Defending the Second amendment

This is a discussion on Defending the Second amendment within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I have a Facebook page where I post a variety of pro second amendment messages, when I can. Recently I put on up and got ...

Results 1 to 15 of 15
Like Tree21Likes
  • 8 Post By Brademan
  • 4 Post By BugDude
  • 2 Post By ncsteveh
  • 1 Post By John Luttrel
  • 4 Post By glockman10mm
  • 2 Post By glockman10mm

Thread: Defending the Second amendment

  1. #1
    Member Array Brademan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    150

    Defending the Second amendment

    I have a Facebook page where I post a variety of pro second amendment messages, when I can. Recently I put on up and got a response from a Canadian acquaintance who voiced the all-too-common argument that the framers of the amendment only meant for it to relate to the type of arms that were available at the time, and that it had no relationship to the sort of arms and weaponry that the armed forces carry today. His query was the infamous, "I suppose you think that people should be able to have a tank or a nuclear bomb?"

    I wrote back a longish post saying the things below. He is a friend, so I didn't want to pound him too har, but I felt that it was important for hinm to see the entire picture.

    Bill, I'm glad you asked the question. It's well known that the founders were a very intelligent lot, who meticulously researched the language they chose for the documents laying out their vision for a free country. It has been thoroughly documented that their meaning of the words 'to bear arms' and 'militia' are clearly understood to be the type of arms that were available to every government and army at the time. A militia is simply the available free citizenry of the nation. The founders most assuredly meant that the citizens should be able to own and bear the exact same type of arms that their government did, without reservation. This was because they had just fought a bitter war against tyranny from a government bent on holding subjects (not citizens) at bay by disarming them. The second amendment is specifically written in language that guarantees a free citizen the inalienable right to defend them selves against that tyranny, with equal weapons, if necessary.

    There is NO danger in any tool of any kind, by itself. You or I could own a thermonuclear device, (or a kitchen knife) without ANY danger to anyone from the weapon, whatsoever. Any danger would derive from the INDIVIDUAL...not the device. The founders knew that governments...and individuals...are capable of evil and the free person MUST have equal ability to defend against that evil.

    To answer your question, Yes: arms have evolved. so has the evil of which men and governments are capable. The language of the 2nd Amendment is clear in intent. The right to keep and bear ANY arms 'shall not be infringed'., yet there is no danger to be had from any except a bad man. That is PRECISELY why good men must be armed. Sorry to make such a long reply. I hope it is clear.
    Brademan
    Special Projects manager - ACLDN

    American Militia - charter member, NRA Life/Benefactor member
    LEAA Field Rep, Aikidoka, motorcyclist, plain speaker, straight shooter
    My other nickname is "3-Knife"

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array BugDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast of Florida
    Posts
    9,320
    Ask him if he also thinks that the 1st Amendment "Free Speech" only applies to speech that occurs with Quill Pens and Parchment Paper. The founding fathers could have never imagined the invention of the Internet and Cell Phones, so I guess they aren't covered.
    Know Guns, Know Safety, Know Peace.
    No Guns, No Safety, No Peace.


    Guns are like sex and air...its no big deal until YOU can't get any.

  4. #3
    Member Array ncsteveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Johnston co, NC
    Posts
    327
    My response to those people who say the framers were only referring to the weapons they had at that time, is to remind them that those weapons they had defeated the most powerful standing army on earth at said time.
    RichB70 and sdprof like this.
    "Those without swords can still die upon them."

  5. #4
    Member Array John Luttrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    309
    Our police forces, the experts on the current criminal trends, have determined that a “high capacity” semiautomatic pistol and a .223 semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines are the best firearms for them to use to protect people like me and my family. That means they are obviously the best things for us citizens to use to protect ourselves and our families until help can arrive; after all we, as individuals, are the ones responsible for our own protection.
    Jackster likes this.
    John Luttrell

  6. #5
    Member
    Array NETim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    432
    Guns cause crime like the Internet causes child pornography.
    I think, therefore I am armed.

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    8,567
    The problem with all these arguments for and against the concept of " rights", is that they exclude the root of the origin of them. And no conversation, or debate can settle the matter, no plethora of " cliches" or other over used examples regurgitated will ever address the finality of the debate.

    We continue to quote " men" who wrote the words, but deny or ignore the inspiration from where it came. Because of this, we have weak legs to stand on.
    "Men", actually change their minds. And have done so since the beginning of time. It is evident, even in our own Constitution.

    I submit, that until the root of our human rights is exaulted as the supreme giver of freedom, above the ability of " men" to either grant or deny, then we will always be at the risk of being enslaved.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  8. #7
    Member Array Olduser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Fly Over Land
    Posts
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    I submit, that until the root of our human rights is exaulted as the supreme giver of freedom, above the ability of " men" to either grant or deny, then we will always be at the risk of being enslaved.
    I'm asking for your understanding of what the "root" is. Only for clarity and not debate. Thx.
    "The only thing I'm an expert about is my experience."

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    8,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Olduser View Post
    I'm asking for your understanding of what the "root" is. Only for clarity and not debate. Thx.
    Even here, it is not allowed for discussion. But each person must ask themselves this; did a group of men define and and decide what our rights were from thin air, or from a belief that some things were beyond the ability of man to determine?
    shadowwalker and mg27 like this.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  10. #9
    Member Array Olduser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Fly Over Land
    Posts
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    Even here, it is not allowed for discussion. But each person must ask themselves this; did a group of men define and and decide what our rights were from thin air, or from a belief that some things were beyond the ability of man to determine?
    Understood. Thanks.
    "The only thing I'm an expert about is my experience."

  11. #10
    Member Array rutcrazed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    279
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    The problem with all these arguments for and against the concept of " rights", is that they exclude the root of the origin of them. And no conversation, or debate can settle the matter, no plethora of " cliches" or other over used examples regurgitated will ever address the finality of the debate.

    We continue to quote " men" who wrote the words, but deny or ignore the inspiration from where it came. Because of this, we have weak legs to stand on.
    "Men", actually change their minds. And have done so since the beginning of time. It is evident, even in our own Constitution.

    I submit, that until the root of our human rights is exaulted as the supreme giver of freedom, above the ability of " men" to either grant or deny, then we will always be at the risk of being enslaved.
    Glockman 10mm, I would like to add to that great post with a Big AMEN.
    I Love Guns!!!

  12. #11
    Member Array Texaszed4mc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    34
    The 2nd Amendment is the line in the sand for me. If people let that change and give up their arms , its the beginning of the end. Whats next, religion, free speech,then you want to fight beck???? What are you going to fight with? You don't have your guns. The government decides they want to run your farms, your business?? STILL no guns to fight back with. Wake up America this IS as bad as 1775 when the England wanted our guns.

  13. #12
    Distinguished Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    1,976
    Why didn't any American government amend 2A between its adoption on December 15, 1791, and now during which time is the proliferation of rockets, the mass production of rifling, the development of shrapnel shells, popularization of fast-loading revolvers, improvements in machine guns, inventions and advancements of submarines and tanks, nukes, ray guns, tasers...?
    Just for qualification: tanks and subs aren't "bearable". And nukes, though possibly bearable in some form, are points of contention among the most powerful leaders (out of my league). I have moral and legal reservations about non-discriminatory weapons (explosives) that are traditionally non-"bearable". However, some of these developments were foreseeable by the generation that adopted 2A. Did everyone go to sleep and just keep 2A for sentimental reasons rather than tailor it to new developments?
    No. It's in the text. Because we need a government, and because government is force, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  14. #13
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,063
    Our 2nd Amendment reaffirms our God given right as individuals to keep and bear arms.

    There is no individual in our military that has a privately owned missile or an atomic bomb.
    Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ

  15. #14
    Distinguished Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    1,976
    Not even if they're an army of one?
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  16. #15
    VIP Member Array NONAME762's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    About 235M out of The Palouse WA
    Posts
    6,913
    Thousands and thousands of Americans have bought and restored owned and operated US ARMOR from WWII and The Vietnam War and beyond the last 60+years. Many are students of History. Some are just heavy metal gear heads.Shermans, Universal Carriers, Ferret Scout Cars, APCs of all types, Mutts, Jeeps, Half Tracks, Command Cars are in private hands. Perfectly legal to own.
    Firing a suppressed is on my Bucket List.

    I'm just a spoke in the wheel but not a big deal.

    America...a Constitutional Republic. NOT a democracy as the liberals would have us believe.

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

an intelligent response to defending the second amendment

,

ates that defend the 2nd amendent

,

defending 2nd amendment

,

defending 2nd amendment no heavy weapons

,

defending the 2nd amendment

,

defending the second amendment

,

defending the second and belief own nuclear weapons

,

intelligent defense of 2nd amendment

Click on a term to search for related topics.