-64 votes

Constitution is just a piece of paper, not an Alex Jones call to arms

I've heard a few people on this site and Alex Jones himself, call for violence if the government takes away assault weapons. I personally don't have much of an opinion on whether or not an assault weapons ban would help stop mass murder in this country. I do know that the constitution guarantees little in regard to your freedom, and the right to bear arms is just a few sentences on a piece of paper rather than a natural right you own based on being alive. Therefore, the fight to protect the "right" to bear arms has to be given a proper cost benefit analysis rather than a philosophical stand to the death based on "rights" that are granted by a piece of paper.

There are some lawful avenues that the liberty movement can take to help ensure that gun owners can hold onto the weapons they want. All of these lawful avenues include non-violent protest, whether it is marching to the white house, going on TV, or simply posting a Facebook message. Nonviolent protests have again and again proven to be a successful means of convincing others of any arbitrary message, and have kept guns in the hands of civilians for more than 200 years. Many people on the left would like to abolish the 2nd amendment; but responsible gun owners, with logical debate have kept the 2nd amendment alive.

Unlawful violent protests are more probable to hurt the movement in which they are meant to support. 9/11 has caused almost the entire world to feel hatred for ultra-conservative Islamic belief. Violence committed by Israel into Muslim regions, which is mainly retaliatory, has continually united terrorist organizations to continually terrorize the Israeli population. Violence almost never works. When Alex Jones and other "hardcore gun owners" threaten violence as retaliation to 2nd amendment offenses, it only strengthens the opposition's resolve. Is it possible that a guerrilla style revolution with AR-15 style assault rifles could stifle a government strike against its own people? Yes; but what is more likely is that a military, which has technologically advanced beyond anything available to the public, would mow down revolutionary gun owners and kill the second amendment for the next 200 years.

The constitution is a piece of paper written by a group of old, rich, dead, white men. It was so flawed that it actually allowed slavery to exist for nearly 100 years after its creation. The rights that the constitution "ensure" do not actually exists. You can kill almost anyone you want to if you wanted to. The constitution, as a piece of paper, can do nothing to protect anyone. You may go to jail for murder, but the person you killed is dead and nothing will ever bring that person back to life. What does exist, is public opinion. The only way to ensure freedom for ourselves, our children, and our people, is to sway public opinion in our favor. The best way to do that is non-violent protest using logical debate with provable facts.

I've heard many of you give constitutional arguments as to why it’s illegal for the government to take away our guns. Realize that you are quoting a piece of fiction that was used as a means to unite a group of states around one federal government. It was a compromise of power, and it was almost immediately brushed aside (See 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts). The only way to keep your guns is to use the power of logic and persuasion to get the public behind your ideology. A piece of paper will do little to help you.

If you don't want to take it from me, let George Carlin explain your rights to you:


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


That person is violating the idea of liberty, not some magical natural right.

Ah, but my rights CANNOT be taken away.

I know that my rights are either respected or they are violated. There ain't no third way.

I can't give them away and no one can take them from me.

Might I suggest Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class?

I would say that you, as a

I would say that you, as a person, are either respected or violated, not a natural right.

I really like your argument. It's smart. I'll check out Constitution Class. Thanks Ozark!!

Is it possible

To respect my right to life without respecting me as a person?

Do you respect Obama? Should respect (or not) be the basis to determine whether someone should be prosecuted for killing him?

“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” ― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

and if a "law" is passed

that supposedly criminalizes what i know to be my right by virtue of my humanity, do i peacefully surrender it when they knock at my door?

i would never initiate violence and i agree all peaceful avenues should be explored. make no mistake though, confiscation is an act of aggression. it is a decision i pray i never have to make.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

I would say....

...that you make a cost benefit analysis of whatever right your trying to protect. Is it worth your life? Will giving your life away do anything to protect that right? Are there other avenues to fight the situation other than violence or giving away your life? That type of thing.

once you are disarmed

how do you ever fight back?

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

Your Mind

That is the most powerful weapon. You have to change minds. Guns don't change minds, they simply enslave those who wish to enslave you. I think that stopping somebody who wants to commit violence with violence isn't a bad thing; but it isn't a lasting solution. You have to change people's minds, and a gun can't do that.

Well it just might make

Well it just might make thieves think twice before they try to steal or use violence agaist me. Force and theft are forms of violence. Period. I am not a pacifist because I have a brain and realize a bear could eat me if it wanted too.


But a smart person doesn't put themselves anywhere near a bear.

nor does he bring a knife

to a gunfight.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

Nor does he bring an AR-15 to

Nor does he bring an AR-15 to fight against against an airforce.

How about a sniper rifle to 400 politicians?

Would that work do you think??

Come on.. Don't get shy.. I value your opinion here since we are spit-balling hypothetical's.

What if there were 500 small sniper "Patriot cells"?

What if only 1% to 2% of gun owners took to small independent guerrilla sniper teams like was used in previous wars to push back whole armies?

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

I don't know

Maybe you could win, or chop a piece of land out for all us liberty minded people. Who knows, It's not something I could give an answer to without feeling like a fake.

I'm a probability person, and I still think your on the long shot odds to win. But honestly, I really don't know. I tell you this, I couldn't hit my toe with a sniper rifle. I'd bring you water when you needed it. You can call me the Patriot water boy.

tell a bear not to defend himself unless it is "documented"

same goes for all living creatures.

We are BORN with the rights of defense. Some can do so with their hands however most know that even they cannot defend against all enemies both foreign and domestic with them especially from overstepping governments or those who want to do harm to ourselves or others around us.

http://shelfsufficient.com - My site on getting my little family prepped for whatever might come our way.

http://growing-elite-marijuana.com - My site on growing marijuana


but we have moved beyond the reasoning of a bear. And furthermore, not all of us are born with the right to defend ourselves. I could kick anybody's ass in a second if they were born without legs. It's the rest of civilization and my own morality, which is learned, that keeps me from enslaving all people born without legs.

Life is not fair, it's not subject to what we perceive as what our rights should be. They have to be fought for because they are not natural. You don't have to fight to breathe once your born unless you have no lungs. Breathing is a natural function of being alive, free speech is not a natural function of being alive because it can be taken away by anyone who has the capability to take it from you.

Hey Goofy...

...if you are representative of the liberty movement, we are lost. Thankfully, there are men who realize, train and equip for the almost certain inevitability that force of arms will become a last resort to wrest liberty from tyranny.

Stand aside if that dread day ever arrives, and I fervently pray that it can be avoided, because you will be in the way.

Our rights are not

"granted by a piece of paper," we were born with them, they are natural rights that are enumerated in that piece of paper. It seems you are under the impression that the government grants people their rights, which would lead to the logical conclusion being that you believe we are subjects to our govt, not the govt are servants of the people. I do not disagree with your avenue towards protecting the 2a, but the first paragraph seems like it was written by someone who has little historical background.

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

Natural Rights?

Why do we need a constitution to enumerate our natural rights if we already naturally have them? Seems redundant to me.


The constitution enumerates the rights of the Federal government only. All rights not enumerated are reserved to the people

Look at what you just said!!

"All rights not enumerated are reserved to the people"

That means the constitution grants all rights to the people that it didn't give to the federal government. It's still granting rights to people. And if those rights were natural, you wouldn't even have to bring it up in the first place.


The Constitution was written for the government, not the people.

Might I suggest Michael Badarik's Constitution Class?

It doesn't matter..

..who it was written for. The outcome is all that matters. Anyone can do anything they want to you and you can do anything you want to them. The only thing that binds you is physics not some belief in some imaginary rights that are enumerated in a piece of fiction.

That's what I'm saying. There are no natural rights, we made them up. And as George Carlin says, we didn't even do a good job of it. We left out things like slavery and women's rights. Whoops.

Did you know that the Constitution has been ammended?

Yes, the Constitution can and has been changed. So, no whoops for you.

This is a little old but;

tell that to all the slaves who lived before the constitution was amended.