A question for you on the 2nd Amendment
There have been a number of posts and some good debate about what we as Americans who support Dr. Paul feel in regard to the 2nd Amendment. These questions are directed towards those of you out there who believe that maintaining a passive stance is the proper approach in all circumstances.
Throughout the cold war years, both the USA and Russia built up stockpiles of nuclear arms. There were, and still are, enough weapons to destroy life on this planet many times over. Did you feel then, during those times, that we had the right to build up and maintain our defenses against the threat a nuclear weapon armed adversary presented? Do you feel we have the right to continue to maintain nuclear weapons now?
If you answer yes to either of those questions, do you believe that maintaining our own nuclear arms is an effective deterrent against a hostile force having their way with us?
If you answer no to both, do you not believe that an enemy so armed has a signifigant strategic advantage, and will use that advantage as pressure to achieve it's goals?
Now then, what makes you think that if the populace of a given country is disarmed, that populace's government doesn't hold a strategic advantage over it's people? What power then do the people hold over their government?
Agreed
I was trying to make it as simple as possible for those who don't like guns. No one talks about sword, explosives, tank or aircraft carrier control.
"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive." Noah Webster
Years ago
I went to the Holocost Museum -- they had a section on the build up of Nazism, and showed a newspaper that had one of the first things the Nazi's did, an edict to abolish private firearms (I am not sure if it was just Jews or all individuals). Then a little further down they had some home-made weapons that the jews in the warsaw getto used to try and defend themselves. Seeing those displays made a powerful impression on me. I will probably never own a gun, but thank God my neighbors can, and that I live in a country where I can have one if I want to.
Why make your neighbors
Why make your neighbors responsible for your and your family's life. That is your responsibility. Imagine yourself living a thousand years ago. Can you imagine not owning a sword? Can you imagine saying, "I will probably never own a sword but thank God my neighbors can, and that I live in a country where I can have one if I want to."
Granted, the choice is your's. Thankfully we are not forced by our government to own weapons. But you might want to spend some time seriously reconsidering your decision.
Even Without the 2nd Amendment
People still have the right to defend themselves by keeping and bearing arms. The 2nd Amendment only states that that right shall not be infringed by any government.
Any person born in the world has the right to life. If another person takes that right away it is called murder. Any person born in the world has the right to defend his own life whether his life is threatened by another individual or by a government. So how does a person defend his life? With arms. What are the arms of today? Firearms.
The Founding Fathers, especially Patrick Henry, recognized that every person born in the world had this right to life and therefore the right to defend it. That is why the 2nd Amendment is not worded in such a way that says government grants you that right. The Amendment states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. In its very language the Amendment states that that right exists already and that government has no authority to infringe upon that right.
Ask the countless millions upon millions of people who have been slaughtered in the last hundred years if they would have been better off being armed or disarmed. Remember, those of you who advocate gun control and the disarmament of individuals, that in Russia (The Soviet Union), Germany, China, Cambodia, Congo, and other places on the planet that have experienced mass genocide, the individual citizens of that nation were not allowed, by force of the very same government who killed them, to own firearms. Could the same type of genocide happen in America if all of the citizens were disarmed? Why take the risk of finding out.
You, as a person, a human being, have the right to defend your life. When a government or individual takes away that right to defend your own life, then you are not free but a slave to whoever has taken that right from you.
"I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging the future but by the past." Patrick Henry
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people!" Patrick Henry
"Fear is the passion of slaves." Patrick Henry
"The great object is, that every man be armed. [...] Every one who is able may have a gun." Patrick Henry
One thing I'd liek to correct here
I didn't read your entire post, my eyes are tired LOL...But arms are not firearms. Arms are ANY arms. Rocket propelled grenades are arms, fully automatic weapons are arms, pipe bomb are arms, ammonium nitrate are arms, ect... In the times the Constitution was written, there were NO limits on the arms you could possess. The People were allow to own the finest state of the art weapons available. The People WERE better armed than the Goverment. Today people say that, well, the founding fathers didn't forsee things like fully automatic weapons. If you agree with kind of thinking, you should know that a 6" ( and larger) black powder cannon was legal. You can be sure, if some "gangstas" did a drive by with a 6" cannon barrel strap into the bed of a pickup, loaded with 20 lbs. of buckshot, all the guys with their oozies would be white as sheets, or dead. Point being, the firepower that was LEGALLY available under the Constitution was written was NOT so much less lethal than the weapons our Government has ALREADY taken from us.
----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence
I agree, 'Arms' didn't and doesn't mean only firearms
Our founders knew the only way to enforce the law, the will of the people over it's government, was to ensure that the people always had adequate means to defend themselves.
Agreed
I was trying to make it as simple as possible for those who don't like guns. No one talks about sword, explosives, tank or aircraft carrier control.
"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive." Noah Webster
Agreed
Agreed
How about this strategy?
When, in 1946, the Franciscan priest, Fr. Peter Pavlicek, prayed for help for a bombed-out Austria before the altar in Mariazell, he heard Mary’s reply in his heart: “Do what I tell you and you will have peace!” And so the Expiatory Rosary Crusade came into being. For ten years, Fr. Peter went all throughout Austria with a statue of Our Lady of Fatima, and tens of thousands of good-willed Christians joined his prayer movement. And God granted the longed-for freedom.
Twenty years after Austria was freed, the founder of the Expiatory Rosary Crusade, Fr. Peter Pavlicek, whose process for beatification has already begun, gave a homily during a pilgrimage of thanksgiving to Mariazell. He exact word there were:
“Many, many Austrians think nowadays that this freedom was a matter of course and that this just came about so easily. Here I have to tell the truth. It took ten years of struggling hard to achieve this freedom.
“We needed 268 meetings. When the Austrian Chancellor, Figl, returned to Vienna after the 268th meeting in Berlin, he said to me, ‘Fr. Peter, I have never come back from a meeting so sad. Mr. Molotov said straight to my face, “Mr. Figl do not get your hopes up; once we Russians have something, we never give it back again.”’ ‘Fr. Peter,’ said Figl, ‘There is only one hope left: God! We have to pray more, pray more to God and to Mary for freedom!’
“And after that I did everything possible to force prayer among the Austrian people. This exhortation of the Chancellor was followed by innumerable days and nights of adoration in the Franciscan church in Vienna. Lo and behold, half a year later this same Mr. Molotov also had to sign the State Treaty on May 15, 1955 in Belvedere. Incredible! All of a sudden it became possible that Russia let go of an occupied territory. Was it just the politicians who brought this about? Or was it not grace, grace that had been obtained by prayer?
“I also will not forget how we organized the first procession for freedom in Vienna in the year 1950. Back then, there was a lot of ridicule and scorn, a lot of doubt. It was thought that 500 little old ladies would go along. We certainly can’t go too. Then Chancellor Figl said to me, ‘Peter, for my fatherland, it is worth it for me that we pray even if only you and I make the circuit and plead. We will not be freed otherwise!’ At that first procession, people came crawling out of the woodwork; 15,000 came the first time. And there were more at each procession after that, up to 80,000.
“Do you see my dear brothers and sisters: praying is power! One only has to believe in that power, one has to believe that God takes praying seriously! And therefore also we have to take praying seriously!”
There is nothing at all wrong with prayer.
Let me tell you a little story too.
There was a man who had been on boats since he was a child. He was a gifted sailor, and had always dreamed of the day that he might one day circumnavigate the globe solo. He was also very faithful, and included in his prayers was his desire to make his dream a reality.
Well, as luck would have it he was able to plan his dream trip. As he assembled all the necessities, he determined he wouldn't have enough room on his boat for a life raft. But, being faithful, he didn't worry about this too much as he thought to himself that surely if the Lord didn't want him to take this trip safely he wouldn't have put him in a position to take it at all. Throughout his preparations, his family, friends, and pastor pointed out the danger of attempting such a trip, let alone without a life raft. Time and again, there would be advertisements and articles about life rafts that he'd come across as he collected his supplies and read the magazines he was so fond of. But yet he didn't worry, because he had such great faith.
Well the day came to depart, and he sailed out, right on schedule. The very next day, an unexpected storm swamped and sank his boat, taking him safely into the presence of the Lord.
"Lord?" he asked. "Why, after you allowed me to take such a journey, a journey I looked forward to and had prayed for my entire life, would you take me before I had a chance to complete it?"
The Lord replied "I told you to take a life raft countless times! Did you not get the message from your friends & family? Did you not see the ads in the magazines you read? Why did you ignore my warnings and not prepare yourself?"
Some smart fellow back in
Some smart fellow back in the day said "the beauty of the 2nd amendment is that it will never be needed until the government tries to take it away". Could have been Jefferson, not sure on that though.
Ron Paul 2012
How is the question relevant to 2A?
I don't see what the relevance of our maintenance rights of nuclear weapons as a country has to do with second amendment rights.
Second amendment just guarantees a right we already have as individuals. The federalist papers discussed what kind of arms the second amendment referred to, and it was said to refer to the latest weapons the soldiers in the army carried. The basic arm of a soldier right now is an M16. Nuclear weapons as kept by our military is different.
The question is relavant because
The 2nd Amendment was meant to ensure our right to defend ourselves.
I used nuclear weapons as an example of a foreign threat to our country, and how we'd be powerless against such a threat if we didn't maintain weapons of our own. I also used nuclear weapons because using them against a foreign enemy is as unthinkable as using weapons to defend yourself against your own government. However, to not be armed and prepared to defend in kind in either situation is to place yourself in a position to be ruled by force, not law.
Our founders knew this. Why have we forgotten what they fought so hard to achieve?
I agree w/ Libertas; sort of
The 2nd Amendment states: A well regulated Militia being neccessary to the security of free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The founding father's felt that every state should have a militia to protect its rights. Since the militia is supposed to be made up of its residents the people have to have the right to keep and bear arms.
The 2nd Amendment is NOT Just About Militias
In logic, the statement "A well regulated [meaning well-practiced in the vernacular of the day] Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is a sufficient, but not necessary clause. There might be a billion other reasons why "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If you look at a precursor to the 2nd Amendment, The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents (an anti-federalist paper):
You can see where the founders just said "you don't need all that" and just added the sufficiency clause.
Quite Right
I teach defensive firearms to a wide base of people and professions.
All the time when I teach civilian defense courses, I hear the argument "Well, why get a gun? That's what police are for." Wrong argument. What people need to remember is that police have a duty to protect Society as a whole- not the individual. Here's a rundown of something that happened in the rural county area where I live:
Late one night, a noise startled a man, and he looked out the window to see 2 people breaking into his barn. (As a general rule, you may not use deadly force to protect personal property. It must be a direct imminent threat to you or another person of death or grievous bodily harm. 3 criteria must be present to warrant deadly force: Ability, Opportunity and Intent).
He called the police, and they said they could get someone up there in about 20 minutes. This did not satisfy him. A minute or so later, he called the police back and identified himself as the man who called about the break-in, and told the police he just shot both of them. There were 2 county sheriffs cruisers on his lawn in about 2 minutes. They caught the 2 burglars in the act and arrested them, but HE was also arrested for filing a false report, and later fined for doing it.
No one got hurt in the incident, but it goes to show you how the system works. 911 is dial-a-prayer. Had those burglars been armed and threatening him- would you want to wait 2-20 minutes for a cop to respond? You don't have time when your life is in danger. If you have the time to call police- DO IT, and leave the phone off the hook while you deal with the problem (the recording can save you in court). Other times, you just don't get the luxury of having someone come to your aid.
The 2nd is the true safeguard of liberty.
I don't think the founders envisioned the 2nd as a guarantee for a hunting license or even for self defense. Defending one's home from a criminal would have seemed a right so basic that it needn't be written into law. The second prevents tyranny from establishing itself by having an armed populace that is able to overthrow a non-representative governemnt by force if neccessary when all other options have failed. Don't let phrases like Bill Clinton's "You don't need a machine gun to hunt deer" fool you. The 2nd has nothing to do with that and there's a reason it falls behind the 1st in context with the other ammendments in the Bill of Rights. You have the right to say what you want against your government. You have the right to petition the government. You have the right to assemble and you have the right to be armed. Think about it, an armed assembly petitioning the governemnt. Lawmakers would proceed with extreme caution. I would even take the well regulated militia clause to mean that we have the right to posess any weapon that the goverment does considering "we" are the goverment and the founders reluctance to have a standing army.
The distrust of wit is the beginning of tyranny - Edward Abbey
There never was a good war or a bad revolution - Ed Abbey
couldn'nt be said any
couldn'nt be said any clearer then this!
“A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished.” (Prov. 22:3; 27:12 KJV)
Hey McCain-----┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐
Lot Of Good Info At
www.keepandbeararms.com
Some excellent articles.
and a running tab of "operation self defense" articles. Actual instances of armed resistance against thugs.
I find the whole second
I find the whole second amendment debate to be offensive in and of itself. Americans would NEVER tolerate a "debate" on the first amendment.
I am my own last defense. I have a right to defend myself with weaponry on par with a likely attacker. The founders recognized this and guaranteed that no future American government would be permitted to infringe upon that right. It is not open for debate; it is ironclad. As Michael Badnarik says, "the Bill of Rights cannot be repealed." Every time you hear someone talking about gun control, you should immediately shift the conversation to speech control and see how that flies.
But, since there are so many people who believe that the Constitution is a "pick-n-choose" document, it can't hurt to arm yourself with an effective argument.
----------
Liberty for Dummies
Good example
While I was driving home from work yesterday I was listening to the news. There was a report on two home invasions. On the first home invasion, a criminal entered someones home, roughed the family up and stole their valuables. They were not armed. On the second home invasion, a criminal entered someones home, and the armed property owner fired at the criminal. The criminal was last seen exiting the home at roughly the speed of light. The government cannot protect us. They never will. It sound crazy, but an armed population is much safer. If there is an economic collapse, we may need guns to eat, if we are invaded, we may need guns defend this country. The constitution also provides us that right as the last line of defence in the event that serious "government reform" is needed. Without the 2nd ammendment, the others are just words on a piece of paper.
With all the debate on this subject so far
I'm really suprised that those who advocate peaceful resistance and the folly of the people maintaining arms haven't had anything to say.
JeffH, Your analogy is
JeffH,
Your analogy is commendable. However, from trying to "teach" people what I know, I've found that many times they simply will not listen. People who are anti-gun will not read what you just wrote and say "ah yes, he makes sense, he is right." Of course, you are right.
My thoughts are that people will only change their minds once they are ready. I changed my mind about guns after I read a book about the statistics and then looked the stats up myself. If one does that, they will notice that cities with higher amounts of legal weapon ownership, there is less crime and vice versa.
Of course, you could play the "but our forefathers wanted us to own and bear arms", but apparently that logic doesn't work either!
Thanks for your comment
I'm just trying to open people up a bit and get them to think. I've read a lot of posts here that advocate peaceful resistance, which is great and certainly the most desired path to take. But some of these posters seem to believe being prepared is to invite disaster, which is just simply wrong.