Worried about second amendment and constitution

[jimbeam]

i find myself tormented every day with the thought that more assaults on the second amendment and the constitution are inevitable. I look to history for some answers, because humans seem to repeat the same errors over time.

I wonder if some of you civil war historians could tell me if the southern confederacy had embraced the constitution as is, changed it, or drew up a new one. Being from a northern state, I was taught that the south was in the wrong in the war, I feel this is an unjust opinion. States Rights were severely damaged in this war, Democracy (mob rule) beat out the Republic government the founders had envisioned.

If we can keep the subject of slavery out of this, fine. The industrial revolution caused some of the same inhumanities.

I feel we are headed for some rough times, the economy and Mexican problem will be an excuse for a back-door attack on our libertys, not only our rights.

Democracy passes into despotism.-PLATO

 

[Hungry Seagull]

The Civil War demonstrated that States Rights was a tool that cut both ways. A state or states can still remove themselves from the Union today with specific steps but probably would spark alot of trouble.

Dont worry about the Consitution as it stands today. No matter what the idiots in know nothing DC do, the Consitution stands as written in my home. Suppose they did take off the 2A? Aint no one will accept or ratify it because everyone will be armed anyway. The US Military will have to go through every home in the USA and forcibly disarm the population from coast to coast.

There would be fighting long before they finish enforcing any drastic changes to 2A.

 

[LaBulldog]

Unfortunately the Second Amendment will be challenged. While we would like to believe it would be difficult to disregard it completely or repeal it, it is easy to get around it by regulation. Banning certain weapons would not be a violation of the 2nd Amendment. If it were, the previous Assault Weapon Ban that also limited pistol magazines of more than 10 rounds, could have been overturned by the courts very easily.

The Second Amendment states certain rights but it does not restrict regulation outside of outright denial of the individual right to own and possess guns, "Heller v D.C." An example is the regulations concerning automatic weapons, which has been in effect since 1934.

Under Bush, we saw, if we were looking, a President that complied with the Constitution when it was convenient. He regularly disregard the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments. While I find that totally abhorrent, I learned that a POTUS could do as he pleased as long as Congress and the Courts do not exercise their duties that provide for checks and balances as outlined in our Constitution.

If a President could disregard so many of our civil rights outlined in the bill of rights, then there is nothing to stop any President from disregarding the Second Amendment and seize privately owned guns under the guise of being the Commander in Chief [Unitary Executive] during some national security emergency, such as the war on terror. That is what Bush did to our other civil rights with the support and guidance of Vice President Cheney, David Addington, Gonzalez, John Yoo and a host of others.

The Unitary Executive is "the general principle that the president controls the entire executive branch ... extreme forms of the theory have developed. John Dean of Watergate fame, explains: 'In its most extreme form, unitary executive theory can mean that neither Congress nor the federal courts can tell the President what to do or how to do it, particularly regarding national security matters.' "

If this is true and the President decides that private ownership of guns is a national security matter, and that President behaves like Bush W, gun owners are in deep do-do.

Scary stuff. Be afraid, very afraid.

 

[johno]

How it works is:
They begin with a big news media attack, showing injured children, families devistated by suicide, robbers, murders, etc. It's for the children...

1. To make the world safe from?? All guns MUST be registered.
Any gun NOT registered by a set date, WILL BE ILLEGAL.

2. Any new guns will require impossible paperwork, background, and other entanglements so it will be an effective block on new gun ownership. Maybe you must prove you need a gun, security guard, jewelry transfers, etc.

3. Then they begin to take away, so called assualt weapons.

4. Of course eliminate the "easily concealed guns" no sporting use there.
And so it begins

 

[JImbothefiveth]

I wonder if some of you civil war historians could tell me if the southern confederacy had embraced the constitution as is, changed it, or drew up a new one.

They pretty much kept the constitution, and added some stuff about the "right" to own slaves.

If a President could disregard so many of our civil rights outlined in the bill of rights, then there is nothing to stop any President from disregarding the Second Amendment and seize privately owned guns under the guise of being the Commander in Chief [Unitary Executive] during some national security emergency, such as the war on terror

A total attack on the second amendment would be more extreme than the previous administration's policies, and more likely to be overturned by the court.

 

[dogrunner]

The Constitution adopted by the CSA was a virtual mirror image of the original..........incluse of the BOR........google it.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

A total attack on the second amendment would be more extreme than the previous administration's policies, and more likely to be overturned by the court....

... and by me and my neighbors, you and your neighbors as soon as they come for our guns when the court fails, or acts, too slow.

Woody

Governments come and go. Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. If that doesn't convince you to take a stand and protect your inalienable rights and freedoms, nothing will. If that doesn't convince you to maintain your personal sovereignty, you are already someone else's subject. If you don't secure your rights and freedoms to maintain your personal sovereignty now, it'll be too late to come to me for help when they come for you. I will already be dead because I had to stand alone. B.E.Wood

 

[Ohio Gun Guy]

For me registration is the tipping point. If we allow that then we are allowing them to take them. I will NOT register or surrender my guns.

 

[Dan Crocker]

What worries is me is the fact that most people don't care about the constitution anymore and vote for people who don't care about it either. I don't want to see it go, but at some point I do see it happening. And what do we constitutionalists do when we are faced off against a majority population that doesn't wish to abide by it anymore? Maybe we should all mass-exodus to Texas and start over!

 

[turbojohn41]

QUOTE no sporting use there

people need to get this out of thier heads. The second amendment has nothing to do with sporting.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Maybe we should all mass-exodus to Texas and start over!

I'll start right here at home. Texas can be the fall-back point. The only thing that will change that is if Texas is the primary target; then I'll be there in a matter of hours.

Woody

 

[jimbeam]

So, is registration "the line in the sand" or is there a different act of government that would be the catalyst that would tip us into falling back on states rights. I am trying to see at what point everyone would be fed up enough with the federal government to fall back on our states to do the right thing.

Right now, with the financial help the states will receive from the federal government, do we really know what we are giving up in return? What is the agenda of Washington to give something to us? Remember the speed limit to 55, drinking age, seat belt, etc. Sometimes the idea the federal government has to take care of us because we do not know better is bordering on the ridiculous.

By now I guess I feel the states should assert themselves more, and we should encourage that. All the news is always about big government, we hear little about the 11 or 12 states that voted resolutions to restrict the federals. The MSM does not seem to think this is very newsworthy, or has a policy to follow that keeps people in the dark.

 

[marsofold]

Saw on the news a few days ago about Hillary in Mexico. A Mexican police chief was complaining about all of the AK-47s the bad guys carried. And how that now his men had to worry about armor-piercing bullets as well. Sounded to me that he was just mouthing a script deliberately designed to please the agenda of his visitor for the TV cameras.

 

[yokel]

That gun registration train left the station 75 years ago with the passage of the National Firearms Act.

Transcripts of the Congressional hearings that were held reveal that there was some concern amongst lawmakers that the legislation would spur public expression(s) of displeasure in the form of civil unrest.

That concern turned out to be unfounded.

The decades since then have shown that there is no "tipping point" or "line in the sand" with respect to laws which abrogate, abridge or infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Banning certain weapons would not be a violation of the 2nd Amendment. If it were, the previous Assault Weapon Ban that also limited pistol magazines of more than 10 rounds, could have been overturned by the courts very easily.

The AWB wasn't challenged. Besides, the Court at the time would not have shot it down - too liberal.

Don't be too quick to accept that just because the Court doesn't shoot down something as unconstitutional to mean that it is constitutional. We've been living under a Court so bent to the left that it's like we don't have a constitution at all.

As for yokel's comments, I wouldn't hold my breath on any lack of civil unrest given the state of affairs as they exist today.

Times were tough back in the thirties and it appears there is an attempt to make it seem as though things are about as bad now. In this information age we live in now, it isn't working, people are paying attention, there are many venues with voices on them speaking the truth. A good example is how it would be political suicide to enact more gun control at this time. Even Pelosi and Reid recognize this fact and have told Obama to can it.

A couple of attempts at under-the-radar gun control recently failed(The DOD rule change on halting the sale of used brass cases, and the other slips my mind at the moment). They started an uproar. This doesn't mean they won't try for more.

Woody

 

[frontgate1]

One thing to remember about the CSA and Jeff Davis.
While Phil Sheridan was coming in the front door
Ole Jeff Davis was hightalin' it out the back door.
So much for the CSA and its constitution.

 

[InRemorse]

America worked better in the past, when it was a country based upon the ideal of right to individual freedom. What is there not to like about that, and hence the wave of opressed freedom lovers from Europe.

Today, American politicians are most of all occupied with enriching and empowering themselves. Unfortunately, the promise of extra much free stuff if only the Democrats win had the Americans by a gigant nose ring in November. "Hey, we will get stuff for free!" New Yorkers and Floridians and Californians said to one another.

I want my freedom, that's all. I want to be free to screw up, free to succeed. I sure know that the Democrats aren't gonna ever hand out anyting for free that I want. If I need a condom I can buy it myself.

 

[richyoung]

One thing to remember about the CSA and Jeff Davis.
While Phil Sheridan was coming in the front door
Ole Jeff Davis was hightalin' it out the back door.
So much for the CSA and its constitution.

Jeff Davis was imprisoned by the invaders for quite some time. No body knows what charge, as he was never tried. In fact NO ON E was tried for treason as a result of the War of Northern Aggression, except some folks tied to the Boothe assasination attempt - and they were quite probably railroaded.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

richyoung: "In fact NO ON E was tried for treason as a result of the War of Northern Aggression, except some folks tied to the Boothe assasination attempt - and they were quite probably railroaded."

Copperheads were imprisoned for treason during the War. Lincoln had to suspend Habeus Corpus to accomplish this. Many Confederates refused to take loyalty oaths after the War as a condition of pardon, and remained technically fugitive traitors. Some Confederates were tried by what we today would call military commissions and executed postwar, loyalty oath or no loyalty oath, for what we today would call war crimes.

The Booth conspirators were tried by what we today would call a military commission. Some were executed, some were imprisoned, one was given clemency.

 

[lesterg3]

In fact the only CSA Officer that was tried for anything and convicted was Captain HENRY WIRZ who was the Officer in Command at Andersonville Prison.

Confederate Captain HENRY WIRZ, C.S.A. (? - 1865), a Swiss mercenary and immigrant to this Country, was the superintendent of the prison "Stockade Commander". He was tried and convicted of "impair the health and destroy the lives of prisoners" by a military court and hanged for cruelty and mismanagement. He was hanged on 10 Nov. 1865.

I am by family heritage a Southerner, and have tried to study the War of Northern Aggression, and The South wanted to maintain the Republic, and the Constitution as written, it wanted nothing more than it's freedom from the Government that was committed to growing the North at the expense of the South. It did not start out as a slavery issue, and it only became on when the North started to lose faith and stop contributing money for Lincoln's Cause. Then Lincoln decided he would make it a slavery issue to gain the backing of the Abolitionists.

A quote from Lincoln himself:

Lincoln’s response to the ratification of the 13th Amendment:

“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution, which amendment, however, I have not seen, has passed Congress, to the effect that the federal government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

"A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as immediate separation is impossible the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. Such separation, if ever affected at all, must be effected by colonization The enterprise is a difficult one, but 'where there is a will there is a way:' and what colonization needs now is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and at the same time, favorable to, or at least not against our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be."

An address by Abraham Lincoln at Springfield, Illinois, on June 26, 1857 [Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol II, pp 408-9, Basler, ed.]

"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

Abraham Lincoln, as cited in "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln," Roy Basler, ed. 1953 New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

 

[Yellowfin]

The 2nd Amendment keeps getting attack because the defense of it does not act against the attackers, but merely parrying their moves. It is fought like Vietnam, not WWII.

 

[Landor]

Too many gun owners do not get involved. Guns have become so taboo that a lot of gun owners are afraid to write, call or fax their elected officials thinking they will be put on a list or something. Joining the NRA is not enough. We need to show them how many of us their really is. Get a hold of your elected official and remind them how important our second amendment rights are.

 

[USAFNoDAk]

Under Bush, we saw, if we were looking, a President that complied with the Constitution when it was convenient. He regularly disregard the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments. While I find that totally abhorrent, I learned that a POTUS could do as he pleased as long as Congress and the Courts do not exercise their duties that provide for checks and balances as outlined in our Constitution.

Not only are Congress, the Courts, and the executive supposed to check the power of the other two, but the media is supposed to "OBJECTIVELY" inform THE PEOPLE about any abuses of power that remain unchecked. The free press is supposed to be the 4th wing of the government. Not a branch, but still a check on power for the three official branches of the fed. govt. Right now we have a liberal executive combined with a liberal-moderate congress, and a moderate USSC. But the mainstream media outlets are decidely liberal and slant the news as such. That sets up a very dangerous situation. At least when Bush was in office, the media was constantly pointing to where or whe n he was doing something wrong, in their opinion. With Obama, the media has developed a severe case of see, hear, and speak no evil regarding Obama. The congress is mostly in Obama's back pocket. The USSC is the only check on liberal power and it takes them alonnnnnnggggggg time to decide to hear a case and then rule on it. They are like the Ents in Lord of the Rings. This situation makes us libertarian-conservative types very nervous for the country's future.

 

[Yellowfin]

We need to recapture the culture. I don't know all the ways how but certainly something must be done for pro 2A people to get out of the closet.

 

[Lou McGopher]

It's time to admit that the idea of "limited government" has failed. The fact that the Articles of Confederation were replaced with the Constitution is the first evidence of this. But even the Articles were contradictory to what was espoused in the Declaration of Independence.

The blatant disregard of Amendments 1-2, 4-5, and 8-10, and the ridiculous interpretation of the Commerce Clause are further evidence of failure.

Those presidents perceived as the "greatest" were power-hungry tyrants, yet we revere them. Washington gave great lip-service to liberty, but fought against it once in office, and his buddy Hamilton was busy laying the foundation for the economic troubles we're facing today. Lincoln provoked the South into attacking, starting a war that killed over 650,000 Americans, imprisoned political dissenters, suspended habeas corpus, and stole the election of 1864. Teddy was a big-government authoritarian who started the present course of American imperialism. FDR perpetuated the depression by over a decade, maneuvered us into WWII, and sent innocent Japanese-Americans to concentration camps.

Our fathers brought forth, on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, which promptly suffered a partial-birth abortion.

The government is not, never has been, and never will be on your side. The people in Congress... the leaders of the republic... are not your representatives; they are your rulers. Quit worshiping the Second Amendment, and simply stand up for your rights as an individual. When someone asks why you should be allowed to have firearms, don't point to the Constitution; point to your family and answer that it's because you value their lives. Answer because you value your freedom. Ask them why, if they also value the lives of their family, they aren't doing more to safeguard them. The Constitution isn't going to protect you. The government doesn't even bother to pretend that its acts are constitutional anymore. Only you can protect you.