What really protects the 2d Amendment?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tirod

Member
Joined
May 24, 2008
Messages
5,290
Location
SW MO
In the long battle to preserve our 2d Amendment rights, what has been the most effective weapon we use?

We haven't been using the 2d. Very rarely in American history have we been called on to preserve our right to keep and bear arms. "Arms" includes all weapons used in self defense. Our forefathers were more likely to carry edged weapons in the day, not a firearm. Look at the paintings - you dont see chest plate carriers with holsters, or long guns stacked near Legislative desks.

You will see swords, the hilt of knives, etc.

Add them ALL up in America today, and the conservative estimate of 450 million guns is a small part. The total is likely in the billions. For each citizen there is likely a modern version of the clasp knife, and having gone down that rabbit hole for 30 years I can say there are superowners who own dozens.

I will conservatively estimate there are 3-5 BILLION arms in America, and to this day edged weapons will outnumber firearms in a crowd of 1,000. Easily.

We are still armed - but how did we protect that right? Did we assemble and go to war during every legislative session, form up ranks, and assault our chambers of government?

Even the demonstration on Jan. 6th it didn't happen, the lone gunshot death was a veteran killed by a government employee who is a BLM member.

What actually defends our 2d Amendment is our exercise of the 1st. We may falter at times, or get sucker punched by the treasonous actions of legislative members who carve out their own exemptions in attempts to disarm us - read the history of the 1934 NFA, first written to ban all handguns - yet, how do we continue to defeat their efforts?

And we have been defeating them, over and over, especially the last 25 years. We've gone from no carry allowed in many states to most states having carry, open or concealed, and repetitively introduce a national right to carry law. It fails by only a few paid votes.

We exercise our freedom of speech to defend our freedom to bear arms, and we are pretty good at it.. We could be doing better, but it is a war, and on this day in America, facing a number of serious threats to our Nation, we are still armed - with the First Amendment. We can still speak and be heard.

We are actually the largest most organized and focused free speech organization in America.

Now is the time to up our game in defense of our rights and our nation.
 
I think I can summarize this two ways.

As Tirod said, What actually defends our 2d Amendment is our exercise of the 1st., is a great point that we need to keep on everyone's mind.

If you don't use the 1st you will be forced to use the 2nd, is a reminder of what sitting on the sidelines and complaining to an echo chamber can lead to.
 
Last edited:
"Arms" includes all weapons used in self defense.
Observations:
1. At this point in history, knives can't be considered "arms." Who would bring a knife to a gun fight? (But even without knives, the number of guns is plenty.)
2. In terms of the 2nd Amendment, it is wrong to focus only on self defense. The 2nd Amendment right centers on civic defense, of which individual self defense is only a part. The 2nd Amendment includes all weapons that would be used by soldiers, including crew-served weapons. Conversely, it does not include weapons that would not be used by soldiers, such as those purely designed for hunting or purely for use in the shooting sports. ("The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting.")

This was exactly the rationale of Miller v. U.S., which I think is a better precedent than the disastrous Heller decision.
 
" The 2nd protects the 1st. "

That's been said so many times in our community that it goes without saying. ;)

The contribution here is the point being made that we must use the 1st to protect the 2nd.
 
Last edited:
The contribution here is the point being made that we must use the 1st to protect the 2nd.
So, in a nutshell, the idea here is that we should speak up or risk losing our gun rights. Who would argue with that? Nobody. What are interesting are the details.
 
If a tree falls and no one's there to hear it.... did it really fall ?

The 1st Amendment depends on a Free & Independent Press (in whatever form), and Free & unrestricted Speech.
Please tell me how that's working out ... lately... in any form of print/broadcast/Twitter/YouTube/university...
...save the likes of what we minimally have here and other similar/limited-audience Forums.

and you'd better believe forums such as these are under increased surveillance
 
The problem is their are thousands of people and millions of dollars also using the 1st amendment to essentially nullify the second.

The bigger problem is they lie about “facts” and they DO have highly emotionally charged arguments, which seem to be much more effective in this days and age, unfortunately.
 
We haven't been using the 2d.

Yes we have. YES WE HAVE. By day's end, approximately two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) a quarter of a MILLION Americans will have responded to the ATF scheme, er, proposal on serialization / home firearms making.
NOPE, I am wrong (sorry) it's already over 1/4 million responses

There's another proposal a-coming up, with even MORE participation a.k.a. pistol braces about 140,000 now and, 20 days to go.

And....those who wrote in:cool: are not counted in that tally, the way I :cool:understand it. And the cussers are tossed out. So, the end #s are actually probably higher. And as ANYONE in politics knows, there is a multiplier factor. That is, for every one call there are XXX ppl also represented.


So, KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, sharpen those pencils and get the wallet$ out for your $5 donations for the inevitable court battle !

p.s. YES, if every gun owner donated a mere $5bucks, the opposition would be FORCED to P:eek: themselves (wouldn't that be a sight:evil:)
 
Last edited:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The 1st Amendment depends o


I think you know that the press isn't the part of the 1st that the OP is referring. He's started the discussion focused on our freedom of speech. BUT, I'll point out that there are supporters of the 2nd within the "press", though they may be in the minority.

Our guaranteed right to speak on these topics, to make that speech public (more public than ever before), is important. Yes, opponents of the 2nd abound, but we've gone from having no right to carry to Shall Issue in our lifetimes. We've gone from communities completely prohibiting carry to Heller. With all sorts of money and power brokers against us we have to agree with Tirod because he's stated the facts.

What actually defends our 2d Amendment is our exercise of the 1st. We may falter at times, or get sucker punched by the treasonous actions of legislative members who carve out their own exemptions in attempts to disarm us ... yet, how do we continue to defeat their efforts?

And we have been defeating them, over and over, especially the last 25 years. We've gone from no carry allowed in many states to most states having carry, open or concealed, and repetitively introduce a national right to carry law. It fails by only a few paid votes.

We exercise our freedom of speech to defend our freedom to bear arms, and we are pretty good at it.. We could be doing better, but it is a war, and on this day in America, facing a number of serious threats to our Nation, we are still armed - with the First Amendment. We can still speak and be heard.

And we've come a long way advancing RKBA, but we still have plenty of attackers of the 2nd to struggle against. We've been successful using the 1st in various form and we need to keep doing it. More importantly, we need people to not just let others do the lifting and to participate.
 
If a legislature or the ATF passes an infringement, do we start shooting, or do we start shouting? We wont last long in the current environment shooting. Nope, not at all. We are far better organized shouting, and we do it well.

We have to shout, and shout loudly, and get the attention of the people we voted into office that we aren't going to take a bunch of crap from whoever is twisting their arm furthering a world wide agenda. We don't need lawyers for that. They work either side of the battle lines and their god is billed hours. They were subverted before the journalists to understand how to act against the Constitution, long before it could be printed openly. You need an example? The 1934 NFA - which was intended to outlaw handgun ownership by Americans wholesale.

Nope, we don't need no stinkin lawyers. Had they been America First we wouldn't be here. There would be no hint of an ATF Form 4999, or a "sporting goods" interpretaion in the 1968 GUN CONTROL ACT.

All of that slid right under our noses and those who could oppose it best were compromised first to make it successful. If this kind of dirty politics is abhorrent and some can't get involved because their hands would get dirty, fine.Sit back and watch us deal with it. Be advised, tho, there will be I told you so's and a lack of action will convict your own heart for the cowardice involved.

Resist now - or wind up like the Australians, locked in their homes with their own Army patrolling the streets to keep them there. So far we are winning and it shows - there are court decisions and corporate revisions in thinking daily, because we refuse to bend our knee.

HOLD THE LINE. Don't let them tell you what to do. Tea is not our national beverage for a reason.
 
So, in a nutshell, the idea here is that we should speak up or risk losing our gun rights. Who would argue with that? Nobody. What are interesting are the details.

And those details matter all the way down to the individual, perhaps most importantly at that level. How we sell the 2A to others is what matters. How we present it to the uninitiated, the fence-sitters, the skeptics, and to those who are downright hostile, is what will ultimately make a difference in the macro sense. The lesson there is to be the proverbial good ambassador of the 2A because we're the face of the right itself. And that right is unique from the others, in that it's a right from which we've formed a hobby and pastime of shooting, etc. We are in this remarkable position to win hearts and minds but we're consistently blowing it by letting it be political or allowing mission creep to deviate us from our course. This is the folly of gun ownership.
 
We have been fighting since the 1968 gun laws. And we will fight for many years more. Stay active with guns. Read what you can. Members on forums like this keep each other strong. I am a NRA life member and joined GOA a couple of weeks ago. We need to let people know that we are here and strong.
 
The 1st defends the 2nd against gradual erosion and the 2nd defends itself against sudden seizure.
The 1st defends itself against gradual erosion and the 2nd defends it against sudden seizure.
All others are defended by the 1st and 2nd.
 
I've been thinking about this. What really protects the 2nd Amendment are events and circumstances. Nothing else within the Constitution, particularly. In the last couple of years, we've seen upticks in crime and, especially, social unrest. This has led more people, for the first time, to arm themselves. And, in turn, the new gun owners are more supportive of the right.

If a critical mass of the public turns against guns, eventually the 2nd Amendment will be repealed or gutted. But the converse is also true. If a critical mass supports guns, then the right is reinforced.
 
One could say the 2nd is its own protection and a deterrent that protects our other rights, since it exists, many Americans own firearms, which in itself prevents anyone effectively removing the 2A or other rights.

If Americans did not have the 2A, and the firearms it allows, how would we be able to effectively defend any of our other rights?

yep, circular argument, but, it is much harder to force a "people" to do something if they have the means to resist.

d
 
The problem is their are thousands of people and millions of dollars also using the 1st amendment to essentially nullify the second.

The bigger problem is they lie about “facts” and they DO have highly emotionally charged arguments, which seem to be much more effective in this days and age, unfortunately.
Yes, which means it's time to get ugly. Shout them down WITH the actual facts, PROVE to them their lies, and get just as nasty with them as they are to us! Being "the better man" and NOT getting into the trenches with them, and "not lowering ourselves to their level" has gotten us fighting for our very freedoms each and every leftist election. I for one am growing tired of the fight, and tired of saying this very thing, simply due to those so-called pro-gunners that are afraid to "rock the boat."
 
I for one am growing tired of the fight...
The fact is that the fight will never be over unless we lose. This isn't a fight that can be won from our side. There will never be a time where we can sit back and say: "Now it's over, our rights are secure and we don't have to worry. No one will ever try to take them again."

If you want the fight to be over the only option is to give up. If you want your rights, then you will have to stay in the fight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hso
What really protects the 2d Amendment?
When the Executive and Legislative branches of our government erode on the Second Amendment, it's the Judicial branch that "protects" the Second Amendment. That's why our founders chose separation of powers - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...with-question-on-the-second-amendment.856201/

At 12:25 minute of video below, Justice Gorsuch states it's the "job" of the judges to be the "back stop" for our rights.

"Bill of Rights and liberty ... Bill of Right is a set of promises on paper ... What makes a promise worth the words on paper is the enforcement mechanisms behind it ... Our Bill of Rights is excellent.​

... Judges are the backstop to ensure rights and liberties, that is our job"​

At 16:10 minute of video, when asked about president Trump commenting in 2017 that "Neil Gorsuch, he will save people's Second Amendment rights", Gorsuch replied, "My business is your rights, ALL OF THEM, are enforced"



In the long battle to preserve our 2d Amendment rights, what has been the most effective weapon we use?
That would be "We the People" to vote in law makers who write laws and presidents who appoint judges.

Make up of the US Supreme Court shifting more pro-2A was the direct result of "We the People" voting in more pro-2A president to recommend more pro-2A judges and for "We the People" voted in Senate to confirm them as Supreme Court justices.

At 30:10 minute of above video, interviewer says, "Now there are solid 5 conservative members on the court. Something has changed." You bet "something" has changed as last three justices appointed to the US Supreme Court are "originalist" and pro-2A judges. Justice Kavanaugh wrote the dissent for Heller 2 stating Second Amendment, just like First Amendment applying to modern forms of free speech/communication, also applies to modern types of firearms such as magazine fed semi-auto ARs and Justice Barrett in her 2019 dissent argued to expand 2A rights - https://www.thetrace.org/2020/09/trump-supreme-court-justice-nominee-second-amendment-ruling/

And in below video at 4:05 minute, Justice Gorsuch defines and explains US Supreme Court becoming "Originalist" - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...on-the-second-amendment.856201/#post-11231970

"I am an originalist ... We have a written constitution that our founder wrote down ... They made a charter among 'We the people' ... This is what we agreed to as to what the government's powers are and what they are not ... What our rights are. Originalists ... honor what's written there. Honor those words ... Don't make stuff up and don't take things away. That's the idea"​



We are still armed - but how did we protect that right?
By suing local/state/federal law makers and governments when they write and pass unconstitutional laws to have them overturned by the courts.

Over the decades living in California, I have seen countless anti-gun laws passed in CA but many of them ruled "unconstitutional" - https://crpa.org/news/litigation/legal-update-january-2021/

And our major victory in DC v Heller where US Supreme Court ruled District's ban on handgun possession in the home for self-defense was unconstitutional.

treasonous actions of legislative members ... how do we continue to defeat their efforts? ... And we have been defeating them, over and over, especially the last 25 years. We've gone from no carry allowed in many states to most states having carry, open or concealed ... Now is the time to up our game in defense of our rights and our nation.
Yes, I agree. And our founders saw that those in power could become corrupt and will of the majority could be imposed on the rights of the minority hence why they chose a Republic over pure Democracy and electoral college over popular vote with equal number of Senators to protect the rights of less populous rural states.

And as explained by these videos, it's now time to protect the rights of the minority gun owners from the will of the majority - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-court-petitioned.899215/page-2#post-12154615

So vote, support pro-2A organizations/businesses and spread the word. For our retirement, wife and I have funds set aside for "Pay It Forward" in addition to various charities and specific to 2A activities.
 
Last edited:
Yes, which means it's time to get ugly. Shout them down WITH the actual facts, PROVE to them their lies, and get just as nasty with them as they are to us! Being "the better man" and NOT getting into the trenches with them, and "not lowering ourselves to their level" has gotten us fighting for our very freedoms each and every leftist election. I for one am growing tired of the fight, and tired of saying this very thing, simply due to those so-called pro-gunners that are afraid to "rock the boat."
No. Absolutely not. The facts speak for themselves, but "shouting them down" negates rational discussion. Shouting puts us purely on an emotional level, and the antigunners are better than us in appealing to the emotions. Besides that, a shouting (presumably armed) mob looks really bad on TV. Think strategically. In the end, this is a battle for "hearts and minds."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top