An attack on the Second Amendment is really an attack on the Bill of Rights

Status
Not open for further replies.
Q

Queen_of_Thunder

member
Joined
Jul 28, 2012
Messages
1,881
Location
Where God purifies the soul. The West Texas desert
The Second Amendment is the only thing that prevents an overturning of the Bill of Rights,Our Freedom!

The Second Amendment is the means by which the Founders of this Nation were able to place limits on the Government they created. They knew that without it their work and sacrifice and the sacrifice of all those who believed as they did , who fought and died for this Idea would be for naught. They fully understood that the power of a government must be constrained or it would devolve into a tyrannical form of government.
 
You are absolutely correct. That's why "gun grabbers" have such fascist tendencies (bloomberg, cuomo, etc). The don't care about any part of the Bill of Rights at all. The 2A is the teeth of the Bill of Rights. Get rid of that, then it's easy to get rid of the rest. It's so simple to see, that it reads like a book that you already know the ending to.
 
This is correct. The thing is, the Bill of Rights comes as a package deal. You cannot pick and choose which ones you like and which ones you want cast aside.

It is not a BUFFET OF RIGHTS. It is a Bill of Rights.

They are an all or nothing deal. And at least two of the Framers believed that they were exempt from being amended.
 
Or to put it another way, the tactics used to violate one article of the Bill of Rights can be used to violate all other articles.

If a person agrees we can just pass a law setting aside the right to bear arms, he must understand we can also pass a law setting aside Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Religion.
 
The only other safeguard against tyranny is the character of the electorate, and I'm sorry to say that we seem to have reached the "tipping point" in that regard. I'm not saying that it can't tip back, but what's going to accomplish that?
 
Oh the irony. A relatively unfettered 1st amendment being exercised to attack the 2nd amendment which if successful might lead to abusing/wholesale disregard of the 4th amendment.

We have met the enemy and he be we.
 
The founders knew this. Human nature never changes, and you can tell from their writings that they knew the real threat to our liberty would come from within. It's happening now. I don't know how you change the character of the electorate back to something respectable, because it's been changing in the opposite direction for many years now.
 
This kind of begs the question. Not even the antigunners claim to be violating the 2nd Amendment; they all pay lip service to it. The argument is over the exact parameters of the Amendment. Even the Heller case is no help in this, since Justice Scalia said there could be "reasonable restrictions." We are left to argue over what is "reasonable."
 
AlexanderA said:
This kind of begs the question. Not even the antigunners claim to be violating the 2nd Amendment; they all pay lip service to it. The argument is over the exact parameters of the Amendment. Even the Heller case is no help in this, since Justice Scalia said there could be "reasonable restrictions." We are left to argue over what is "reasonable."
Click to expand...

Exactly right. And it is assumed that the Feds even have the authority to regulate arms only because of the total perversion of the Interstate Commerce Clause. I believe the Founders would consider our current situation as a lost cause. The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, etc.
 
kwguy said:
The founders knew this. Human nature never changes, and you can tell from their writings that they knew the real threat to our liberty would come from within.
Click to expand...

So did Lincoln, for that matter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln's_Lyceum_address

However, he suggested having faith in government against a powerful individual (e.g. Hitler, Lenin, Mao Zedong), but the long-term prospects for that aren't looking good, since our government is collectively becoming the anti-American enemy within, duly voted in by the American electorate. Lincoln also believed in our love of liberty and ability to reason, but both of those have been significantly undermined by now. Whatever has degenerated this country so dramatically is far more insidious than what we've seen elsewhere. :scrutiny:

The founders had it right in thinking that we'd eventually have another revolution once this government became tyrannical, hence the 2nd Amendment, of course. But how do we fight what most of the people want? You can really only fight ideas with other ideas, if enough people are willing to listen.

kwguy said:
It's happening now. I don't know how you change the character of the electorate back to something respectable, because it's been changing in the opposite direction for many years now.
Click to expand...

It starts with somehow taking back public education and the media. The problem with public education is that it is dominated by unions, and handouts talk while our BS, true though it may be, walks. :banghead: The same goes for the electorate--steal from the few to give to the many, and reap the rewards at the polls. As usual, the vast majority of people will only realize that something is wrong after the disaster has occurred, no matter how many times they'd been warned--this appears to be a part of human nature, as well. :rolleyes: In the meantime, we must fight with every resource and scrap of will we can muster to keep our guns so that we can keep our rights.
 
Lincoln foreshadowed his own presidency in many ways. (Unintentionally, no doubt) Convenience is the only reason the majority of politicians have any respect for the law.

All of those that have no regard for the law are criminals > Most politicians have no regard for the law > Most politicians are criminals.

My formal logic is a bit rusty, but I think that's how it works.
 
Last edited:
arizona_cards_11 said:
Lincoln foreshadowed his own presidency in that address.
Click to expand...

Who better, then, to speak of tyrants and how to hinder them? ;) But even he was being too optimistic, given the situation that we find ourselves in now, which was my point. :uhoh: In hindsight, the founders were more realistic about the nature of people and government, and supporters of gun rights are directly on the front lines of something much larger.
 
No, this is not "correct", in fact this is flat out wrong. We live in a democracy which means our first and foremost defense is our ability to enact political change. This tautology shows a reactionary mindset rather than a respect for the power of our political system. It is as if you are throwing your hands up in resignation to the complexity of the issue. It takes a heck of a lot more than rifles and an NRA membership to keep your rights because a Colt 6920 doesn't do much good against a government whose military spans from the South China Sea to the Persian Gulf. And the NRA? A political organization who could care less about you, let me assure you, the enemy of your enemy is not your friend and they'll sell you out at the blink of an eye.

If you want radical change do something that is actually radical. Buying guns isn't radical, voting absent of the system and its constraints is. Getting a CCW permit isn't revolutionary but enacting meaningful, long-lasting and honest change in your community is. Learning how to field strip your bolt will not prepare you for oppression but learning history, politics and how both can affect you and your children will.
 
A representative republic is also how we (hopefully) avoid a "tyranny of the majority". The media crows on about how we need to "compromise" for the "good of the country". Really? What good is that? A king? Tyranny? Giving up your values just because most people think you should, even if they are wrong? Not. True democracy is mob rule. No representation for the minority. I believe it was Jefferson(?) who said that a true democracy simply means that the 51 percent majority can strip away the rights of the other 49 percent.
 
Yes, and it was Madison who said the only way to avoid factionalism (AKA tyranny by the majority) was to put the full power of the government in the hands of the people. Granted, he also kept power out of the hands of said people, but his points ring true. Inalienable rights do exist for a reason, but you can't dismiss a legitimate debate by claiming it is an issue exempted from such a debate based on such an ambiguous statement like the 2nd Amendment. You and I believe the 2nd Amendment applies to 30-rnd magazines, others don't, that isn't tyranny that is discrepancy a natural byproduct of any democratic system. It isn't the 2nd Amendment keeping our freedoms alive it is the 1st Amendment. You may be one of those individuals who feel anyone who voted for Obama would readily surrender the whole Bill of Rights, or perhaps someone whose faith in the government is such that you believe we are one straw away from the 3rd Reich. I am not. Our efficacy is stronger than ever, you may feel that will create a rule by the majority, I agree with Madison and say it will do the opposite if only every citizen with a mind and a mouth does his or her part. And that was my real point. Don't hide off the grid, strengthening the divide between "us" and "them". We are them, and we have to be willing to engage is discussions, regardless of the consequences, because short of armed insurrection it is the only way to accomplish our goals.
 
The problem is primarily that the main stream media has been systematically taken over by the "progressive" movement, or leftists. They have no compunction about lying in order to gain the power to do what they want. They worship state power.

We have been able to hold them off largely because of the rise of the new media, of which this forum is a part. The new media is gaining power, while the old media is losing it. They are losing market share, income, and influence every day, but they have had enough power to elect president Obama and to reelect him, though I have to give the administration some credit in their ability to use the new media to get low information voters to the polls for them.

The old media is somewhat desperate as they see their power waning. This is certainly an all out push to achieve one of their long term goals, the disarming of their political opposition.

It is up to us, in the new media to spread the truth, expose their lies, and put counter pressure on the elected officials.

If it were not for pressure from the old media, there would be no push to gut the Second Amendment.
 
^^Very well said Dean Weingarten. We have to use the new tools at our disposal to fight this encroachment on our rights. The "old media" has had this agenda for some time, along with politicians that I don't even have to name.

My point about "tyranny of the majority": that is why our government was set up the way it is. So the minority has a say. It's kind of funny, because many leftists (I use the term as reference only, I know there are pro 2A leftists) say things like "those Republicans need to compromise!", and "this last election means the president has a mandate", etc. Well, no. They WANT a tyranny of the majority when it suits them. It may be messy, and make the other side mad, but the minority also has a say. In a true "free form, majority rules" democracy, this would not be so.

Back to the 2A, yes, the old media has long been the sounding board of those that wish to push an anti 2A agenda. I'm glad the new media is available now to help counter that.
 
We already face tyranny by the majority. The urban regions are ruling the rural regions with an iron fist, forcing us to abide by their code of ethics, twisted and farcical as it is.
 
Who better, then, to speak of tyrants and how to hinder them?
Click to expand...


I have often asked myself if Lincoln really saved the U.S. by trampling state's rights in order to preserve the union. Looking back with the knowledge of today, I still ask myself that question, especially when we see what the Feds want to do to 2A, and their broad powers over just about everything.
 
Thomas DiLorenzo has written excellent books on Lincoln, that may very well completely change your view of him. In fact, he was a wealthy lawyer who did work for the railroads and had his own private rail car before becoming president.

You might also websearch on the letters that Karl Marx wrote to Lincoln. There is absolutely no evidence that Lincoln was Marxist, but Marxists see an all powerful central government and the elimination of local/regional government as essential to their goals. As is disarming the population, btw. Forced preservation of 'the Union' was admired by Marx.

I dont want to divert the thread too much. But Lincoln was mentioned, and it is relevant to the conversation. These issues go beyond just the 2A.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top