New Forum for 2nd Amendment Issues Only

[Sonia0865]

The dangerous thing about our society is that the people are not armed with knowledge concerning WHY the founders gave us the 2nd amendment in the first place. When freedom was newly won citizens wouldn't have stood for the government even threatening to take away guns and the thought that half of the country would ignorantly push to give away the right to bear arms would have been considered treason.

[tuts40]

A public thank you Luke. I can stay away from politics as a separate thread and enjoy the comments by my fellow members on 2A and other threads without becoming sidetracked in a manner that makes me feel bad about members and myself when it comes to "politics". I apologize to members where my comments have been particularly coarse when it came to political views.

The destruction of the Second Amendment and your corresponding freedom IS political, politics created the Second Amendment. Gun control IS political.

I also get sidetracked into the political aspects of gun control/carrying because because they are connected at the hip. You cannot seperate them as all gun control is ultimately political. Gun control brings us any and all laws dictating what we "can" or "cannot" do regarding firearms. Politics and those elected as such control the making of the laws that directly impact our freedoms, generating discussion.

Discussing specific gun models, caliber, holsters, etc is one thing but when discussing "can I carry here or there" or "what about carrying in theaters..." or anything other than the specifics of particular guns/calibers/equipment, IMHO, you are discussing politics.

Having said all that, I must say I'm guilty of taking a hard stand on the idea of CCW. It's been my stand that CCW is nobody elses business, nobody's. Not the employers business, not the schools, not the banks not even the governments. The Second Amendment trumps any infringing "no guns" sign, as I see it. However, as true as that is i will curtail my soap-boxing in threads here and simply realize even pro-carry people can be sheeples and it is thier choice to make.

My fear is that the choice may not be a choice for long if enough people think any and all laws are just and we become an England again.

Putting ones head in the sand will not seperate the political reality that freedom versus tyranny is.

[Inglorious Basterd]

I believe that one of the main reasons that the bunny-huggers manage to sneak through their anti-gun agenda is because only a fraction of eligible voters actually vote in elections. Check the shameful stats online. We are all guilty of apathy on some level, but this is how states like California have recently made it illegal to open carry an unloaded gun, and I think even CCW has to be unloaded.
The politicians who dream up this nonsense were most likely elected by a MINORITY of voters who bothered to go exercise their democratic right.
It is imperative that in future, every person that wants to keep their constitutional rights should make sure they vote, and pass the message on to everyone they know. The minute the 2A-haters get a victory, every municipality wants to follow suit.
Apologies for the rant guys, but too few people appreciate just how precious the Bill If Rights is. Peace :)

[Blogengeezer]

Has anyone noticed that the new UN endorsed minister of tourism for Zimbabwe is Robert Mugabe? Just shows that by first 'Disarming' a nation in the name of 'Security', then propagating Rape, Genocide, mass Slaughter, Wealth Redistribution culminating in the totalitarian mandated, perpetual dependency addiction of 'National Socialism' with all of it's glory, a 'Newsweek' promoted Dictator can come out being Honored. Sort of brings a tear to my eye...to realize the possibilities for ....the USA.

[Nightmare45]

Keep it simple unrestricted second amendment, maybe folks should actually read the damn thing.

[ShutUrMouth]

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law

Imagine an unarmed property owner trying to withhold consent, just because there's armed soldiers asking for it.

Remember the time period, we just came out from under the thumb of armed British soldiers oppression.

If an armed soldier held you or an unarmed family member hostage, you'd give "consent"

So an individual right to be armed, even outside your house, was contemplated. and an individual unalienable right to self defense was recognized, wherever you may be.

Now we realized that a "well regulated militia" soldiers were a "necessary evil"
but didn't want a repeat of the British oppressive ones, so ...

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So, consent is true consent if given, not consent under duress.

An individual unalienable right to self defense was recognized, wherever you may be.

I've answered many a misinformed person recently who asked "What's you carrying a gun got to do with a "well regulated militia?"
There's the answer.

Dr. S. Hupp understands it, that's why she told Congress, it has nothing to do with hunting, it's so WE (the people) can protect ourselves against YOU.

This explanation is what I believe most fail to understand. Yes the 2nd does lend towards self-defense, it is not in what many consider self-defense to be today. It is more to defend yourself and the State, as a well regulated militia if needed, from losing what freedoms were given to us by our Constitution and founding fathers. But I will also defend myself and family from all threats.

Imagine a time when "we the people" only have 10 rd magazines for firearms having to defend our freedoms against a government with what ever they want, assault rifles with 30+ magazines for example. Restricting firearms, ammo or magazines put "we the people" at a disadvantage when forming a well regulated militia. Laws restricting those that have shown they cannot abide by laws is all we should do. Unfortunately crazy can be a law abiding citizen right up until crazy no longer abides by laws. No way around that. Laws and regulation will only affect those that follow them. Criminals and crazies do not follow them.

[longslide10]

You can take politics out of the second amendment but you can't take the second amendment out of politics

[tuts40]

One other thought I neglected to place in the previous post in this thread: I wonder if those who would want their guns back in England think politics (passing gun laws) should not be spoken of whenever and wherever gun related ideas are tossed about? Kinda late for them now, eh mate?

[Gr8gunz]

I sure wish you guys would join in the businesses-against-firearms-2nd-amendment-no-guns-allowed-signs thread. I'm really getting beat up in there. I swear that some of those folks are flamin' liberal trolls who really don't support the 2A.

[Numenor]

I sure wish you guys would join in the businesses-against-firearms-2nd-amendment-no-guns-allowed-signs thread. I'm really getting beat up in there. I swear that some of those folks are flamin' liberal trolls who really don't support the 2A.

That's because you're wrong on that issue. Private property owners can set whatever rules they wish for their own property. They have every right to say "No Guns", and you have every right to say "Guess I won't shop here then". End of story. Constitutional rights are established to control the GOVERNMENT, they have NOTHING to do with private property. Get it straight and you won't be getting beat up so much.