Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

[cbtengr]

Originally Posted by Billy L-bach

...since when does the government need to follow the law?

Silly peasants - laws dont apply to the government.

Funny you should bring that up, I guess O just learned about it while watching the news on Martha's Vineyard. I am sure he will get to the bottom of it when he gets back to D.C.

[pcfixer]

NICS Firearm Background Checks: Month/Year - FBI

Looks like 2016 is another record setting year. I helped in May.

[tonyz]

We live in a very, very different world.

It used to be, that if good people avoided bad areas at the wrong times they'd be safe.

Not true today.

Malls
Recruiting stations
Theaters
Restaurants
Concerts
Major sporting events
Trains
Buses
Military bases
Churches
Nightclubs
Highways
Home invasions

Ordinary citizens will most likely be our first responders in the current reality. Recent data suggests that folks realize this even if the politicians do not.

Survey: Nearly 110 Million Americans Have a Gun at Home
Gun rights see record-high levels of support in Pew Poll
BY: Stephen Gutowski
September 1, 2016 11:45 am

A recent survey found that 44 percent of respondents either own a gun or live with somebody who does, suggesting that some 110 million Americans live in a house with firearms.

The latest Pew Research Center poll, conducted between Aug. 9 and 16, found 31 percent of those surveyed own a gun, the highest number in the poll’s history. Another 13 percent reported living with somebody who owns a firearm. Twelve percent said they own their own firearm and live with somebody else who does. A slim majority, 51 percent, said nobody in their household owns a firearm, the lowest number in the poll’s history.

The latest United States Census Bureau estimate pegs the number of adults living in the country at 247,813,910. If Pew’s survey is correct then at least 109,038,120 Americans have a gun in their home.

The general concept of gun rights also won out over the desire to tighten gun control laws. A slim majority of respondents said it was more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns than it is to control gun ownership.

Furthermore, gun rights enjoyed more passionate support, with 46 percent of supporters saying they “strongly agreed” with the importance of protecting gun rights, while only 37 percent of gun control supporters felt the same level of intensity.

<snip>

http://freebeacon.com/issues/survey-...cans-gun-home/

[Badger52]

Interesting numbers.

A federal database of all gun purchases was supported by 68 percent of Americans.

This is a thought that must be pushed back at with history lessons whenever brought up; something that must be done in our daily conversations. I wonder what the survey numbers would be if more of the populace in general were aware of what the Weimar Republic was instead of haggling over the latest OS version of their smartphone.

[tonyz]

I know many have read about this incident but watching the video makes it a bit more real...this is what's coming folks...don't believe them when they say they're not coming after your firearms...ammo...those rich donors tell the real story.

HIDDEN CAM: Russ Feingold Says Hillary Might Issue Executive Order on Guns
Project Veritas Action

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-HrUUXOHgzg

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by tonyz

I know many have read about this incident but watching the video makes it a bit more real...this is what's coming folks...don't believe them when they say they're not coming after your firearms...ammo...those rich donors tell the real story.

I think we all know what will happen if some idiot issues an order banning guns.

1st No one's going to listen, except Rosie O'Donnell.

2nd No one's going to enforce that law , except the Chicago PD and NYPD.

3rd After the first wave of "gun collectors" are killed, the moron that issued the "executive order" will be hiding in Cuba with close friends and relatives.

We will vote ourselves into submission, it ain't going to happen by "executive order".

And what need to be repelled is the term "assault weapon". This liberal term should be replaced with the term gun. Then try to ban them.

[tonyz]

TS agree - executive order will not be an effective frontal assault. And we will vote ourselves into the problem...already have.

The video captures the motivation of donors - oh, they want your guns and ammo.. I can imagine a substantial increase in taxes on various supplies.

[bblhead672]

As evil and power hungry as BHO and HRC are, the real evil-doers are the super-elite wealthy donors who are pulling all the strings worldwide. All the politicians are merely willing paid-for pawns doing their masters bidding.

[Ret10Echo]

On Oct. 27, 1787, the first of the Federalist Papers, a series of essays calling for ratification of the United States Constitution, was published.


(What would Hamilton, Jay and Madison think of us now?)

[Streck-Fu]

Originally Posted by Ret10Echo

On Oct. 27, 1787, the first of the Federalist Papers, a series of essays calling for ratification of the United States Constitution, was published.


(What would Hamilton, Jay and Madison think of us now?)

The Federalists believed that the Constitution, as drafted, would effectively restrict the powers of the federal government. They did not believe a Bill of Rights was necessary.
However, the group that did not trust the document to prevent corruption of the government leading to eventually tyranny were the Anti-Federalists. If you think the BoR was necessary, it is the them you need to thank.

[Hand]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

The Federalists believed that the Constitution, as drafted, would effectively restrict the powers of the federal government. They did not believe a Bill of Rights was necessary.

In your opinion, how accurate was their belief?

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by Hand

In your opinion, how accurate was their belief?

History has proven the antis prescient. Hamilton and the pros on the other hand would probably be ecstatic given the current state of affairs. Biographies of the FFs make for fascinating reading. Politics have always centered around money, power, and angry men (and women) with petty jealousies.

[Box]

I wonder what message people take away when they realize that our constitution was a document written by our young government, knowing that we would need to be protected from our old government later on down the road...

...free speech
...right to bear arms
...freedom from having to quartering government troops


The first three seem to free up citizens enough for them to be able to shoot move and communicate
...is it a coincidence?


The next three are supposed to prevent the gubmint from digging in my business, forcing me to give testimony, and preventing them from arbitrarily punishing me without a trial
...after practicing the first three amendments, a citizen might need the protection of the second three
...is THAT a coincidence?

The next three tend to govern HOW those court proceedings move forward and the last one says when in doubt its up to the state
or the people


This isn't at ALL about protecting the second amendment.
The bill of rights isn't just one amendment - it is ten of them.
Liars and criminals, the likes of those on the left only need to break one link in the chain to enslave the common man.
...don't be blinded or distracted by the attack on the 2d amendment. They are ALL under assault.


Don't believe me?
Your free speech is censored by political correctness, assaulted by SJWs, and ignored by the political elites.

Right to bear arms not infringed? Why then do purchase certificates and CCW permits cost money?

You think you have privacy from illegal search and seizure?
...hahaha of course you do
...just make sure you let the NSA know first


5th amendment?
...my shiny white ass. You try that shit and you'll get hit with contempt of court. Those protections are only for the privileged.


The bill of rights protects "the well born conspirators" today just like those pesky old forefathers said it would. Just like some of those uneducated hillbillies without internet and Blackberry smart phones told us it would.
How did they know?
Funny how back in the late 1700's the idea that Washington DC would become “the asylum of the base, idle, avaricious and ambitious.” was no less conspiratorial than suggesting that hilLIEary clint0ns e-mails are about anything but yoga classes and grandchildren.



...but hey, that's just my opinion - I could be wrong.

[tonyz]

Great posts.

The anti-tryranny aspects of the 2A and indeed the complete BORs anticipates the inevitable corruption of men (and women) of power and the subsequent oppression of ordinary citizens the likes of Stalin's atrocities, Chairman Mao's purges, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few examples of armed troops dominating unarmed populations.

Those hillbillies back when sure knew a thing or two.

Thank you.

[Ret10Echo]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

The Federalists believed that the Constitution, as drafted, would effectively restrict the powers of the federal government. They did not believe a Bill of Rights was necessary.

I agree. Hamilton, Jay and Madison were idealists and coming from their experience with the crown and breaking with GB, they would probably assume it was insanity to enumerate all the things the government could NOT do to you. Of course every citizen had the right and needed to have the ability to defend themselves, declare their support or opposition to a topic, not be randomly imprisoned or have their property taken from them. What IDIOT didn't understand that (in 1789)?

Enter the weasel-worders that slither through society (the first one was in the Garden)..... Now the snakes are so busy cranking out laws and rules and regulations (and executive fiats) that it reads like that 600 foot long caution/danger disclaimer in a prescription drug box.