1A vs 2A

milemaker13 said:

I was talking to a coworker who claims to be "down the middle" but in reality he's just another " facebook said it" kind of person and more left leaning than right. We were discussing 2A and such. I compared losing 1A and 2A and his reply was that speech hasn't changed but guns have... the framers intended us to have flintlock muzzleloaders only. I countered that speech has indeed changed.. more so in fact than personal arms.
Back then you could spout off in a tavern or write something down and pass it around.. someone could jump on a horse and run it to the next town.
Along the line it has become easier and faster to disseminate information.. to the point where a private citizen can press a single button and instantly send his point of view to the entire world.
Is that not equivalent to private citizens having access to private nukes?
My point is/was.... if 2A is no longer valid then perhaps neither is 1A...
Sorry to rant.

Click to expand...

Tell him that the Framers allowed individuals to own warships with multiple freaking cannons or even siege mortars as large as they liked as could individuals on land as well. There were also multi barrel firearms, explosive rockets, long bayonets, swords, and knives as long as one wanted, and anyone could amass a large quantity of blackpowder, and gasp, make a bomb without licensing nor background checks. The deal is that individuals were held criminally and financially at risk for misuse of their freedom that damaged others including hanging by the neck until dead. As a result, more or less, even the rowdies behaved better than the average gang banger today. If you like, you can tell him regarding the behavior of individuals, we have regressed in todays' society to allow anti-social behavior that would have never been permitted by our Framers.

The point is that the Framers, more or less, distrusted a large standing army due to European history, and anyway the fledgling republic could not afford one. Thus, the average citizen was expected to fill the breach and REQUIRED BY LAW if an adult male to own a firearm and the accessories such as bullet molds, powder, etc. to shoot one. Communities often banded together to buy firearms and supplies for poorer individuals. Firearms were also needed for protection of self and family from varmints both two and four legged that threatened them and to enforce the laws when called to act through the posse.

Want to shake him up, tell him that the police and government have no legal duty to protect him and his safety as an individual even if they promise to do so. The Supreme Court and multiple lower courts have so ruled.

If I had my way I would restrict the First Amendment rights of many news outlets and “personalities” the way our Second Amendment rights have been trampled and see how they like it.

I’ll bet that would change their outlook.

milemaker13 said:

I was talking to a coworker who claims to be "down the middle" but in reality he's just another " facebook said it" kind of person and more left leaning than right.

Click to expand...

Your friend may indeed be “down the middle” and still be far Left. The reason is that while the Right is static — the Constitution means what it says, the Rule of Law, God, and Family — the Left is continually moving further towards a totalitarian society. When it does this, it takes the Middle with it.

Rudolph31 said:

Your friend may indeed be “down the middle” and still be far Left. The reason is that while the Right is static — the Constitution means what it says, the Rule of Law, God, and Family — the Left is continually moving further towards a totalitarian society. When it does this, it takes the Middle with it.

Click to expand...

Hmmm
I’ve always seen myself as some in the middle. But it seems that the right is more in line with my views now.

That aside.

We need to fight to defend our rights and raising awareness is one way. We don’t have to be nasty or mean, but if we don’t educate everyone we can and do it on a continual basis we’re doomed. So OPs engaging with that person is good. Now he has to keep working on it.

As OP posted the left have Fed lies that too many now believe because they hear it so much and from so many sources.

They also paint us as gun nuts, nationalists, racists, and whatever they can to discredit us. It’s done to discredit us and to make it harder for us to be taken seriously.

I guess I get frustrated when I hear this stuff. So at the risk of violating the rules, I’ll just say kudos to OP for haveing a mature conversation and I hope you have more, I hope you present facts that they can see are valid and help them see the error of the lies they’ve been fed. Maybe take them to a range and show them why we love what we do. At the least maybe make them see they’re not as in the middle as they think.

As for me, I’m now hard right on the 2nd Amendment but that’s another discussion in a different forum.

I think OP’s friend may not understand that these amendments are in place to protect freedoms. Not allow them.

Speech HAS changed drastically over the years. I say that because litigation has assigned “protected speech” status to lots of things that no one would have really given a second thought to back in the day. I think an argument could be made that speech is now more expansive yet more protected than ever before.

Speech also has apparently been imbued with the power to offend. Just ask any PC snowflake. Society can try to choose our words carefully, but in the end we will offend that one group in a vain attempt to not offend other groups. I think the argument could also be made that speech is no longer free (says the guy on a message board that by default has limits on certain speech).

Unfortunately, and ironically, the second amendment has been greatly diminished. I say that is ironic because the second has the neat feature of being able to support the first.

Individual liberty can sometimes be a messy thing, but it’s awesome when we choose to honor it.

milemaker13 said:

I was talking to a coworker who claims to be "down the middle" but in reality he's just another " facebook said it" kind of person and more left leaning than right. We were discussing 2A and such. I compared losing 1A and 2A and his reply was that speech hasn't changed but guns have... the framers intended us to have flintlock muzzleloaders only.

Click to expand...

Have you invited your co-worker to go shooting with you yet?

Put a gun that is easy to shoot in his hands at a distance close enough to make it ha to miss and teach him how to shoot. Leave the politics out of. Just have a fun range session and plant the seed that guns are not bad.

milemaker13 said:

I was talking to a coworker who claims to be "down the middle" but in reality he's just another " facebook said it" kind of person and more left leaning than right. We were discussing 2A and such. I compared losing 1A and 2A and his reply was that speech hasn't changed but guns have... the framers intended us to have flintlock muzzleloaders only. I countered that speech has indeed changed.. more so in fact than personal arms.
Back then you could spout off in a tavern or write something down and pass it around.. someone could jump on a horse and run it to the next town.
Along the line it has become easier and faster to disseminate information.. to the point where a private citizen can press a single button and instantly send his point of view to the entire world.

Click to expand...

You're quite right, speech has changed far more than guns.

This is a old argument that was quite specifically addressed by the Supreme Court in Heller:

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, ...., and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, ...... the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

DC v Heller, page 8

So your coworkers argument does indeed border on the frivolous. On the far side of the border.

"...every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans"
I think Tench Coxe summed it up nicely.

Your coworker is mistaken. The Second Amendment's intention was to allow the citizenry to be armed in such a manner that they could overthrow the government if they felt in necessary. What you say? Why that's treason! Exactly. That;s exactly what the folks that framed the Constitution and a bit later the Bill of Rights had recently done. Folks seem to forget that the Revolutionary War/War of Independence was and overthrow of the British government.

We could hardly overthrow the current government with flintlocks. In fact we should have access to weapons that put us on a parity with the current government's armed forces. That was the intention of the Second Amendment. I suggest your coworker read a bit.

BSA1 said:

Have you invited your co-worker to go shooting with you yet?

Put a gun that is easy to shoot in his hands at a distance close enough to make it ha to miss and teach him how to shoot. Leave the politics out of. Just have a fun range session and plant the seed that guns are not bad.

Click to expand...

I dated a girl in the late 70's who was anti gun. Took her to the range, had to admit she had fun.
Been married to her for almost 40 years and in addition to shooting my guns she has a Ruger SR-22 and an FN-57.
Think I'll keep her.
Thing is, you can make converts easily by taking them to the range, let them shoot something easy, get comfortable with it and they'll have fun. Once they have fun with a gun they see another side to gun ownership than as instruments of death.

Both remain as valid as they were when the Framers forbade future governments from infringing on them.

But your thoughts on speech and expression are, to me, quite novel and inciteful. Very interesting indeed! Sadly, since the Left are opposed to freedom of speech and expression and indeed part of their opposition to the right to keep and bear arms is that it stands in the way of their efforts to crush speech and expression, I’m not sure that your novel comparison will have much impact with them.

Those who believe that collectivism, an ever increasingly powerful state, and a command economy are to be desired will oppose an armed citizenry no matter what, but the point to maintain with any vaguely reasonable types is that the second amendment protects the rights of citizens to an armed defense. It is therefore technology independent. The Brown Bess was the “assault rifle” of its day, a state of the art military firearm. The Kentucky Rifle had recently proved itself an effective long range force multiplier and strategic weapon against the military forces of Britain. They were not restricted. In order to maintain the freedoms of speech, assembly, and expression, citizens must maintain the right to keep and bear arms that remain a credible threat to the security forces of the state.

milemaker13 said:

Is the constitution posted to facebook?

Click to expand...

It would probably get you banned.
I post on there about gun things to mostly refute the misinformation out there. Probably doesn't do a lot of good, but if I can change one mind it'd be worth it.
Surprised I haven't been banned as anti gun as social media seems to be.

boom boom said:

.

Want to shake him up, tell him that the police and government have no legal duty to protect him and his safety as an individual even if they promise to do so. The Supreme Court and multiple lower courts have so ruled.

Click to expand...

This is one few people understand. If you call 911, and for whatever reason they choose, the police don't respond, you have no legal redress. Your only solution is political. You can vote them out of office, nothing else.

LRDGCO said:

Both remain as valid as they were when the Framers forbade future governments from infringing on them.

But your thoughts on speech and expression are, to me, quite novel and inciteful. Very interesting indeed! Sadly, since the Left are opposed to freedom of speech and expression and indeed part of their opposition to the right to keep and bear arms is that it stands in the way of their efforts to crush speech and expression, I’m not sure that your novel comparison will have much impact with them.

Those who believe that collectivism, an ever increasingly powerful state, and a command economy are to be desired will oppose an armed citizenry no matter what, but the point to maintain with any vaguely reasonable types is that the second amendment protects the rights of citizens to an armed defense. It is therefore technology independent. The Brown Bess was the “assault rifle” of its day, a state of the art military firearm. The Kentucky Rifle had recently proved itself an effective long range force multiplier and strategic weapon against the military forces of Britain. They were not restricted. In order to maintain the freedoms of speech, assembly, and expression, citizens must maintain the right to keep and bear arms that remain a credible threat to the security forces of the state.

Click to expand...

You would have to add at least two systems to the arsenal. A shoulder-fired surface to air missle and man-portable anti-armor missle system.

In some states the First Amendment has been stretched to the point where it allows nude dancers in clubs.

Try that in 1790.

Take away the 2A and see how long the 1A lasts. I’m not sure your “friend” understands how tyrannical governments operate, or their process to achieve tyranny. When you control speech, eventually you control thought. If you control thought, you have complete control.

Just look at the current times and the things that were once perfectly fine to say. Now you can be jailed for hate speech and inciting violence because someone gets offended. I didn’t see anywhere in the constitution that says we have a right to not be offended. We don’t even really have a 1A anymore.....slow erosion. Take the 2A away and it will be an almost instantaneous revoke of the 1A.

I have an optimistic, hopeful outlook on all of this. These things are cyclical, and both sides are engaged in an eternal dance around the political May pole.

I just listened to an NPR “Radio Lab” piece on jury nullification. Seems the left just discovered what the right has been doing in small towns and in the west for the last 30 years in the area of federal grazing and firearms charges. Except that the right learned about it from the left when they were using it in the 50s and 60s in civil rights trials. And, of course, the left got it from the right when they used it to get white defendants off for lynching black men during reconstruction and Jim Crow. And let’s not forget the right copied it from the left when they were using it to exonerate abolitionists who were tried for harboring fugitive slaves in the antebellum years... Anyway, the left now thinks it’s a good tactic to use to protest the enforcement of any unjust law, social justice and all.

Both sides advocate 1A freedoms to further their own agendas. When it comes to 2A, the left has been mired in pascifism since the civil rights era. It will be interesting to see if they ever rekindle an interest in arms to bolster their power, or abdicate completely their power guaranteed under 2A.

Seems a fascinating conundrum to abandon a constitutionally guaranteed power of the people in exchange for an illusory perceived safety or security. Especially when urban safety and security are a rather recent accident of prosperity and do not reflect a permanent change in human nature.

paulsj said:

You would have to add at least two systems to the arsenal. A shoulder-fired surface to air missle and man-portable anti-armor missle system.

Click to expand...

This the problem with understanding the 2A. It does not guarantee the right to arsenal parity with the armed forces of the United States. When we make arguments like yours, the logical response is "so the second amendment protects the right of the individual to a nuclear deterrent?". And foolishness ensues.

The right to armed self defense includes the right to a credible armed defense against the state. It is a deterrent to the illegal use of force or extreme overreach by government because they face a credible threat of armed response. If one assumes a government pursues illegal armed action against the populace, with the overwhelming consent of the paramilitary and armed forces, then the citizenry do not have a credible armed response to armor, artillery, or aircraft.

Texas10mm said:

In some states the First Amendment has been stretched to the point where it allows nude dancers in clubs.

Click to expand...

Yes, that really ought to be explicitly protected by its own amendment.

If the constitution was being written from scratch today, you can bet that the 2nd Amendment would not be included, while something like the 1st Amendment would be. Therefore it's misleading to think that these rights are "equivalent." We have the 2nd Amendment today only because of historical accident. (Be thankful for that -- or not -- as the case may be.)

BigBore44 said:

Take away the 2A and see how long the 1A lasts.

Click to expand...

Exactly. It's been said that the Second Amendment is the "teeth of the Constitution"; the bane of tyranny.