PDA

View Full Version : Excellent article by Forbes writer on 2nd Amend.


Shredicus
12-28-2012, 8:59 PM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/12/28/gun-control-tramples-on-the-certain-virtues-of-a-heavily-armed-citizenry/

Pretty succinctly explains why us "gun nuts" are so zealous about not wanting to be disarmed by our government. The 2nd amendment was designed to protect us FROM the government.

Sully
12-28-2012, 9:57 PM
Nicely written, Good quotes.

frankm
12-28-2012, 10:24 PM
Tagged:

"A heavily armed citizenry is not about armed revolt; it is about defending oneself against armed government oppression. A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. "

TheWalkingDead
12-28-2012, 10:50 PM
Amen!
My favorite part,
"Both Jefferson and James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, also knew that their government would never fear a people without guns, and they understood as well that the greatest threat to liberty was not foreign invasion or domestic unrest but rather a standing army and a militarized police force without fear of the people and capable of inflicting tyranny upon the people."

TheWalkingDead
12-28-2012, 10:51 PM
Amen!
My favorite part,
"Both Jefferson and James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, also knew that their government would never fear a people without guns, and they understood as well that the greatest threat to liberty was not foreign invasion or domestic unrest but rather a standing army and a militarized police force without fear of the people and capable of inflicting tyranny upon the people."

Texas Boy
12-29-2012, 12:02 AM
A must read!

ShootinMedic
12-29-2012, 12:34 AM
Tagged for future reading pleasure.

SelfGovernor
12-29-2012, 1:16 AM
In other words, the Second Amendment was meant to be the constitutional protection for a person’s musket behind the door, later the shotgun behind the door and today the M4 behind the door—a constitutional guarantee of the right of individuals to defend themselves against any and all miscreants, private or government, seeking to do them harm.

I like how he included the proper rifle for today, the M4 (full auto).

We've already given in to compromise and control, no more.

Nxd9ar15xcrL
12-29-2012, 1:19 AM
Very Good Read.

VAReact
12-29-2012, 1:22 AM
Very Good Read.

Indeed. Recommended.

anthem
12-29-2012, 2:04 AM
I enjoyed the article. But the 2A remains a question that is unresolved, as far as the definitions go. This is an editorial piece nothing more. It is one persons opinion on what it all means, it is not a legal definition.



http://revolutionpac.com/news

MP301
12-29-2012, 2:40 AM
I enjoyed the article. But the 2A remains a question that is unresolved, as far as the definitions go. This is an editorial piece nothing more. It is one persons opinion on what it all means, it is not a legal definition.

U

http://revolutionpac.com/news

Yeah, but how can any reasonable person after reviewing the founders writings and context could come to any other conclusion? It's really not rocket science. It should be a legal conclusion.

gatdammit
12-29-2012, 2:48 AM
Thx

bruceflinch
12-29-2012, 6:50 AM
Yeah, but how can any reasonable person after reviewing the founders writings and context could come to any other conclusion? It's really not rocket science. It should be a legal conclusion.

Uh, We are talking about Politicians & Sheeple trying to "protect" the masses.
How can we convince; the Politicians, the Media, the poor, the downtrodden, the welfare recipients, the non-english speaking, the ignorant and the illegals, that having a strong 2A is in their best interest? That is the issue at hand. I have an answer, but it would put me on a "watchlist". :TFH:

cdtx2001
12-29-2012, 6:58 AM
Yeah, but how can any reasonable person after reviewing the founders writings and context could come to any other conclusion? It's really not rocket science. It should be a legal conclusion.

The masses that watch nothing but TV and believe all that is shoved into their eyes all say "The Constitution was written a long time ago and it needs to change." Politicians believe the same thing, it was written a long time ago and needs to get with the times.

Read also:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=665850

mt4design
12-29-2012, 7:08 AM
Great piece. Thank you for posting.

artoaster
12-29-2012, 7:15 AM
Amen!

We, the people have become soft. This stuff (the facts in the article linked) must be taught to children not debated among over-civilized adults who want protection from the violence their TV news shows them.

FrankDux
12-29-2012, 7:43 AM
I like!

Mulay El Raisuli
12-29-2012, 8:10 AM
I enjoyed the article. But the 2A remains a question that is unresolved, as far as the definitions go. This is an editorial piece nothing more. It is one persons opinion on what it all means, it is not a legal definition.



http://revolutionpac.com/news


WHICH of the several gun-related articles are you referring to?


I like how he included the proper rifle for today, the M4 (full auto).

We've already given in to compromise and control, no more.


Yup.


The Raisuli

speedrrracer
12-29-2012, 8:24 AM
The masses that watch nothing but TV and believe all that is shoved into their eyes all say "The Constitution was written a long time ago and it needs to change." Politicians believe the same thing, it was written a long time ago and needs to get with the times.


I have no problem with people who want to change the Constitution. I may disagree with them, but IMO, they are the only honest "antis".

Like the article says, either amend/repeal the 2nd, or STFU, because all gun-control arguments and laws are currently unconstitutional. That's the whole thing, boiled down.

All this BULL**** about "reasonable" restrictions (even from SCOTUS justices like Scalia) is crap, and needs to die a horrible death. All gun control is clearly an infringement, because infringement is such a low bar.

glockman19
12-29-2012, 8:25 AM
very well written.

Swiss
12-29-2012, 9:49 AM
Although it supports our point of view I didn't think it was well written. Aside from several grammatical errors and poor structure the editorial does little to win over those on the fence.

USMC VET
12-29-2012, 10:12 AM
I don't know that I've read a better, more thoughtful article on the 2A. Thanks for the post.

speedrrracer
12-29-2012, 10:23 AM
Although it supports our point of view I didn't think it was well written. Aside from several grammatical errors and poor structure the editorial does little to win over those on the fence.

Agreed, but it's important that this message get out to a large audience, and not just from gun-bloggers. There's too much emphasis on the "self-defense" thing, which will lead us to six-shot revolvers being the only guns legal eventually.

TinyCrumb
12-29-2012, 10:56 AM
I enjoyed the article and appreciated the perspective. Also liked the historical context.

One point that doesn't seem to come up in these articles however is technology.

I hear this brought up a lot in conversations I've had with friends, and that's the notion that the right to bear arms really isn't guaranteeing our personal defensibility any longer in the age of drones, fighter jets, tanks, missiles, etc…

If our government wanted to destroy citizens, it could, with relative ease. And an M4 wouldn't do much against that.

Armies used to be measured in manpower. They're now measured in part by technology. I'd love someone like the author of that article to talk about that and how the 2A retains relevance in the context of today's tech and circumstances.

RugerFan777
12-29-2012, 11:44 AM
I enjoyed the article and appreciated the perspective. Also liked the historical context.

One point that doesn't seem to come up in these articles however is technology.

I hear this brought up a lot in conversations I've had with friends, and that's the notion that the right to bear arms really isn't guaranteeing our personal defensibility any longer in the age of drones, fighter jets, tanks, missiles, etc…

If our government wanted to destroy citizens, it could, with relative ease. And an M4 wouldn't do much against that.

Armies used to be measured in manpower. They're now measured in part by technology. I'd love someone like the author of that article to talk about that and how the 2A retains relevance in the context of today's tech and circumstances.
True, but they have to murder tens of millions with arms.

speedrrracer
12-29-2012, 11:48 AM
I hear this brought up a lot in conversations I've had with friends, and that's the notion that the right to bear arms really isn't guaranteeing our personal defensibility any longer in the age of drones, fighter jets, tanks, missiles, etc…

I never understood this argument. You say, "The government has F-22 Raptors, so they could kill tons of civilians" but you don't even realize the implications.

For example: Who do you think flies the Raptor? I'll tell you -- it's the guy who lives down the street from you. His kids ride their bikes in front of your house all the time. He bombs your house, and his wife and three kids go up in the explosion. Think he's going to follow that order or allow anyone else to drop that bomb?

Same with drones or artillery or whatever. Brian Bilbray doesn't live too far away from me, same with Issa. That's why this whole nonsense is ill-considered -- all these government and military guys live among us with their families and friends.

Not saying they all want what's best for you, just saying if you think they are going to allow hi-tech bombs to start falling in their own neighborhoods, you haven't really been doing any thinking.

LoneYote
12-29-2012, 12:01 PM
I hear this brought up a lot in conversations I've had with friends, and that's the notion that the right to bear arms really isn't guaranteeing our personal defensibility any longer in the age of drones, fighter jets, tanks, missiles, etc…

If our government wanted to destroy citizens, it could, with relative ease. And an M4 wouldn't do much against that.

If drones, tanks, and fighter jets were able to stop insurrection then we would not still be in a conflict 10+ years later. The technology listed is useful only in "conventional" warfare the type that we encountered when we fought the red coats. Guerrilla tactics are most likely to be employed by smaller, less technology based, and groups less trained in traditional soldiering. IF the situation were cut and dry that the government had become a force of tyranny this would be the tactic employed most regularly by the people of the U.S. in response. In that type of a situation portable, accurate, small arms rule the day IMO.

anthem
12-29-2012, 7:28 PM
Yeah, but how can any reasonable person after reviewing the founders writings and context could come to any other conclusion? It's really not rocket science. It should be a legal conclusion.

I can't answer your question. I'm only saying that often times, due to ambiguity in the language, it comes down to what the "intent" of the author or authors were. As you know, the 2nd amendment is a tersely worded short paragraph.

I am not an expert on the subject.

anthem
12-29-2012, 7:34 PM
WHICH of the several gun-related articles are you referring to?



I wasn't referring to any article in particular, I was just linking a site that the author of the article has a significant role in. I don't have an opinion on the site, as I have not really looked through it. Just thought it was an interesting addendum.

Tarn_Helm
12-29-2012, 7:51 PM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/12/28/gun-control-tramples-on-the-certain-virtues-of-a-heavily-armed-citizenry/

Pretty succinctly explains why us "gun nuts" are so zealous about not wanting to be disarmed by our government. The 2nd amendment was designed to protect us FROM the government.

Pretty well done.

There were a couple oddly punctuated sentences, but he hits all the right sources and gets the word out with gusto.

I wish he would have thrown in a phrase to give historical contextualization to Noah Webster.

Thanks for posting.

I passed this one to about 10 people.

As I usually do.

:cool:

uhlan1
12-29-2012, 8:14 PM
Good read. Passed it along to some lib friends.

Mulay El Raisuli
12-30-2012, 5:02 AM
I wasn't referring to any article in particular, I was just linking a site that the author of the article has a significant role in. I don't have an opinion on the site, as I have not really looked through it. Just thought it was an interesting addendum.


Ah. Okay.


The Raisuli

artoaster
12-30-2012, 6:00 AM
If you're familiar with what the anti's will say back to you, it's always something like, "We're not taking away your right to self defense, we support the second amendment, we just don't think you need an assault weapon".

So, they've grown up with the idea that the constitution is an old document and that the government can have a military with any kind of weapon it needs, and that there will never be a time citizens would fight government because we live in a democracy and we would vote or petition or protest before it ever got very far.

Therefore, a handgun (like a revolver) ought to be enough as long as it is locked up to prevent the children from getting it and you are allowed only to shoot the bad guy if he is committing a home invasion robbery with guns inside the house.

Now, you can't take it outside because people would shoot each other over disputes about parking or road rage. Police should handle incidents like bank robbery, liquor store holdups, and hostage situations.

The "assault weapon" is unnecessary because it can spray bullets and kill many people. You would never need such a weapon in self defense any other gun will do. Having an "assault weapon" only means an unauthorized person will get it and cannot resist using it's massive firepower to go out and commit mass murder somewhere.

You don't need an "assault weapon" against the government. That would never happen and besides the constitution never imagined machine guns anyway. You gun nuts can all get together and fight the government soldiers if you want the rest of us will wait until the fighting stops and get our congress to make a new rule and end the fighting.

You see the anti's reject the second amendment, because they refuse to accept what it really means (that liberty is won at the point of a rifle) and they feel that the collective security of restrictive laws will reduce the number of deaths so they won't have to shed as many tears while watching and reading the news and that their life will be somehow happier.

Pretty sad, isn't it.

How do you get the anti's to see that the hi-capacity, magazine fed, semi-automatic rifle is the modern musket?

We would need the national media to endorse the idea that the rifle is at work overseas defending our liberty and it's not the drones and other technology that necessarily advance our cause, but the individual rifleman. Then they would have to show that the semi-auto version is a homeland security measure and it is respected for it's capability as an all-purpose arm. They would have to have programming promoting shooting sports so that interest remains popular. But, the media would rather engage in debate and argument because people get so emotionally involved in disagreement and violence sells so well.