2 votes

Who Really Cares about the 2nd Amendment?

Who really cares about the 2nd amendment? It's just some words on a paper written by flawed men. They could have been wrong.

And if you do buy into the whole constitution thing, why don't you just point out that the constitution lists the Federal governments duties, so you don't need to defend the 2nd amendment for not specifically saying whatever misguided anti-gun crusader says that the 2nd amendment doesn't say. You need to point out that they need to reference where in the constitution the Federal Government is allowed to take such action. This is where the debate needs to be if you still want to use that GD piece of paper argument.

Myself, I just simply state that people should be free to defend their lives and property. Most people will agree with that, and those who don't I just repeatedly ask who these wise people are that are going to decide who gets guns and who doesn't, what guns are ok and what guns aren't. Then I double check that it's the same people who are currently selling guns to mexican drug cartels. Then I inform them that I have found a flaw in their plan...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Apparently lots of people care about it if you believe this guy.

I don't know who this guy is, The Ulsterman Report, or how credible his report is, but he says the uproar from the pro-gun public stopped Obama in his tracks. I would like to think he is correct. Oh, the power of the internet.

http://theulstermanreport.com/2013/01/16/republican-insider-...

Like me you were probably watching the president’s gun control speech today. Was told this morning the presentation today was a revised version that was completed just last night after a bunch of back and forth between the White House and Senate leaders. Guessing that would be Harry Reid mostly. Last week the president was ready to go all in on the executive order scenario. Confiscation was going to be in play. Then the backlash came and it forced Obama to back off. He didn’t want to but after Reid said it was a no go, and the NRA was preparing to go to war with the White House, the president was given a revised script and that is what we heard this morning. You could tell too. Obama stumbled over the words more than usual. He didn’t have the time to prep the script like he normally does. Probably fuming he was forced to read the new version also.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

You are correct

The Articles of the Constitution delegate specific limited powers to the federal government. Nowhere in these articles has the federal government been delegated the power to regulate firearms.

The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment), is a list of "further restrictive clauses" -- it is NOT a list of rights that we have.

Read the preamble to the BOR to see what these amendments are about.

Should you care about 2nd amendment

This is what I wrote about this on my blog:

2nd Amendment. Valid argument for owning a gun?
Is referring to the 2nd amendment the best argument one can use to justify being "allowed" to own a gun?
Not really. The constitution is a piece of paper created by a few men a couple hundred+ years ago. It isn't a "legal" document you are a party to, or that you even signed. So why would one look to it as a guarantor or grantor of anything? Did it grant any rights? Unfortunately yes, but only the "supposed" right for a small group to use force against a larger one. And it also granted the small group the right to steal from the larger one, somehow.
But it didn't and doesn't grant you any individual rights you don't already have. How could it? Rights are inherent and unalienable. They are part of being a human born into this world. The constitution, ineffectively, supposedly tried to protect those rights from being encroached upon by others, especially government. If it would have worked we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.
You and every individual living, has a right to life and that right isn't defined by anybody but you. You are the sole "referee" of how that right will be protected and defended. Your rights are your responsibility.
And yes, you are required to actively defend your right, if you value it. You have the biggest, vested interest in making sure that right is kept sacrosanct. As you have the most to lose if it is violated.
Others will try to infringe on it and even dictate to you how you can protect it or exercise it. Those people are evil. They are bad people. You shouldn't listen to them or allow them to influence you in any way. They will try to limit you in your efforts to safeguard your right(s). Ignore them. They want to harm you or use you. They want to control you. They will exploit you, if you let them.
As the sole protector of your rights it would be wise to use the best tool and or tools you can find, create or acquire to safeguard them. The people who want to harm you, rob you or control you almost always choose guns as their tools. Fully automatic machine guns or assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons are all tools they use. They also have tanks, missiles, warplanes, warships and bombs in their arsenals.
In the last century more than 100,000,000+ people have lost their right to life at the hands of these kinds of people. They were fooled into believing they didn't have the right to defend themselves. They believed falsely, that others would protect them. That others cared about them and wouldn't harm them. That others would defend them. They believed in lies.

They were wrong and they are dead.

Don't look to a piece of paper for your rights. Don't waste your time. It is a fraud. What one politician says is your right another can then take away. Laws are whatever the ruling gang says they are. They have no legitimate or moral power over you at all. They can only do what you allow them to. The only real power they have over you is what you think they have. Your submission gives them power. (Great little video about that here): Tiny Dot

A gun is the best tool in the entire world a person can use for self-defense. That is a FACT. It is the ultimate equalizer. An 8 year old kid who knows how to use it becomes superior to the 250lb, 6'6" evil piece of crap who is trying to kill him. No other tool exists like it. A 95 year old woman in a wheel chair can also defend herself from that very same thug, successfully. What other tool could be used to do that? It doesn't exist!

If your enemy has a gun you better have one too. If he has an "assault rifle" you need one too. If he has a large magazine on his semi-auto, rifle why would you want any less? Why think you are gonna bring a knife to a gunfight and win? Surely you are smarter than that.

Bad people exist. Evil people exist. They are armed. They will kill you without any regret. Why would you not arm yourself with the best weapon, that works for you, that you can acquire? Nobody has a right to tell you what that might be. I sure don't and neither does anyone else. It is for you and you alone to decide. Don't let somebody else dictate what you are "allowed" to have when they don't play by the same rules. That makes you a sucker. It makes you a victim. And if you listen to them, you chose to do so and have nobody but yourself to blame when something bad happens as a result.

Screw the second amendment as your excuse for owning a gun! Arguing over what it means or what it allows is simply stupid. When you go down that slippery road you fall into the trap of the Hegelian dialectic and you will lose! Bad people use the willingness of reasonable people to compromise, for their own evil agenda. Hitler was pro gun control. So was Mao, Lenin, Castro and Pol Pot to name a few. And they all did what they did 'legally' because they made the laws.

Your individual right trumps everything else. Exercise it!

More on gun control here:http://righttoreason.blogspot.com/

+1

+1

without the Constitution

there is no congressman. no senator. no president. i wouldn't mind ignoring it too.

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

I care

about the 2nd Amendment because the Constitution in principle is a public statement of ideals by which ethical conscience can be measured.

Granted there are faulty points in the document, while politically that is where I see the arena of meaningful debate and legislative positioning

Giving Congress the authority to borrow on the credit of the US

That has proven to be a stupid choice.

Bankers didn't trust Congress either. After the States passed the 14th Amendment the debt could incurred by Congress and could could not be questioned.

More stupid allowing a government that borrowed and spent without cares.

State governments are just as bad. In a Christmas Carol (1842) Dickens wrote about discounted US state debt in passing.

Free includes debt-free!

Hopefully

you will have seen my post below which concedes that there are faults within the Constitution, however I do not agree with its complete annulment.

My subsequent proposal would be that if an individual wishes to fund a public road rather than what they might judge to be an unjust military conflict or abusive department for example, they should have that prerogative. Therefore, all taxation and its related clauses should be abolished while public domain can be endowed by the dignity of choice

Secondly by affirming the open publication of civil references as optimal guides, clauses which otherwise restrict the free exchange of demonstrable value as viable currency (including precious metals or other economic articles) should be repealed.

Municipal institutions which subsequently practice counterfeit accreditation should therefore be dissolved.

Policy embodied here
http://www.dailypaul.com/266220/new-political-party-now-form...

The constitution led to this situation.

It failed to keep power hungry, evil people from controlling and exploiting you. Giving a small group the right to use force against you in order to prevent an even smaller group from using force against you is stupid.

Disagreement

The Constitution would also likely defend your personal agency in a civil trial
(ex. 'freedom of speech'; Bill of Rights).

I see your point concerning natural rights, while there is an ideological value to codifying principles within the public arena where individuals interact.

My subsequent critique of the Constitution otherwise is that it has not explicitly defined those principles which shall not be violated
-property
-currency (inc. monetary specie)
-corporality (one’s body)
-sovereignty (freedom to travel)
-philosophy (ex. free speech)
-spirituality (ex. freedom of religion)
http://www.dailypaul.com/122408/draft-ideal-of-the-individual
[embodied here]
http://www.dailypaul.com/266220/new-political-party-now-form...

and its ethic regarding coercion has been inconsistent
(ex. instituting taxation)

The question at hand is

Do we consent to abide by the Constitution or not. For better or worse it has provided over 220 years of domestic tranquility.

So far only Lincoln mightily disturbed the tranquility of the nation and bankrupted his new perfect Union. Creditors took control as a condition of bankruptcy. Congress deemed that the people could not question the debt.

The Constitution that all states ratified began listing the priorities that they would accept.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

What are the priorities?
1)more perfect union
2)Establish justice.
3)insure domestic Tranquility
4)provide for the common defence
5)promote the general Welfare
6)secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves
7)secure the Blessings of Liberty to our Posterity
8)lastly will endure the following implementations

Justice is defined in the Bill of Rights.

We insure domestic tranquility. Look around you. We are a peaceful people.

Government officials often conspire to disturb the domestic tranquility.

Death by Government. History books are littered with the dead.

We provide a common defence when governments begins thieving, killing and deceiving while hiding behind legal barriers.

To promote the general welfare promotes the welfare of everyone, not the benefit of the many at the expense of the few. Government theft sets a poor example.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:

Death by Government. History books are littered with the dead.

The Founding Father's watched countrymen suffer deaths by government.

Justice begins with preventing misconstruction or abuse of government powers.

Title 18 US Code is instructive

Free includes debt-free!

This is key

"Do we consent to abide by the Constitution or not."

My answer is, who knows... no one ever asks if you consent, and those in charge certainly don't think you have a choice. And they certainly don't give a damn about the constitution either. Which is kinda my point. The people who's minds need changed don't care about the constitution, so I think we should attack the issue with reason and logic (unfortunately many don't seem to care about that either).

I was just noticing that bringing up the 2nd amendment seems to fall on def ears sometimes and was just throwing out some thoughts. thanks for reading.

Each oath sworn by government officials ties their own noose.

The Constitution may be a piece of paper, but an oath witnessed is a contract and subject to enforcement. Does the Constitution have teeth?

Does a verbal contract have teeth?

I was thinking the same thing. Mob emotion threatens to overthrow the 2nd Amendment. Nobody seems to care.

Would it be better to abide by the rule of law or to the dictatorial whim of a President?

A President that represents about 32% of eligible voters. A tyranny of the minority that rebels against the Constitution.

Free includes debt-free!

I wish they were tying their own noose,

but I think the answer to your questions is no. the constitution doesn't have teeth, the elite have been trashing it for more than a century without fear.

I believe its better to abide by the rule of law, but I also think we should admit that the current situation is that we don't. We suffer at the dictatorial whims of the oligarchy, but so many people are still stuck in the illusion that we have "rule of law".

I disagree.

The Constitution does have teeth. However, the Constitution's teeth have been dulled by years of complacency, over abundance, ignorance, and greed. The Constitution's teeth has and always will be the people of the United States. The Republic has always been and will always be the People's responsibility. So long as we consider ourselves a nation of laws, it is up to us to hold one another accountable to that law. People are right to think the Constitution is just a piece of paper, that's what it is. However, we are wrong to stand behind it. By nature paper is weak, which is why we must stand in front of said paper and defend it with our lives.

If ignorance is bliss, Washington DC must be heaven.

Good post.

You are right, to Piers Morgan the whole thing is just a little paper book and to our own congress it is more like used dirty toilet paper.

This is the bigger problem. The second amendment is maybe the last square on the roll.

Then what do we do? Because it looks like we are about out and we can't just yell for someone to bring us another roll. This is the only one we've got.

.

Thanks Brother

Now that, was a great analogy!

" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~

Thanks

I was just talking with a friend today about how this campaign to get the guns is a real signal. When they come for the guns, the end is near. I'm not sure what to do (besides not give them up) but I think it's important to change as many minds as possible.

I think about it like this.
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

Holding up the 2nd amendment is like giving a man a fish. It doesn't guarantee that they understand the importance of self defense, only that "they said so". Make them understand why, and you teach them how to fish. They no longer need you and can share with others the logic, and maybe even entice them to use logic in other situations too.

...the point I'm trying to

...the point I'm trying to make is, the people who's minds we need to change don't give a shit about the 2nd amendment, so using that as a crutch won't yield fruit.