Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Stiletto11

Entire post.

Outstanding. Thanks.

[1stindoor]

Originally Posted by mark46th

And they can hit on the young, hot teachers...

Leave my wife out of this!

[EverlACEting]

I apologize if this has already been posted in this thread or others like it. These videos (the first being a quick summary and the second being a longer version of the first) is the people's reaction to gun laws in the North Country ie Northern New York. If you have a moment, enjoy

shorter version : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTdhV...pOS9KQ&index=1

longer version : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol1SzjHPFGw

[orion5]

Outstanding piece in the Polemicist blog. I've been struggling with articulating my views on gun rights with friends, family and even strangers I've sat next to on planes. Not getting emotional or reacting to their irrational frothing, but sticking to the basic arguments and facts.

This is a pro-gun rights piece, but written by a New Yorker who considers himself a "left-socialist". He is not a gun owner, but believes in a full definition of the 2A. I could not have worded it any better than he did, and will borrow heavily for discussions with those in my AO.

(I didn't post the full blog here, as there are embedded videos and charts.)


The Rifle on the Wall: A Left Argument for Gun Rights [LINK]

[bluebb]

The Rifle on the Wall: A Left Argument for Gun Rights [LINK]

Excellent argument!

[grog18b]

Originally Posted by orion5

Outstanding piece in the Polemicist blog. I've been struggling with articulating my views on gun rights with friends, family and even strangers I've sat next to on planes. Not getting emotional or reacting to their irrational frothing, but sticking to the basic arguments and facts.

This is a pro-gun rights piece, but written by a New Yorker who considers himself a "left-socialist". He is not a gun owner, but believes in a full definition of the 2A. I could not have worded it any better than he did, and will borrow heavily for discussions with those in my AO.

I disagree with his premise that the right is a "political" right. It is a right, pre-dating any sort of Government. The intention of the 2ndA is simply a protection of that right. The right itself is not written. The reason it is not written is because once you write down a right, that then permits lawyers to dissect the right, just like people try to do with a simple statement like the 2ndA. That is the reason the right is not written as "We the people have the right to hunt." or "We the people have the right to use firearms to fight a corrupt Government." It is not written because it existed before the USofA. The simple right to have and use firearms for any legitimate purpose imagined. Even just for the hell of it if we want.
So, I disagree with the "political" reason for his description of why the 2ndA was needed when written. It is (IMHO) simply a statement insuring a right is not infringed upon. Also (IMHO) it is not doing its intended job. We are not allowing it to do its intended job.
Ever since 1934 the Government has been doing exactly what this statement (the 2ndA) prohibits. Infringing. Funny how almost every other right has been expanded. The speech right has been extended to the point of people being allowed to tell LEOs to fuck off, give them the finger, and so on. Say bad words on the radio, show tits and ass on TV, and so on and so on. The right to vote has also been expanded, from once only allowing property owners (white type, one each) to vote. That right has since been expanded to allow women, minorities, and such to vote. All this expansion is no doubt, good for the American Citizen. For some reason however, the right to bear firearms has been more and more restricted. I find this funny (not in a haha way) and sad at the same time. Why are we, as American Citizens allowing this to happen? Why are we not fighting this tooth and nail? Why did people allow this to happen in 1934 and onward?
Just some food for thought.

[tonyz]

Dan Bongino: “In a society of wolves you DO NOT fight back by creating more sheep.”

http://www.therightscoop.com/awesome...eople-control/

[tonyz]

A short story on gun control from our neighbors to the north.

REGISTERING FOR CONFISCATION

January 8, 2013

Brian Lilley gives an important warning to his American friends: Registration of firearms will lead to the confiscation of firearms.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/f.../2081848359001

[orion5]

Originally Posted by grog18b

I disagree with his premise that the right is a "political" right. It is a right, pre-dating any sort of Government. The intention of the 2ndA is simply a protection of that right. The right itself is not written.

I agree with you on that. Thanks for your thoughts on it.

Since 25-30% of gun owners are Dems, I would expect a lot more Dems to be sounding off about not wanting additional gun controls. I've tried googling for articles, blogs, etc from Dems arguing for gun rights. I can't find much. I did find the web site for "Democrats for Gun Ownership" [LINK].

No Democrat in the Senate has come out against Obama's gun plan. None. I don't view the Second Amendment as a Dem vs Rep issue but apparently we can't do what's right anymore, because it doesn't follow the party line.

As you say, grog18b, there are points in the Polemicist's "Rifle on the Wall" that might not fit my views, but I was delighted to find someone left of center who was willing to speak up for the 2A. I wonder if anyone is listening to him...

[badshot]

Excellent Letter.

In my personal view the Second Amendment's intent was for Military Style Weapons, current ones too. Still kicking myself for not buying that suppressed mp5 they had in the now closed Scottsdale gun shop in 03. Thought 10k was too much! I guess not being woken up by the ATF doing surprise visits to check on it is some consolation...nice

Can't imagine the uproar if the vacuous puttered with the First Amendment in the same manner they do with others, it couldn't possibly be self serving, could it?

An entertaining thought; current leaders draft a new Amendment, only four hundred pages long.

I fear the subtleties of complex, realistic, and profound thought combined with language craftsmanship are long gone from our elected leaders, and has been replaced with let's do something...whatever it is, we'll know what's in it when it is passed...

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by badshot

I fear the subtleties of complex, realistic, and profound thought combined with language craftsmanship are long gone from our elected leaders, and has been replaced with let's do something...whatever it is, we'll know what's in it when it is passed...

'Fundamental transformation' means destroying the basis. Doesn't require any more subtle, complex, realistic or profound thought than does using an ax to chop down a tree.

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by Stiletto11

Entire Post

This is excellent and sums up the problem entirely! Thank you for posting this.

[sinjefe]

Originally Posted by tonyz

A short story on gun control from our neighbors to the north.

REGISTERING FOR CONFISCATION

January 8, 2013

Brian Lilley gives an important warning to his American friends: Registration of firearms will lead to the confiscation of firearms.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/f.../2081848359001

And that is why I will always practice civil disobedience when it comes to registering.

[badshot]

Originally Posted by Dusty

'Fundamental transformation' means destroying the basis. Doesn't require any more subtle, complex, realistic or profound thought than does using an ax to chop down a tree.

Good point...fools still have to understand it

[pcfixer]

Originally Posted by grog18b

I disagree with his premise that the right is a "political" right. It is a right, pre-dating any sort of Government. The intention of the 2ndA is simply a protection of that right. The right itself is not written. The reason it is not written is because once you write down a right, that then permits lawyers to dissect the right, just like people try to do with a simple statement like the 2ndA. That is the reason the right is not written as "We the people have the right to hunt." or "We the people have the right to use firearms to fight a corrupt Government." It is not written because it existed before the USofA. The simple right to have and use firearms for any legitimate purpose imagined. Even just for the hell of it if we want.
So, I disagree with the "political" reason for his description of why the 2ndA was needed when written. It is (IMHO) simply a statement insuring a right is not infringed upon. Also (IMHO) it is not doing its intended job. We are not allowing it to do its intended job.
Ever since 1934 the Government has been doing exactly what this statement (the 2ndA) prohibits. Infringing. Funny how almost every other right has been expanded. The speech right has been extended to the point of people being allowed to tell LEOs to fuck off, give them the finger, and so on. Say bad words on the radio, show tits and ass on TV, and so on and so on. The right to vote has also been expanded, from once only allowing property owners (white type, one each) to vote. That right has since been expanded to allow women, minorities, and such to vote. All this expansion is no doubt, good for the American Citizen. For some reason however, the right to bear firearms has been more and more restricted. I find this funny (not in a haha way) and sad at the same time. Why are we, as American Citizens allowing this to happen? Why are we not fighting this tooth and nail? Why did people allow this to happen in 1934 and onward?
Just some food for thought.

I agree with you on all the post, Most excellent thinking. Especially the RED
portions. "salute"