PDA

View Full Version : Purpose of 2nd amendment.


nicki
05-07-2009, 12:42 PM
Most of us are on board about our personal right to keep and bear arms, but I would like to ask the question here for our collective duty to own arms to protect the country from enemies foreign and domestic.

It appears to me that "Heller" and the recent "Nordyke" case imply that we have arms to protect ourselves from Tyrants, foreign and domestic.

Now, if we carry that forward, do we have the right and duty to have arms to control the government, and if we have that right, then one would have to take the position that we have the right to have "appropriate arms" to do the job.

At this time I am not proposing "legal cases", what I am proposing is we work on changing the dialogue and us it to gain in the court of public opinion.

Right now most of the public supports our RKBA for sporting purposes, self defense, etc. The majority of the public is clueless about our duty to own arms to control government.

Public support for the first amendment political protections is a given, where I am coming from is we can tie the second amendment to the first.

If we work on changing the public dialogue so that more and more people understand that the first amendment is dependent on the second amendment for its very existence, we will increase support for RKBA.

Many people say they support the 2nd amendment, but then they say, well, why do you need a "Assault Rifle".

We are trying to dance around the "Assault Rifle" issue. If we connect the second to the first, our answer could change to the following.

We need "Assault Rifles" so that we can insure that if our Government goes bad that we can defend our rights from "Government Assaults" and restore a just government by "force".

Gun Control means the Government is in Control. The people who founded this country just fought a seven year war against a oppressive government and I believe that they wanted us to always have arms so that if our government went bad, we would have the means to restore a just order.

This brings us to the core issue of how our country is supposed to operate,

It is supposed to operate by the "Consent of the Governed" and if the "Governed, lose their right to revoke their consent", then what we have is tyranny.

Anyone who opposes our right to own arms is effectively against the concept that the govenment has to have our continued consent to exist.

I realize many will say, well we have elections. Well, what if the elections are rigged. BTW, we have a higher reelection rate in our "free country" than many "communist states".

Nicki

AJAX22
05-07-2009, 12:53 PM
IMHO any restriction, taxation, or regulation on the types, quantities or specifications is unconstitutional and a violation of our social contract with the government of the untied states.

We should not have to be 'allowed' to own anything... the concept of obtaining licensing and permits and registration for firearms should be an anathema to us.

the problem with having this as part of a discussion is the implicit undertone of rebellion/revolt.... it scares people, and makes us look a bit 'crazy'.

nicki
05-07-2009, 1:12 PM
the problem with having this as part of a discussion is the implicit undertone of rebellion/revolt.... it scares people, and makes us look a bit 'crazy'.


I brought this up because the courts actually strongly implied this.

The right to revolt against Tyranny always will scare people, but right now because of collective ignorance thanks to the government indoctrination system, we have collective mass ignorance on this issue.

If we work to restore this as collective intelligence, we can drastically change the debate on gun control laws in this country.

If we do things correctly, when someone attacks the second amendment, they not only attack gun rights, but all rights.

We don't have to argue facts and stats, we can argue emotion. Gun control supporters are domestic enemies of the Constitution and if we get that label to stick, we got them nailed.

The MSM is "licensed by the FCC". I wonder if we could go after their licenses?:43:

I know many of us on this board want not just our "Semi Auto" EBR's, but would like to have that special feature, select fire so that we could waste lots of ammo.

Many of us are tired of "bump fire", "rubber bands" or holding our guns "funny".

The concept that we can have arms for "Sporting purposes" undermines not just our RKBA, but the real reasons why we have the RKBA in the first place.

Many firearms owners support us having arms for "Sporting purposes", but have are clueless as to the real reasons why we have guns in the first place.

Publius
05-07-2009, 1:12 PM
What do you mean by the option "militia arms should be 'common arms'"? That can be read two ways:

1. The kinds of arms that are useful for a militia ought to be common, i.e. because the people are well-armed and take their militia role seriously.

2. The kinds of arms that are allowed for militia purposes should only be those that are already common in civilian use.

CaliforniaCarry
05-07-2009, 1:19 PM
I was only able to say "I agree".

I don't necessarily think we have a "duty" to own guns to control government. I think we have a right to. Subtle difference, to be sure, but a difference nonetheless.

Also, I think that "control government" isn't really the correct terminology. It makes it sound like we're holding guns to the governments metaphorical head telling it what to do. I think "restrain government" or "prevent tyranny" would be a better way to word it.

Alphahookups
05-07-2009, 1:21 PM
I don't know if duty is the correct word, because that would imply that everyone MUST own a firearm, but rather it's a natural right.

A lot of the people on here including myself have always argued that the 2nd amendment was created to protect us against a tyrannical government, rather then just for hunting and person protection.

The first thing that liberals point out is "how can we defend ourselves against a government with the best military in world" and I was quick to point out that the Iraqis did pretty well with AKs and IEDs...

nicki
05-07-2009, 1:34 PM
I don't know if duty is the correct word, because that would imply that everyone MUST own a firearm, but rather it's a natural right.



I picked the word "duty" because that was what was used in the Declaration of Independence.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.


Again, I want to follow through using "Heller and Nordyke case".

I'm not looking so much for the court of law, rather, the court of public opinion.

Yes, we want to get bad laws thrown off the books, but we also want to get bad politicians thrown out of office.

Nicki

rolo
05-07-2009, 1:45 PM
I have been attempting to change the dialogue by encouraging friends and acquaintances to exercise their right to defend themselves and their country through the purchase of "Homeland Defense Rifles" and the ammunition to support them. It is an extension of previous discussions about preparedness.

Those who have prepared, mostly in order to avoid the chaos that was FEMA during Katrina, have now realized what it would mean to lose those supplies to someone more equipped than themselves. Instead of letting fear cloud their reasoning, I attempt to frame it positively by encouraging proficiency, just like I do with first aid, gardening, etc.

I can use the same psi-ops the gov does to change perspective, and you can too. Frame the issue in a positive light. If you make it fun, or at very least comfortable, then everyone will do it.

The outcome is entirely dependent on your commitment!

DDT
05-07-2009, 1:48 PM
I chose disagree because I believe it is a right and not an obligation. There is no need for "all" Americans to take arms in order for our founding principles to be protected. People have many different skills which they can contribute to the fight they need not all be arms.

Also, it doesn't take "all" Americans because a significant minority is adequate for the job. There was not 100% or probably even 50% agreement among the colonists that we needed to declare independence, and surely even fewer than that were willing to take up arms in this fight.

nicki
05-07-2009, 1:57 PM
I used the court ruling, so let me clarify.

Arms useful for Militia purposes, SBR's, semi and selective fire rifles, carbines, the fun stuff should be recognized as constitutionally protected arms.

Basically, whatever the cops and infantry can have, we should also have.

In fact, we are not supposed to have a standing army, the people should be the infantry and they should have equal or superior arms to that or other countries Armies.

If we didn't have that standard and our country was invaded, the militia wouldn't be able to perform it's duties.

Carrying it to extreme. If the second amendment allowed only flintlocks and muskets, how effectively would our soldiers be against a army who had modern rifles with scopes, and wore body armor.

Could make a funny video. Have 100 colonists and one person with a tricked out AR stand off at 300 yards.

The first 3 seconds the guy with the AR gets off 5 shoots and all the colonists shoot. A few of the guys with flintlocks get hit, the guy with the AR bruses off the balls since they hit body armory and wouldn't have much power anyway at 300 yards.

Flintlocks have about a one seocnd delay, if you rolled to either side, you could dodge alot of the bullets.

Then things would get interesting, because while the colonists would be trying to reload, the guy with the AR could get off alot of rounds, especially if he had a scope with a laser.

In 30 seconds how many shots could the guy with the AR get off.

End the video with a snide comment that Flintlocks and muskets are effective militia arms.:rolleyes:

Nicki

Flogger23m
05-07-2009, 2:11 PM
I don't think there is a duty, but the freedom of choice. You don't have to own a gun to keep the government in check or for self defense. But if you want to, then you can.

Also, do you think we should be allowed to own IEDs, M203s, FIM-92 Stingers, SMAWs ect.?

DDT
05-07-2009, 2:11 PM
Perhaps it would have been more clear if you worded it

"MODERN Militia arms should be CONSIDERED 'common arms'"
"MODERN Militia arms should not ALL BE CONSIDERED 'common arms'"

RomanDad
05-07-2009, 2:22 PM
Dude.... You make the most confusing polls ever! :)

nicki
05-07-2009, 2:53 PM
I don't think there is a duty, but the freedom of choice. You don't have to own a gun to keep the government in check or for self defense. But if you want to, then you can.

Also, do you think we should be allowed to own IEDs, M203s, FIM-92 Stingers, SMAWs ect.?



I think we should look at the Swiss and Israeli models. Certainly there are issues with things like Stingers, IEDs, anti tank weapons, etc.

In all honesty, I would like to have a M16 with a 203 grenade laucher, just like Scarface, but that is me personally.

Don't know if I would actually have grenades though. I could live with those as restricted items.

We will need to consider bringing back the "citizen based militia".

The "Citizen based Militia" was the first "Homeland security" and it certainly would be more effective and cost efficient than what we have now.

Considering the non problems with privately owned NFA arms, I think it is doable for most NFA arms including select fire.

We have a big uphill battle, but it appears most of us are on the same page.

Many on the left actually view the government as potentially hostile to their rights, what I am looking to do is figure away to get them to flip on their support for gun control.

We don't have to get many. If our side is on board, and we get some on the left to flip to our side, we pick the middle up by default.

Poll is off top of my head and I know you guys will think of improvements, that is why will throw out raw pieces of meat.

This is after all, a discussion forum, a gun rights think tank.

Thanks all for constructive comments

Nicki

rob
05-07-2009, 3:19 PM
My problem was I agreed with multiple points, but ultimately decided on:

Taking up arms to remove bad governments is a natural right.

I do think our government has grown to a size that we are no longer able to control it with firearms, but that is probably what martyrs are for.

I would have liked to have the option:

Everyone should have a right to defend ones self from a Government

N6ATF
05-07-2009, 3:34 PM
In all honesty, I would like to have a M16 with a 203 grenade laucher, just like Scarface, but that is me personally.

I've always been interested in non-standard projectiles. Like ShockRounds (electrical stun bullets), etc...

M203 HE grenades would be a bit much, but flashbangs, flares, smoke, tear gas, and... {fill in the blank, maybe a canister of ball bearings with a small charge to distribute them across a floor} would be good.

Someone commented how citizens can't really come together to form SWAT teams. Well with the right weapons (which are more safe to use than not), we can train for CERT-SWAT teams to mobilize in remote or immediately inaccessible areas.

Flogger23m
05-07-2009, 3:35 PM
I think we should look at the Swiss and Israeli models. Certainly there are issues with things like Stingers, IEDs, anti tank weapons, etc.

In all honesty, I would like to have a M16 with a 203 grenade laucher, just like Scarface, but that is me personally.

Don't know if I would actually have grenades though. I could live with those as restricted items.

Nicki

I agree with you on this. When I think of militia men, I think of basic riflemen. I even think a semi-auto only rifle is good enough for a militia. Even without full auto ect., we can still have snipers and designated marksmen rifles in addition to basic rifles. A militia is not supposed to be a full blown military.

nooner
05-07-2009, 4:03 PM
Civilians should be able to own the same small arms that the military and police use.

Many on the left actually view the government as potentially hostile to their rights, what I am looking to do is figure away to get them to flip on their support for gun control.Hi Nicki. I have to disagree with you on this point. I think the left views a CONSERVATIVE government as being hostile to their rights, and IMO they are correct in their beliefs (note: a government controlled by the left is also hostile to liberty). However, everything I've seen indicates the left is FOR government to solve everything only IF you put THEM in power because only they know better than everyone else. Unfortunately, that is the problem with both conservatives AND liberals, they both think they know what is best for YOU instead of leaving you alone to make your own choices and mistakes and living with those consequences (and that is liberty).

B Strong
05-07-2009, 4:34 PM
I vote # 1, #6 and #9, and I'm happy to see those responses in the lead.

GuyW
05-07-2009, 4:57 PM
A militia is not supposed to be a full blown military.


That's strange - the Founding Fathers proposed the militia as a complete replacement for a "full blown military".

.

Tillers_Rule
05-07-2009, 5:01 PM
Yes on 1,6,9 and 10:thumbsup: And, like BStrong stated, nice to see those choices in the lead:)

Flogger23m
05-07-2009, 5:01 PM
That's strange - the Founding Fathers proposed the militia as a complete replacement for a "full blown military".

.

Indeed they did, but do honestly think a militia would be even half as powerful as our current military? I doubt it would. Especially for other types of roles, such as pilots ect.

5968
05-07-2009, 5:03 PM
To me, the 2nd amendment is about being able to defend myself regardless of who the threat is.

nicki
05-08-2009, 2:48 AM
Well, it appears this forum is very unified on the polls.

Now, we just have to find people to align with who support controlling government because right now government is out of control on more than just gun issues.

Nicki

Sinixstar
05-08-2009, 3:22 AM
I think this is kind of a slippery slope.


At this time I am not proposing "legal cases", what I am proposing is we work on changing the dialogue and us it to gain in the court of public opinion.


Problem is - if you start changing the dialog to run along the lines of "the government is out to get us, we need to protect ourselves from tyrannical overlords" - you will see a shift in the court of public opinion alright.

I get what you're trying to say - and I get the bigger point you're trying to make. I can tell you now that gun owners in many parts of the country already have a stigma of being crazy separatist loonies who think the black choppers are flying overhead. Framing the debate as one of protecting ourselves from a tyrannical police state - certainly does nothing but feed that stereotype. Honestly, I don't see how it helps, AT ALL. You may also lose the support of some of the "soft" gun rights supporters. People who hunt and want to keep their shotguns and dad's old revolver - but don't much care about black rifles. You start talking about tyrannical governments and what not, and that soft support gets even softer.

While historically speaking, what you're talking about is one of the core ideas surrounding implementation of the 2nd, society as a whole generally doesn't think that way anymore. When people think of revolutionaries they think of crazy socialists in South America, and Rebels in some god forsaken jungle. (yea, we kinda shot ourselves in the foot beating the 'socialist' drum all these years) Perhaps in the 1800s "revolutionaries" were looked at as heros and idols, people to look up to and model yourself after - but today that gets you labeled a wacko, and again simply furthers the idea that gunowners are crazies, and are exactly the reason why people should NOT have guns.

In other words - no, i don't think it's a good way to frame the debate.

Sinixstar
05-08-2009, 3:26 AM
Well, it appears this forum is very unified on the polls.

Now, we just have to find people to align with who support controlling government because right now government is out of control on more than just gun issues.

Nicki


If you start talking about controlling government through gun ownership - I have to say you will lose support very VERY quickly in many areas of the country. You may find a few pockets of sympathy here and there - but I think the question you have to ask yourself is whether or not that's the company you really want to keep.

Sinixstar
05-08-2009, 3:33 AM
I think you also have to ask yourself a few questions when beginning this debate.

First and foremost you have to ask yourself whether or not taking up arms against a government is the first resort, or the last resort? Where is the line of justification? No offense but to me it seems a lot of people are angry because they disagree with the political ideology government is taking right now. I only have two words to respond to that with: Tough S*!&.
8 years ago when democrats lost, and you saw the left-wingers jumping up and down about the destruction of society - they were told "you lost, get over it, it's not the end of the world". Same thing has to be said here.
Our system of government is still alive and functioning exactly as it was designed. Elections are not being suspended, and if you disagree with how government is run - you are free to vote in about a year and a half and potentially change the way government is being run.
If something in the meantime is done that is found to be unconstitutional - the judicial branch of government is alive and well as we have seen recently.

So I think you have to ask yourself what justification exactly do you have for the discussion about taking up arms against the government? Because you're not happy? BOOO HOOOOO. Seriously.

dustoff31
05-08-2009, 4:36 AM
Well, it appears this forum is very unified on the polls.

Now, we just have to find people to align with who support controlling government because right now government is out of control on more than just gun issues.

Nicki


Although I might disagree with much of what is going on today, I can't necessarily lay it at the feet of an "out of control" government". As the poster above pointed out, the government was duly elected. The majority of the people asked for this.

So, when one speaks of controlling the government, especially by force, or threat of force, are they speaking of exerising the guarentees of the constitution, or are they talking about inciting a civil war?