Screw the second amendment

L

LiquidTension

New member
I thought that would get some attention!

Whenever antis start b!tching and moaning about guns, pro gunners always bring up the second amendment. Don't get me wrong, I'm VERY happy that we have it. Without it we would have been disarmed already. Here's my point...

I do not feel that those words scribbled in the Bill of Rights give me the freedom to own firearms. Being alive in the US gives me that right. This country is supposed to be for the free man (and woman). If I want a gun, I'm d*mn well gonna have one. What's that you say? I can't have a gun? What happened to the whole "free country" thing I've been taught all my life? Oh, that only applies to the government? Well that certainly makes sense!

I would say that owning a firearm is my God-given right, but since I'm theistic agnostic, that wouldn't be entirely accurate. Some words that somebody ELSE wrote over 200 years ago don't give me any rights...none that I shouldn't already have anyway. I don't feel that I'm getting my point across very well here.... The government can't give me any rights, I'm born with those. The government simply gives permission to do what IT wants people to do...that's pretty f#cked up if you ask me. I'm gonna shut up until I've figured out a better way to say what I'm thinking. Comments are welcome. Flame me if you wish, but I'm not trying to say anything against guns or people's rights....
 
The nature of rights is something that very few people truly understand.
If something is a right, then it's shared equally by every living person on the planet. Self-defense, free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, etc, are not just American rights, they are basic human rights. How much or little one's gov't infringes upon these rights is a measure of how oppresive one's gov't is.
There are no such things as gay rights, women's rights, men's rights, minority rights, etc. These things are really covered under the right to life, stated as, "My life, and the fruits of my labor, are mine to do with as I please."

------------------
Shoot straight & make big holes, regards, Richard at The Shottist's Center
 
To me the bill of rights is the line in the sand. We delegated certain of our rights to the government for the defense of others. The bill of rights are a partial list of those rights we reserve to ourselves and do not relinquish to government. The constitution is an agreement between the people and the government. We all know that most of the constitution is not being observed. My personal line in the sand is the 2nd. If our government breaks that restriction then I will consider the whole constitution null and void. What am I waiting for right now? Emerson. While there is still hope in the courts I will continue to be a law abiding citizen at the federal level. There is no hope in the State of CA in the courts and I do not abide by CA rules.

See, we have to face the facts of life. Living by the rules set out by the majority we can not retain our rights. The majority will overrule those rights to fit their agenda. Civil disobedience and jury nullification are the next step. Here a minority of 80,000,000 gun owners or even 40,000,000 have a chance to hold them to the line.

So not that I disagree with you in your comment that the 2nd does not matter (as it does not with natural rights), but it is the measuring stick that I use to determine just how corrupt our government is. This stick will tell me my course of action.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
Thing I like about the 2nd is all those Politicians and bureaucrats took an oath to uphold it. Isn't that interesting.

Why I say I've as yet to meet an honorable man in the BATF.
 
2nd A. (and the entire BOR for that matter) gives you no rights at all.

You were born with those rights as citzen, and the BOR is a re-capitulation that the government of the U.S. cannot act to infringe those rights.

Even if the BOR were to disappear tomorrow, your rights would still exist both morally and legally.

------------------
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seeknot your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams
 
The Bill of Rights merely set down on paper what was generally appreciated about the nature of a free man. The BofR's could not have granted something which already existed. In the case of #2, free men (and women) ought to be able to defend themselves without the permission of or opposition by the government.

I caution any reader to not become overly enamored with the Emerson case. Look at the totality of all court's deliberation on the right to bear arms.

Again, I heartily encourage everyone to pick up a copy of "That Every Man be Armed: The evolution of a Constitutional Right" by Stephen P. Halbrook. It is a serious study of RKBA. What you will see is the RKBA is not based in one or two court opinions. It is a concept that is woven into the fabric of American society and legal structure. It is thrilling to read how at the conclusion of the Civil War the former confederate states were required to adopt all provision of the US Bill or Rights especially RKBA. It is interesting to see the relationship between the possession of arms by blacks and the incidences of lynching.

I for one do not hold my breath waiting for the US Supreme court to rule on any Second Amendment case. There is far too much legal precedence (sp?) that affirms and reinforces the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms.

Read it!. Its worth the effort.



------------------
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Barry Goldwater--1964
 
Lincoln said something during the Civil War

"A black man has no rights that a white man would respect"

That can be interpreted today to read "The people of the United State has no rights that the government will respect"

I do NOT need to list, nor would there be enough room, to even list a few examples!

------------------
Dead [Black Ops]
 
No. The BOR was written with a very specific set of conditions that had to be met, before any State was going to allow a central form of government to exist.

Those conditions were to provide guarantees, and undeniable rights to the citizens.

Excusing the 2nd for a moment, look at the 5th Amendment, copied here directly from the NARA site.
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/billrights.html

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

See the part I highlighted? See the mention of land, naval, or Militia forces?
I am the Militia. That's you also!

So the next time an anti tells you that the 2nd meant the National Guard, or some such crap. Set it straight. The NG reports to the respective Governor of a State.
BUT it operates directly with the US Army, a Federal land force. The same land force mentioned in the 5th.

And since we officially didn't have a Marine, Coast Guard, or Air Force then, it stands to reason that the only two Federal forces were either Navy, or Army.

Now, back to the 2nd. If the Militia was something other than the Navy or Army, who or what, was it?

It was, and is, the man or woman, who has their own firearms and ammunition.
Another point here: When a person is deputized, does the Sheriff's Dept issue the forearm for their use, or is the Deputee responsible for providing his own firearm?

I remember being temporarily deputized @ 10 years ago, for the purpose of clearing out wild dog packd that were "hitting" a smallish town near me. We were already known, and cleared by the SO there, and we were to use our own firearms and ammunition. Since this was a volunteer function.
Yes, the SO had the weapons to issue, but we knew our own firearms much better, so we used them.


I wonder, when was the last time an anti went out of their way to volunteer, and perform work of that sort? Probably close to never.

[This message has been edited by Donny (edited October 03, 2000).]
 
I too have often complained that pro-gun people rely too much on the second. When we fight, DO NOT tell them "the second ammendment says I can, so leave me alone", because if you do, eventually that ammendment will disappear, or be very very rewritten.

------------------
The Alcove

I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top