A look at the 2 Amendment in Context.
- Thread starter MT GUNNY
- Start date
- Status
You want "context" . . . consider that the colonies had just resisted British tyranny. That's why we have the Bill of Rights -- to define and limit the powers of govt. and to ensure that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.
If you don't understand that Article II is a Ciceronian model of a periodic sentence, you're missing the historical context and the rhetorical style of the period.
If you don't understand that Article II is a Ciceronian model of a periodic sentence, you're missing the historical context and the rhetorical style of the period.
anymanusa
Member
Lone gunman, you too. I don't know why the both of you are focusing on what I perceived to be a 'signature', you are diverting this thread and making it into an attack on a fellow member.
We are all trying to discuss something, and let him have his bravado if he wants it.
And besides, what you think he would or wouldn't accomplish isn't worth a penny to anyone, in my estimation.
Regardless of how futile you 'think' resistance may be, you don't know what outcome it would produce.
Can we get back on topic now? [/end rant]
We are all trying to discuss something, and let him have his bravado if he wants it.
And besides, what you think he would or wouldn't accomplish isn't worth a penny to anyone, in my estimation.
Regardless of how futile you 'think' resistance may be, you don't know what outcome it would produce.
Can we get back on topic now? [/end rant]
anymanusa
Member
:laughing: Yeah, and for damn good reason too. Repealing the 2nd A would take a hell of a lot more steam than this country has for that cause right now-a hell of a lot more.
catfish101
Member
Sinixstar is correct. The militia, in the times of the Bill of Rights, had nothing to do with the Federal Gov. Several of the founding fathers were not for a large standing military. They were afraid of it. The 2nd gave the citizens the power to protect themselves from their own government.
The National Guard comparison in not right. The Guard is ultimately controlled by the Dept. of Defense.
In KY, it is still in the State Constitution that any able bodied men between 18 and 45 is in the Militia. Hasn't been amended.
The National Guard comparison in not right. The Guard is ultimately controlled by the Dept. of Defense.
In KY, it is still in the State Constitution that any able bodied men between 18 and 45 is in the Militia. Hasn't been amended.
anymanusa
Member
Yeah, but thinking you have a good reason (not enough support for your cause, as in the case of the anti's) and actually having a good reason (support for gun rights and ownership) are two different things.
I don't think the anti's are doing a good job of getting 'more and more' support for their cause. I think they are fighting a very losing battle, so they are resorting to terrorist type tactics/guerilla warfare by attacking ammo, taking little bites out of gun oweners by introducing legislation unconstitutionally like the rep from New Jersey regarding 'no new machine guns' in 1986, by the 'assault weapons ban' in the 90's... etc.
The second amendment ain't getting repealed anytime soon, but another awb or ammo prices going sky high is completely within the realm of reality.
Lone_Gunman
Member
If you don't mind me asking, why is it you think that?
I have heard that repeated on gun forums, but has anyone seen any statistics that support that?
catfish101
Member
There has been several laws go into effect that are very pro gun in the years since the AWB. My opinion that has helped our cause and hurt theirs. I would like to see more right-to-carry laws and more open-carry support.
THey're doing a good enough job that we're still having this conversation, and a good enough job that in case you haven't noticed - a segment of the population is absolutely convinced that there'll be a gun grab in the next 4 years.
A good enough job that there's been a rush on guns that may be banned in the near future, and good enough that as we speak there's anti-gun legislation on the table in congress.
I suppose they could be doing better - but how much?
A good enough job that there's been a rush on guns that may be banned in the near future, and good enough that as we speak there's anti-gun legislation on the table in congress.
I suppose they could be doing better - but how much?
anymanusa
Member
Well, like Catfish said, and also the recent SCOTUS Heller decision, even though it was a 5-4 decision.
The anti's are louder and louder every year, but when you see the rush on guns and ammo like you have since O's election, it shows how strong gun ownership/values are in this country. If anything the anti's have made their stated goals much more difficult to achieve given their strong/pointed/extreme opinions on gun ownership. Had they been subtle year after year, they would have made much more progress against gun rights than they have by saying things like 'I don't believe ordinary citizens should be able to own firearms'~Obama.
The awb did more to increase gun ownership than it did to deter it. I believe that, as I am a great example of someone who was pushed into gun ownership by the threat of having that option taken away.
Until my tragic boating accident, I owned many, many more guns than I ever would have, if not for the anti's legislation attempts.
anymanusa
Member
When and if, is the question. When and if they (the anti's) decide to really get down to business, they will be able to achieve MUCH more drastic gun control measures. If they continue to fail, and fail, and fail to rob you and me of our rights, they WILL resort to DELIBERATE and INTENTIONAL acts of violence against our populace with the very guns they seek to abolish. There WILL be more Columbine/VATech type instances, possibly rashes of them caused/propagated by the anti's, as their most militant actions yet, to gain massive sweeping support of anti gun legislation.
You can call me what you like, but ultimately, they WILL seek these means to achieve their ends. They are 100% serious about disarming the populace. If it takes murderous machine gun rampages, one after the other, to gain public support, it WILL happen, eventually.
It is sad but true, the anti's want you and me to have to depend on the gub'ment for EVERYTHING. They was total and complete control of the populace.
See - that's where we disagree.
I don't think "they" want us dependent on the government for everything. I think they just have a narrow Utopian view of the world, or have been traumatized out of rational thought by some tragic incident.
Take the Brady's for example. People forget that James Brady was press secretary for Reagan. These are not leftist loonies. These are not people who want everyone suckling the government teet. These are people who had a tragic situation happen to them, and took an irrational response. There's plenty of people like that out there.
There's also people who just don't know any better. There's a reason why the biggest anti-movements are in the most heavily populated. They have never seen or been witness to anything good that comes from a gun. There's no family heritage of hunting in Brooklyn, and self defense would be a near non-issue if there were no guns on the South Side of Chicago.
That's where a lot of this stuff comes from. This idea that somehow it's all just a scheme because "they" want to control "us" - is... a little far fetched, no offense.
Lone_Gunman
Member
No, I think it shows there is a very zealous minority of us out there who caused a rush on guns. The average American owns no more AR than they did in October... but the average gun zealot probably owns more than one.
If gun values were as prevalent as you say, then a majority of Americans would not have voted for a politician who is in favor of a total ban on handguns.
I am not a child.
My weapons will be taken from my "Government" when they wrest them from my cold dead hands. Period.
It is not childish stating that the tools used for self preservation will not be surrendered without a fight to the death, be those tools firearms, or the hands attached to your arms.
It IS childish arguing what the words in the 2nd amendment mean, because if they do not mean what is inscribed on our constitution, they would be written using different words.
longdayjake
Member
Umm... ruined thread.
anymanusa
Member
Sorry, I think that is pure bs. I know many people personally, and I have heard many other accounts of gun owners voting for Obama because they either 1; don't agree with him on that issue, or 2; don't think he is against gun rights.
The 'majority' as you call it was 52%. 46% happened to vote for a half dead-one foot in the grave RINO because they were scared to death a liberal wacko was going to get the presidency. The simple fact that a candidate like McCain could draw 46% of the popular vote is an amazing testament to the disdain that a VERY large part of this country has for Obama, and his leftist rhetoric/agenda. We have yet to see his true colors.
As far as your comment:
you can go ahead and fashion a new argument, because that one is completely invalid. This country has some 300 million residents, and the popular vote count was some 68 1/2 million to 59 1/2 million. 68 million is NO WHERE NEAR a majority of 300 million people. Sorry, but it just ain't so.
longdayjake
Member
I think that they should change the constitution to say that it cant be changed.
The definition of the words aren't important. Whats really important is my opinion about the subject and that overshadows any and all opinions on this board. In fact if I don't have atleast 20 posts in any thread I feel like I have not done my duty. But to get back to the point, I think we should have the right to bear arms.
The definition of the words aren't important. Whats really important is my opinion about the subject and that overshadows any and all opinions on this board. In fact if I don't have atleast 20 posts in any thread I feel like I have not done my duty. But to get back to the point, I think we should have the right to bear arms.
The words in our constitution do mean what they say. I don't think the founders though in terms of a living document, I think they thought in terms of truth that transcends time and culture. Hence the words in the second paragraph in the declaration of independence - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are edowed by their Creator with certain unalieable rights, that among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
The unalieable rights that the founders believed came from God must be secured by the Government but defended by the individual. If the Government is armed, and/or the criminal element is armed and the law abiding individual is not then the unalieable rights of the individual can not be secured or protected.
The 2nd amendment of the constitution makes certain that the individual will be armed and can defend his unalieable rights from a criminal who would unjustly take his life or a despotic government that would take his freedom.
The unalieable rights that the founders believed came from God must be secured by the Government but defended by the individual. If the Government is armed, and/or the criminal element is armed and the law abiding individual is not then the unalieable rights of the individual can not be secured or protected.
The 2nd amendment of the constitution makes certain that the individual will be armed and can defend his unalieable rights from a criminal who would unjustly take his life or a despotic government that would take his freedom.
The other 172 million were either inelligable (of the 300mil residents in the US, not all of them are 18....) or didn't have an opinion enough to bother showing up.
It would be nice if everybody took the time to vote, but sadly that's not the case. One can only assume that they don't care one way or the other.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
