PDA

View Full Version : Meaning of the 2nd Amendment


dwightlooi
02-11-2012, 10:15 PM
"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"

What does the 2nd Amendment mean? How should it be interpreted? I had a spirited discussion on this topic with a liberal colleague today, as I am sure many of us have on one occasion or another. While one can certainly write a book on this topic, for the purpose of debating a liberal in a non-academic setting, I believe that the following two arguments will suffice:-

(1) The argument that the 2nd amendment protects the right of the militia -- which in modern context read "national guard" -- to keep and bear arms is ludicrous. It is ludicrous because the militia or "national guard" is a part of the military apparatus of the nation; since when does any military, in any nation, require constitutional protection in order to guarantee its ability to keep and bear arms? It'll be like going to great lengths to pass a constitutional amendment to protect the right of the police force to wear clothes, when such an ability has never ever been, and will never ever be, threatened.

(2) Regardless of what liberals or conservatives think about the issue, the final arbiter of constitutional interpretation is the US Supreme Court. In the 2008 DC vs Heller decision, the nation's highest court ruled that the 2nd amendment protects the right of the individual to keep and bear arms unconnected to service in a militia and for all lawful purposes including self-defense. In the 2010 McDonnell vs Chicago ruling, the US Supreme court further clarified that this constitutional protection limits not just the federal government, but individual states and cities as well. So, regardless of what you or I think, the only authority in the USA that has the final say on constitutional matters agrees that the 2nd amendment protects the right of the individual members of the "people" to keep and bear arms.

Hence, whether you like it or not, there are only three ways to end widespread civilian ownership of firearms in any state in the USA -- get 75% majority and pass a constitutional amendment, a revolution that completely overthrows the government of the United States or the successful secession of a state from the Union.

Jason P
02-11-2012, 10:31 PM
I have decided not to talk to liberals for more than 60 seconds at a time anymore, life is too short...

forgiven
02-11-2012, 10:38 PM
I have decided not to talk to liberals for more than 60 seconds at a time anymore, life is too short...

^^^+1

pontiacpratt
02-11-2012, 11:06 PM
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

sawchain
02-11-2012, 11:19 PM
In practice, it means very little. The 2A has to be the most commonly disrespected of the entire bill of rights. Especially here in California.

The 2A says I have the right to keep arms. But the state of California says I can only keep arms they choose. They limit by type, brand, and features.

The 2A says I have the right to bear arms. But the state of California says I can only carry a firearm in a locked container, or with special permission from a government official.

I can't keep the arms I wish. I can't bear arms in the manner I wish. Therefore, the 2A means nothing. Why can the government get away with this?

Fizz
02-12-2012, 3:25 AM
Here's my take and frequently the stance I take when arguing the topic with those who are opposed civilian possession of arms.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"
- This line says, you need a force of some kind to guarantee security and freedom. Ex. a military to protect the borders, police to keep domestic peace. "Well regulated" in the English of the time meant, "functions efficiently, works well" not necessarily heavily burdened by restrictive law or overseen by bureaucratic means as it does in the contemporary sense.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
- This line stands on its own, almost. "The People" in every context of the constitution is used to contrast the powers of government with the citizens. Yes, government is comprised of select members from The People, but governmental elect personal rights and their powers when acting under their authorities are separated. As such, to group the Militia with The People is an error, as the Militia would be under the authority and direction of the government.

Then the question comes to, why would they list these seemingly mutually independent clauses together if they weren't meant to be associated in some way? This is typically why some people think that 2nd Applies the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms.

The first part explains the REASON for why the statement after the comma is stated.

Together the idea in plain, modern English is, "While we understand that we need forces of government to secure the freedom and security of the state, the presence of such forces shall not be construed to be a substitute of The People's rights to keep and use arms nor law enacted to the effect"

Of course, I think we might all agree that the framers, if they were around today, didn't mean for the 2nd Amendment to enable The People to possess things like nuclear arms or biological/chemical weapons. As such, if we are open to the idea that "arms" cannot be a broad sweeping term for all "weapons" we must concede that there are aspects of this amendment that are open for interpretation.

I believe this is where California and similar states feel their gun control, classification/restriction on 'assault weapons' is legitimized, so long as no outright gun ban enabled, the people still have a the ability to 'keep' arms. 10 day waiting periods are not infringing since the 2nd doesn't mention any delays of ownership. Since rifles can still be Open Carried, California hasn't sufficiently 'infringed' upon the meaning bearing of arms within CA's interpretation of the 2nd.

So, our last point is "infringed." Google says "Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on." The interpretation of what infringing means within the 2nd is debatable. At what point does gun control law undermine or encroach the keeping and bearing of "arms?" I can't assert this one way or another. Felons are not allowed to bear arms whatsoever, under the infringing part of the 2nd technically they should be allowed to carry... but other parts of the constitution let the government take away rights, property and life. However, it's my position that whether or not governmental policy is 'infringing' is akin to the principle of Substantive Due Process.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Substantive+Due+Process

This page sums it up fairly well, "The word liberty cannot be defined by a definitive list of rights, the Supreme Court has stressed. Instead, it must be viewed as a rational continuum of freedom through which every facet of human behavior is safeguarded from Arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints. In this light, the Supreme Court has observed, the Due Process Clause protects abstract liberty interests, including the right to personal autonomy, bodily integrity, self-dignity, and self-determination."

If we apply the idea of Substantive Due Process to things such as "assault weapon" law, I fail to see how it meets the scrutiny. The same for 10 day waiting periods, etc. Restrictions on the sale of firearms to 5 year olds, biological weapons, etc. much more easily pass the scrutiny of Substantive Due Process. IMO, the majority of CA gun laws are unsubstantiated and exceed the powers of government because they fail to meet a legitimate government interest, nor go about their goals in the least restrictive way possible and that's why they're 'infringing.'

That said, magazine capacity limits, for example, would likely pass a Rational Basis Review on its own. Though, since magazine capacity is related to a Fundamental Right, magazine capacity should at least be subject to intermediate scrutiny since there are implications to the ability to 'bear' (use of) arms being infringed by arbitrary capacity laws.

ccmc
02-12-2012, 7:00 AM
"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"

Pretty simple IMHO. The first part simply states a fact that a well regulated (in military terms regulated means supplied) militia is necessary for the security of a free state ie security from outside threats. The second part is even more straightforward. How can that be any more clear?

dantodd
02-12-2012, 7:02 AM
The best way to deal with it is to ask what the meaning of "reproductive freedom" is. Then ask how and where this is defined. Once they get to accepting that the Supreme Court is the adjudicator of all rights in the land simply tell them that SCOTUS has defined the 2A in Heller and their belief that it should be different is irrelevant. They may as well wish the 4th or 1st amendments didn't mean what the courts have defined them as.

Drivedabizness
02-12-2012, 8:22 AM
OP - read the analysis behind HELLER. The DC CA did a great job outlining all the issues if what the 2A meant when framed, what it means today.

selfshrevident
02-12-2012, 1:00 PM
[B]
(2) Regardless of what liberals or conservatives think about the issue, the final arbiter of constitutional interpretation is the US Supreme Court.

Well what happens if lets say 0bama were to win re-election, stack the court with liberal POS judges like ruth bader ginsburg (who thinks our constitution is outdated and irrelevant), kagan and sotamayor (both who are hostile to the 2A), and declare the 2A does not pertain to the individual? Yes the SCOTUS is SUPPOSED[I] to act on our behalf and defend the constitution, but unfortunately we know that in reality those 9 are humans, with personal feelings and biases. The government doesn't grant me any rights, I was born with them. Therefore, I don't need some panel of 9 people telling me how far my rights go and what THEY think the 2A means. The government is supposed to protect and defend individual liberty, recognizing that we were born with certain unalienable rights. If the scenario that I mentioned above with the SCOTUS happens, and they declare that the 2A does NOT apply to the INDIVIDUAL, what that would effectively mean is that the federal government is now choosing not to RECOGNIZE that that right applies to me as an individual citizen, even though I was born with it. Then at that point I think the liberal states one by one would try to deny their residents the RKBA (and they would effectively have the now new constitutional grounds to stand on), and certainly some federal bill would come along as well. It could be the systematic disarmament of the american people. Not trying to slam you dude- just me putting my 2 cents in along with a rant, while conferring with my friend jack daniels :)

HBrebel
02-12-2012, 1:04 PM
In practice, it means very little. The 2A has to be the most commonly disrespected of the entire bill of rights. Especially here in California.

The 2A says I have the right to keep arms. But the state of California says I can only keep arms they choose. They limit by type, brand, and features.

The 2A says I have the right to bear arms. But the state of California says I can only carry a firearm in a locked container, or with special permission from a government official.

I can't keep the arms I wish. I can't bear arms in the manner I wish. Therefore, the 2A means nothing. Why can the government get away with this?
The way I am starting to feel about topic is that if the government (feds or state) see fit to translate, alter or negate my civil rights, I have no obligation to accept their authority.:43:

Fizz
02-12-2012, 2:11 PM
OP - read the analysis behind HELLER. The DC CA did a great job outlining all the issues if what the 2A meant when framed, what it means today.

I don't believe that Heller did a good job at all.

It did some good stuff, but the scope of the decision was pretty narrow.

It established that the 2nd Amendment applies to the use of arms in self defense of citizens not connected with the militia
Established that outright handgun bans are illegal since handguns are what and majority of Americans choose to use for lawful self defense.
Established that restrictions placed on person or firearm that would cripple use for traditionally lawful purpose, such as self defense, by means -such as- (an example, includes but is not limited to) requiring firearms are stored in the home locked, is against the 2nd.


Unfortunately, Heller explicitly removes itself from implications in other control aspects such as the requirement of licenses for possession/concealed carry (except where the state doing so prevents use for a lawful purpose), qualifications for sale nor the qualities of allowed firearms. Example, "machine guns" are not 2A protected because they are not 'traditionally used for lawful purposes. As such, Scalia's opinion mentions short barreled shotguns, which are prohibited by some state laws, as being subject to legislative scrutiny justifiably since it doesn't meet the test of traditionally being used for lawful purpose (self defense). That means the state is ALLOWED to exercise discretion over the type of arms to permitted to be used ... and this could be applied to "assault weapons," magazine capacities, etc. and also extends to the issue of respective permits.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"

In CA, we'd have to substantially prove that CA laws that pertain to magazine capacities, gun features, etc. preclude CA residents from exercising the lawful use of arms, in order for Heller to come into play.

Here's an example. While CA's 10 round limit in weapons combined with the restrictions on Assault weapons with regard to pistol grips, stocks, detachable mags, etc. requiring near field stripping to reload ostensibly would prevent you from using the gun for lawful self defense. It does. 10 rounds may not be enough to deal with a threat and having to field strip the rifle places your ability to defend yourself in jeopardy. However, I believe this situation fails to address the other test under Heller and that is that CA defined 'assault weapons' are traditionally used for self defense that have the pistol grip, collapsible stock, detachable mag, etc. The courts would just say that for self defense or other lawful purposes other weapons, such as handguns or non 'evil black guns', are more traditional for that purpose so Heller doesn't apply.

As such, I think it's best to attack a majority of CA law not from the perspective of Heller, but arguing that such laws violates due and substantive process guarantees pertaining to the interest of the state, scope of law and means the state uses to address the problem.

Fizz
02-12-2012, 2:30 PM
The way I am starting to feel about topic is that if the government (feds or state) see fit to translate, alter or negate my civil rights, I have no obligation to accept their authority.:43:

That's exactly how the framers felt. It's unfortunate that, like John Hancock (there's a reason his signature is in mine), we'll have to sign our own death warrants and take arms against the state to secure such liberty. Unfortunately, modern society still places faith in the judicial system and of law to make such action unnecessary, or otherwise unfruitful and in vain. History has shown that liberty is not obtained by law, rather quixotically the opposite is true. The framers were ALL extremists and traitors; no act of treason in this nation's history is greater than its founding.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

753X0
02-12-2012, 7:07 PM
"The framers were ALL extremists and traitors; no act of treason in this nation's history is greater than its founding. "
Stealing.

fiddletown
02-12-2012, 8:26 PM
...Unfortunately, Heller explicitly removes itself from implications in other control aspects such as the requirement of licenses for possession/concealed carry (except where the state doing so prevents use for a lawful purpose), qualifications for sale nor the qualities of allowed firearms. ...Courts can deal only with the cases before them, and these issues were not before the Court in Heller (or McDonald).

In any case, what the Second Amendment means in practical terms in the real world will be sorted out in the litigation to come. We have opportunities to influence the course of those court decisions by exercising good judgment in the choice of matters litigated and the manner of pursuing that litigation.

But nothing will alter the well settled principles of constitutional law that recognize constitutionally protected rights as being subject to limited regulation. So we can not reasonably expect the courts to toss out all regulation of the RKBA.

gobler
02-13-2012, 1:16 AM
The 2nd A is an affirmation that I have a God given natural RIGHT to own & carry arms (most notably) a gun. I do not need permission from any person or government to exorcise my rights. Now, can I have a bad day if I have a run in with LEOs who do not understand the Constitution or think that my rights do not apply? Yes but that is a bridge that will be crossed at some point in the future.


Sent from somewhere in space & time...

dchang0
02-13-2012, 3:07 AM
The way I explain it to liberals is this: the 2nd Amendment was put in place to ensure that we'd be able to overthrow a government that has overstepped its bounds.

In practical terms, the Founding Fathers were counting on the fact that the people of the United States would always outnumber the armed agents of the US governments (and this is true--even if we all worked for the government, not all of us could or would be armed on its behalf). Of course, there could be situations where 20% of the people in the US are fighting on the side of the governments and 10% are fighting on the side of the American people and the other 70% are just trying to stay out of the way--a situation very similar to, say, the Arab Spring. But the goal was to make sure that the American people could pull off a revolution if the government got really, really oppressive. And few liberals disagree with this--they typically don't want government to go authoritarian either. In many ways, they are even more freedom-loving than conservatives, just on matters that matter to them (freedom to smoke pot, abortion, gay marriage, etc.)

Anyway, following this definition, I extend the meaning of the 2nd Amendment in modern times to mean that we as individuals should at least have access to any arms that are available to the infantry of the US government, if we are to count on sheer numbers and not on the force multipliers of modern weaponry.

IMO, that definitely includes automatic rifles, grenades, claymores, mortars, and other area-effect weapons--anything that can be carried and operated by an individual person. I haven't figured out a position on crew-served weapons like tanks, etc., or WMDs, but considering that Syria's government has had no problem deploying tanks against its people, I figure the people of Syria should have tanks of its own to deploy against the government. The problems in determining my position on crew-served weapons come from such things as, who will own the citizens' tanks, who will operate them, and how would they be kept from falling into the hands of the agents of the government? The Founding Fathers of course were counting on the citizens to form militias and for these militia to manage such things as cannons and explosives, but today's militia--the National Guard--is practically an arm of the government's military, and any true citizens' militias are labeled as dangerous and shut down by the FBI and ATF.

Explained in these simple terms, most everybody can understand the 2nd Amendment--even rabidly-anti-gun liberals.

Whiskey84
02-13-2012, 6:15 AM
"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"


You forgot the comma after "Arms".
It's important to the meaning...

rudigan
02-13-2012, 6:25 AM
Caution, f bomb near the end.

1GNu7ldL1LM

SgtDinosaur
02-13-2012, 12:00 PM
The Second Amendment was written in plain english, and means what it says. Only idiots and dishonest people claim it means something else.

Fizz
02-13-2012, 1:10 PM
T pull off a revolution if the government got really, really oppressive. And few liberals disagree with this--they typically don't want government to go authoritarian either. In many ways, they are even more freedom-loving than conservatives, just on matters that matter to them (freedom to smoke pot, abortion, gay marriage, etc.)

My only point of contention with your post, other than the idea that 2nd afford the right to 'non-traditional' weapons, but that's another thread.

"Liberals" in the common sense do advocate certain increased personal liberties, legalization of Marijuana, gay marriage, etc. as you mention. However, at the time they typically want increased governmental influences in others. Socialized health care, increased gun control, what food schools are allowed to serve, increased social benefits, higher taxes, regulation of enterprise, forced cooperation with environmental policies, etc.

"Conservatives" as you point out, want increased individual rights for things that are important to them. Though there's a big difference between governmental conservatives and religious conservatives, IMO. Sometimes bordering on near polar opposites, especially on issues such as gay marriage and abortion; what they perceive the government's role is in those sectors. Some conservative opinion is that a government that can tell you who you do an do not marry is too large; though this differs from the liberal reasoning of 'being gay is ok'. Conservatives typically endorse increased drug policies in both quantity and severity of punishment, are gung-ho about securing the borders against illegal immigration, etc.

Libertarians are the middle-ish ground between the two, but I would argue are typically more conservative leaning. They're all for increased personal liberty and the least amount of government necessary. This is probably what I identify closest with. What 'the least amount of government absolutely necessary' is among libertarians is usually where there's dissent if any and what can determine if you're conservative leaning or liberal leaning Libertarian.

I guess what I'm getting at is, getting caught up in the battle between Left vs Right distracts you from the REAL enemy; the -state- verses YOU. NDAA and SOPA/PIPA are bipartisan; the only time they get together is when law will screw EVERYONE.

fiddletown
02-13-2012, 2:00 PM
The way I explain it to liberals is this: the 2nd Amendment was put in place to ensure that we'd be able to overthrow a government that has overstepped its bounds.

... I extend the meaning of the 2nd Amendment in modern times to mean that we as individuals should at least have access to any arms that are available to the infantry of the US government, if we are to count on sheer numbers and not on the force multipliers of modern weaponry.

IMO, that definitely includes automatic rifles, grenades, claymores, mortars, and other area-effect weapons--anything that can be carried and operated by an individual person. I haven't figured out a position on crew-served weapons like tanks, etc., or WMDs, ....

Explained in these simple terms, most everybody can understand the 2nd Amendment--even rabidly-anti-gun liberals.And after your "educational efforts" how many people have become ardent supporters of the Second Amendment, and how many have dashed home to write big checks to the Brady Campaign and look to join a group lobbying for repeal of the Second Amendment?

Our goal needs to be to win friends for the Second Amendment, not enemies.

...IMO, that definitely includes automatic rifles, grenades, claymores, mortars, and other area-effect weapons--anything that can be carried and operated by an individual person. I haven't figured out a position on crew-served weapons ...Let us all know when a court rules that way. In any case in real life, your opinion doesn't really mean anything. It's the opinions of the courts that count.

The opinions of courts on matters of law, like the meaning and application of provisions of the Constitution, will affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinions and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

HBrebel
02-13-2012, 3:34 PM
The 2nd A is an affirmation that I have a God given natural RIGHT to own & carry arms (most notably) a gun. I do not need permission from any person or government to exorcise my rights. Now, can I have a bad day if I have a run in with LEOs who do not understand the Constitution or think that my rights do not apply? Yes but that is a bridge that will be crossed at some point in the future.


Sent from somewhere in space & time...

That is 100% correct. The only person who can mess with my guns is me. The right to own them and use them is not a right given to me by some politician or judge, it is a natural right. There is only one way to separate me from any of my natural rights.

HBrebel
02-13-2012, 3:40 PM
The Second Amendment was written in plain english, and means what it says. Only idiots and dishonest people claim it means something else.

yep! and it seems that the ones who are afraid of our guns try as hard as they can to translate, and complicate the simple meaning of this document. I mean, if one really needs clarification on the meanings, one has only to read the other writings, letters and documents of the framers. It's pretty F#!king clear what the meaning is. This argument burns my britches every time 'cuz there is no debate, there is no argument.

Wherryj
02-13-2012, 4:23 PM
I have decided not to talk to liberals for more than 60 seconds at a time anymore, life is too short...

That's the best policy anyway. They'll just try to drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Wherryj
02-13-2012, 4:27 PM
The way I am starting to feel about topic is that if the government (feds or state) see fit to translate, alter or negate my civil rights, I have no obligation to accept their authority.:43:

You, sir, would appear to be rather outgunned. Good luck.

curtisfong
02-13-2012, 4:49 PM
I have decided not to talk to liberals for more than 60 seconds at a time anymore, life is too short...

Take them to the range instead.

HBrebel
02-13-2012, 5:07 PM
The way I explain it to liberals is this: the 2nd Amendment was put in place to ensure that we'd be able to overthrow a government that has overstepped its bounds.

In practical terms, the Founding Fathers were counting on the fact that the people of the United States would always outnumber the armed agents of the US governments (and this is true--even if we all worked for the government, not all of us could or would be armed on its behalf). Of course, there could be situations where 20% of the people in the US are fighting on the side of the governments and 10% are fighting on the side of the American people and the other 70% are just trying to stay out of the way--a situation very similar to, say, the Arab Spring. But the goal was to make sure that the American people could pull off a revolution if the government got really, really oppressive. And few liberals disagree with this--they typically don't want government to go authoritarian either. In many ways, they are even more freedom-loving than conservatives, just on matters that matter to them (freedom to smoke pot, abortion, gay marriage, etc.)

Anyway, following this definition, I extend the meaning of the 2nd Amendment in modern times to mean that we as individuals should at least have access to any arms that are available to the infantry of the US government, if we are to count on sheer numbers and not on the force multipliers of modern weaponry.

IMO, that definitely includes automatic rifles, grenades, claymores, mortars, and other area-effect weapons--anything that can be carried and operated by an individual person. I haven't figured out a position on crew-served weapons like tanks, etc., or WMDs, but considering that Syria's government has had no problem deploying tanks against its people, I figure the people of Syria should have tanks of its own to deploy against the government. The problems in determining my position on crew-served weapons come from such things as, who will own the citizens' tanks, who will operate them, and how would they be kept from falling into the hands of the agents of the government? The Founding Fathers of course were counting on the citizens to form militias and for these militia to manage such things as cannons and explosives, but today's militia--the National Guard--is practically an arm of the government's military, and any true citizens' militias are labeled as dangerous and shut down by the FBI and ATF.

Explained in these simple terms, most everybody can understand the 2nd Amendment--even rabidly-anti-gun liberals.
Yep. and even since I was a young sprout I questioned why the FBI and/or ATF always went in hot and killed everybody at those separatist camps and militia compounds. They alway seem to come up with some 'racist extremist' stuff or that they threatened the feds. So, by the constitution, we are supposed to build militias yet if we do, we go to prison or get killed. They invent a militia "national guard" yet make it federal property . these guardsmen are the ones who walk around stealing guns from people during major disasters. I don't know about y'all but I have made my choice

HBrebel
02-13-2012, 5:12 PM
You, sir, would appear to be rather outgunned. Good luck.

outgunned eh? How many guns does it take to violate my natural rights? And who's side are you one anyway?

fiddletown
02-13-2012, 5:17 PM
...I don't know about y'all but I have made my choiceGood for you. Enjoy your alternate universe. Let us know how it works out for you.

Mikeb
02-13-2012, 5:20 PM
I always thought it meant the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". But I'm not a constitutional scholar.
Mike

Lc17smp
02-13-2012, 6:12 PM
Originally Posted by HBrebel
...I don't know about y'all but I have made my choice

Good for you. Enjoy your alternate universe. Let us know how it works out for you.


**********************************************
I am not comforted by the fact that so many even on this board are more worried about their own ***** than the basic principles this country was founded on. Did many men not put country first and give all to establish and maintain our country/freedoms. Are we better than them? Are our lives worth more? I for one am not. There are more important things in life than me. We all should give thought to what it would be like if our freedoms are taken from us and what we are willing to do to stop it from happening.

fiddletown
02-13-2012, 6:22 PM
...I am not comforted by the fact that so many even on this board are more worried about their own ***** than the basic principles this country was founded on... And some are working in the real world to achieve actual and meaningful results.

... Are our lives worth more? I for one am not. There are more important things in life than me. We all should give thought to what it would be like if our freedoms are taken from us and what we are willing to do to stop it from happening.So what's your plan? Armed rebellion?

scarville
02-13-2012, 7:24 PM
From reading the above I get the impression that The Second Amendment is in such poor shape that it has been reduced to a plaything for lawyers to argue about. I reckon that means gun owners are screwed but, on the bright side, if "our" lawyers prevails you get it with a quality lubricant. On the not so bright side, if "their" lawyers win then reclaimed gear grease is the best you can hope for.

fiddletown
02-13-2012, 7:27 PM
From reading the above I get the impression that The Second Amendment is in such poor shape that it has been reduced to a plaything for lawyers to argue about. ...Welcome to real life. How would you reconstitute the world to make things different? How do you plan to accomplish that?

Hunt
02-13-2012, 7:36 PM
just show the Libtrards the photos of S21 http://www.tuolsleng.com/history.php hopefully they will understand then.

Jason P
02-13-2012, 8:10 PM
That's the best policy anyway. They'll just try to drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I have found that liberals just get pissed at some point and start repeating their "hail mary" phrase over and over, increasing the volume each time. That is not how intelligent people speak to each other. I am sick of liberals and their agenda to take away my freedoms, and easily foresee the need for a military coup by folks like us in my lifetime or that of my children.

Jason P
02-13-2012, 8:14 PM
Take them to the range instead.

I constantly make this offer, occasionally they'll take me up on it.

I am under no illusions that I'm pissing in the wind most of the time. As I get older and hopefully wiser I do find it best to aim to the "left" and keep my angle of attack at 90 degrees give or take. Keeps my shoes clean...

scarville
02-13-2012, 8:30 PM
Welcome to real life. How would you reconstitute the world to make things different? How do you plan to accomplish that?
I don't. The world will go to hell whether I help or not. My short term goal is staying out of the cannibal pot. You are part of that strategy.