Again, do you have any legal authority to support that conjecture? Do you have any data to support that conjecture?

PT-92 said:
...Personally speaking, when I present this side of the equation to the antis I would do so with the utmost respect and actually appreciate their response (honestly with bated breath as I think their position, constitutionally speaking, is in error, utterly indefensible)....
Click to expand...
Do you really believe that Susy Soccermom and Bob Briefcase will buy that? Why would you think that?
O
PT-92 said:
...In essence, we must make this the crux of our argument while "defending" the 2A....
Click to expand...
And get absolutely nowhere with it.

The vast majority of the American body politic simply doesn't see a desent into tyranny as a real issue for this country.
 
Last edited:
I think what Frank is saying is, like it or not, a lot of what is going to happen depends on public relations.

Yes, public relations.

In facts verses emotions you have to pay attention to the emotional arguments too.

If we can make the general public aware that ANY semi-automatic rifle or pistol could be used in a ‘massacre’ and that there are LITERALLY MILLIONS of these guns out there in public hands maybe they will realize what the NRA said today (12/21/12) that:

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

With literally millions of semi-automatic guns in public hands there is no chance of getting rid of them. No chance at all. There will be crazy people. There will be “gun violence” and we can cower in front of it or confront it.
 
DaleA said:
I think what Frank is saying is, like it or not, a lot of what is going to happen depends on public relations....
Click to expand...
A good deal of the issue is a matter of PR, and that's something the gun community hasn't been very good at.

A lot or people are simply afraid of guns and afraid of people who have guns. Some of those might well be beyond reach. But many are reachable (and we know that from experience), and we need them. The "bulwark against tyranny" story doesn't resonate for them.
 
I did a survey of Oregonians as a stat class project about 20 years. Most wouldn't ban guns but they didn't see defense against tyranny as important.

That was then but I agree with those who think the general public doesn't buy it.
 
The other night I watch Bill O'Reilly and Charles Krauthammer call people that think the need a deterrent or defense from an oppressive government loons, and paranoid. This is how the media, even the so called more conservative or fair and balanced media is painting us. :mad:

The say we are stuck back in the 1700's while our rights continue to be trampled upon to a degree unseen in our history.
 
Heck, the majority of the voting public doesn't even believe in the need, or at least the ability, to defend themselves from inner city violence. Not withstanding that I believe it, the argument that we need the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government is certainly a non starter as far as the current climate is concerned.
 
Opinions/Demographics

It sounds to me that many are virtually ready to throw in the towel in terms of advocating the true meaning of The Second Amendment in that the majority of the Country will not "buy into it" and we will be perceived as loons...Note that there are tons of well respected Academics (Constitutional Scholars) that are on record as supporting the verbatim interpretation of the Second Amendment--Moreover, they demand that if changes to the Second Amendment (U.S. Constitution) are to be made, they be pursued via the appropriate legal channels of both the Federal and State Congressional Chambers (not willy-nilly AWB bills created/passed on a whim thereby circumventing the legal authority of the U.S. Constitution).

Don't be mistaken, I understand that the Nation as we know/knew it is changing right before our very eyes and because of the dynamics of the fluid demographics, the antis are growing while we are "dying away." But I say you fight the good fight and win or lose in the end you can at least rest assured that you "manned up." There are certain principles/values/laws of which one should not be shy about or walk away from and I believe the Second Amendment to be but one example...
 
From an earlier post (I don't know how to post a quote)

The Constitution & Bill of Rights does NOT give us any rights. Our rights, ALL OF THEM come from our Creator, and are God given or if you prefer, Natural Rights. We have them simply because we draw beath in this nation. They do not come from the govt. They are an inalienable part of us, simply because we exist.

I disagree that the 2nd amendment would be a God given right. No where in the Bible is there any mention of guns. For good reason...they did not exist then. There is also no real mention of armed response to a threat. In fact, Jesus, and the New Testament in general, teach nothing but pacifism. Anyone who claims that the New Testament gives them justification to kill an attacker is wrong. Jesus Himself said, "If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other."

Therefore, in the case of the 2nd amendment, I think it's safe to say that this "right" comes from the founding fathers, not God.
 
At what point do we toss both the constitution and common sense out the window and give up??
If 2A isnt worth the paper its wrote on then neither is the rest of the constitution. Free speech, freedom of religion, right to vote. Using some of the above reasoning we might as well just toss them out the window also. And thats the point. To just ignore 2A is when we bring up the fact that to allow that is to allow any rights we have to be summarily disposed of by the Supreme Court and point it out long and loud to the general public.
Then its their ox that is in danger of being gored as well whatever ox they like riding the best that is protected by the Constitution.

And there is common sense here that I hope the majority of Americans still have if you point it out oft enough and long enough.
Anyone that wants to shoot up a school workplace or home will get the gun to do it with. Background checks are for law abiding people who arent a danger to start with. If a felon wants a gun he gets it. Not at the gun shop but on the street and my friends they can legislate their little hearts out and not get millions of guns off the street.
The only answer to any of this is simple though a lot dont want to hear it. You are either armed and protect yourself or you dont. You put armed staff in schools and protect them or you dont.
Lethal violence only stops when one of three things happens. The shooter runs out of ammo or people to shoot. The shooter puts himself out of his own misery. Or someone puts him/her down with lethal force. Citizen teacher cop or superman. Thats the long and short of it. The only cards we have to play. The sooner we realize that and get in the game the sooner we turn things around.
 
PT-92 said:
It sounds to me that many are virtually ready to throw in the towel in terms of advocating the true meaning of The Second Amendment in that the majority of the Country will not "buy into it" and we will be perceived as loons...
Click to expand...
It sounds like you're really not understanding what many of us are saying. And to be perceived as "loons" by a vast majority of the country is a very bad thing for our side.

PT-92 said:
...Note that there are tons of well respected Academics (Constitutional Scholars) that are on record as supporting the verbatim interpretation of the Second Amendment...
Click to expand...
Those aren't the people we need to win over.

PT-92 said:
...if changes to the Second Amendment (U.S. Constitution) are to be made, they be pursued via the appropriate legal channels of both the Federal and State Congressional Chambers (not willy-nilly AWB bills created/passed on a whim thereby circumventing the legal authority of the U.S. Constitution)....
Click to expand...
Changes to the Constitution aren't at issue. But the courts will for years into the future be interpreting and applying the Constitution based on Heller and McDonald in deciding litigation over present and future gun control laws. And thus courts will be deciding whether legislatures are "circumventing" the authority of the Constitution, and those determinations are up to the courts, not you.

PT-92 said:
...But I say you fight the good fight and win or lose in the end you can at least rest assured that you "manned up."...
Click to expand...
Balderdash! The point is to fight smart to win -- not simply to fight for the sake of fighting.

PT-92 said:
...There are certain principles/values/laws of which one should not be shy about or walk away from and I believe the Second Amendment to be but one example...
Click to expand...
The road map for effectively doing some in the courts will come from existing court decisions, including Heller and McDonald. And doing so effectively politically starts with understand both the political process and the hopes, fears, values, and needs of the body politic -- things you don't seem to display much grasp of.
 
Ghost1958

...At what point do we toss both the constitution and common sense out the window and give up??
If 2A isnt worth the paper its wrote on then neither is the rest of the constitution. Free speech, freedom of religion, right to vote. Using some of the above reasoning we might as well just toss them out the window also. And thats the point. To just ignore 2A is when we bring up the fact that to allow that is to allow any rights we have to be summarily disposed of...
Click to expand...

Ditto!

happy_holidays_Animated.gif
 
Frank,

Don't tell me what I grasp--I understand 100% Sir what I said/wrote. Now, you can tell me all day long that you disagree and that's fine. But DO NOT condescend to me!

It is my right to believe in a strict interpretation of 2A, period. It is your right to disagree, but not mock my "grasp."
 
PT-92 said:
...It is my right to believe in a strict interpretation of 2A, period. It is your right to disagree, but not mock my "grasp."
Click to expand...
The issue is not the interpretation of the Second Amendment. It is how best to effectively further the RKBA. And I stand by my comment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top