2nd Amendment Sucks

[jtmoose]

I figured that would get some attention. Let me clarify my statment.

Background: I live in MD where I am unable to get a permit to carry a firearm.

I feel that we [firearm supporters] are fighting the wrong battle with the second amendment. After reading the Federalist Papers multiple times as well as the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms, in our constitution, to maintain a free state is a political agenda and legal right vulnerable to mis-interpretation, alteration, and failure.

The right to bear arms is a natural human right. The right to protect yourself from anything (mugger, government, dog, falling objects, etc) cannot be taken away by anyone or anything, hence making the second amendment a moot point and irrelevant in the natural right to bear arms.

I feel we should be bearing arms in all forms regardless of attempted oppression to our natural right and leave the legal right of the second amendment out of it.

Thanks for listening, I'm off my soapbox.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Dadsnugun]

Exactly why many of the Founders fought so hard against the Bill of Rights, essentially they were saying that, if these rights were written into the Constitution, that people would think that they (the rights) were granted by government rather than through Natural Law. We see this happen almost everyday, even on forums like this where one would think people would know better. Even with the difficulties in understanding it presents though, I'm afraid, after watching how the government does things over the course of my lifetime, that if the Bill of Rights had not acknowledged some basic tenets of Natural law, our Natural rights would have been absconded with well before now.

[Guest1]

AMEN!

I figured that would get some attention. Let me clarify my statment.

Background: I live in MD where I am unable to get a permit to carry a firearm. I have carried at times regardless of this law.

I feel that we [firearm supporters] are fighting the wrong battle with the second amendment. After reading the Federalist Papers multiple times as well as the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms, in our constitution, to maintain a free state is a political agenda and legal right vulnerable to mis-interpretation, alteration, and failure.

The right to bear arms is a natural human right. The right to protect yourself from anything (mugger, government, dog, falling objects, etc) cannot be taken away by anyone or anything, hence making the second amendment a moot point and irrelevant in the natural right to bear arms.

I feel we should be bearing arms in all forms regardless of attempted oppression to our natural right and leave the legal right of the second amendment out of it.

Thanks for listening, I'm off my soapbox.

[4my son]

I agree with jtmoose, it should be considered a natural right, outside of any laws and legislation, but unfortunately, dadsnugun sums up the reality of the situation,

Exactly why many of the Founders fought so hard against the Bill of Rights, essentially they were saying that, if these rights were written into the Constitution, that people would think that they (the rights) were granted by government rather than through Natural Law. We see this happen almost everyday, even on forums like this where one would think people would know better. Even with the difficulties in understanding it presents though, I'm afraid, after watching how the government does things over the course of my lifetime, that if the Bill of Rights had not acknowledged some basic tenets of Natural law, our Natural rights would have been absconded with well before now.

had it not been expressly writen, it would have been attacked and so heavily restricted by now, we'd be carrying rocks in our pockets, and those would probably have to be registered if over a certian size.

While we may be fighting the wrong battle, it's better then no battle and no rights. I do wish the wording of the 2A had been a little better writen, but when looking at what the most of the rest of the world has, I'll take it as is over nothing at all.

[Hopyard]

Old Southern Lawyer to client, "Son, you got no rights."

[shooterX]

had it not been expressly writen, it would have been attacked and so heavily restricted by now, we'd be carrying rocks in our pockets, and those would probably have to be registered if over a certian size.

I completely agree with this, if the Bill of Rights didn't exist we wouldn't have any at all!

[Biggie313]

Totally agree, however I would not admit to committing a felony online. Could come back to bite you.

[Stubborn]

The Second Amendment is not the problem or the issue here. The people of your state, and a handful of other states have put politicians in office and ALLOWED those politicians to restrict or limit your rights. We are speaking about a right, not a privilege. Your rights are limited or restricted because the citizenry of Maryland have ALLOWED those rights to be limited over the years.
I don't mean to sound cold or uncaring to your problem, but fact is fact.

The states of Maryland, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, California, have restricted gun rights because the people have ALLOWED those rights to be restricted by politicians. I sympathize with you, but the only way to regain those rights is through grass roots organization to work to elect pro-gun people that will restore the rights of the people.
Just my $.02 cent opinion.

[varob]

Don't forget Hawaii

[jumpwing]

...The states of Maryland, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, California, have restricted gun rights because the people have ALLOWED those rights to be restricted by politicians...

That just about sums it up.

[paramedic70002]

The OP is admitting to illegal activity. I had a thread removed not too long ago for saying I did something illegal 20 years ago before I knew better, so not sure why the Mods haven't shut this one down.

[Mike1956]

Totally agree, however I would not admit to committing a felony online. Could come back to bite you.

ANYTHING said, or even implied online could come back to bite someone, particularly when being questioned by a prosecutor who believes no shoot is ever justified.

[Mike1956]

My in-laws live in Maryland, so visits there are interesting. None of them have ever indicated a particular fondness of guns or the second amendment. When both families came to visit here this summer, the brothers-in-law could hardly wait to send a couple mags-full downrange for the first time in their lives. One was so thrilled to put it on paper at fifteen feet that he took the target home with him.

[Old School]

I grew up in Maryland in the 50's and 60's carrying my shotgun down the road to my friends house to go rabbit and squirrel hunting.

I rode my bicycle with my .22 rifle slung over my back down to the dumb to shoot rats.

I was in my early and middle teens and never had a problem.

I spent the late 60's and early 70's as a LEO in Maryland before moving to Florida.

I never remember any repressive state gun laws being pushed during that time.

A few years ago I was visiting a friend in Annapolis and we were talking about self defense.

She did not want to carry a gun ( getting a handgun permit in Maryland is nearly impossible for the average citizen anyway ) but was open to pepper spray and possibly a taser.

That's when I discovered how repressive local laws can be aimed at the law abiding citizens.

The City of Annapolis prohibits taser carry. Pepper spray is questionable.
http://www.ehow.com/facts_5506842_la...ng-tasers.html
http://www.ehow.com/list_6673298_mar...pray-laws.html

Her primary weapon is of course her SA and her 90 lb German Shepard.

As others have said "The Free State" voters get just what they deserve. Sad very sad.

OS

[Gun Bunny]

Another reason I feel that States like MD and IL are so restricted on gun rights is the fact that their State Constitutions don't have the right to bare arms written in or are worded so the State can restrict it.

P.S. I lived there for 10yrs, sorry, but I will never go back to that State again!!!