The argument we ALL need in our back pocket

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 17, 2009
    934
    18
    Dyer
    Gun owners today are being assaulted from many angles, the government, media, the ignorant. At every turn we cringe, waiting for the big hammer to drop, the gun grab to start. While we wait our Second Amendment right is being eroded away, like a stone in a stream. But I have found that most of us don’t even understand the reason for the Second Amendment.

    Every American should know why we own and have the right to own firearms. We do not have the Second Amendment to hunt, we do not have it for personal protection, we do not have it for any sport, it has nothing to do with being an outdoorsman, although these are some of its subsequent benefits. The Second Amendment is present to protect the First Amendment. You see, the colonists had just fought a war for 8 years prior to drafting the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The war was started when King George sent his troops to confiscate their firearms and powder. The First Amendment contains the principles to be protected by the new Constitution, the freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from worship, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, petitioning the governmental redress of grievences. The founding fathers knew from experience that First Amendment meant nothing without a way to protect it from enemies, both foreign and domestic. So you see, the First Amendment is who we are. The Second is what keeps us that way.

    If we would present this argument when the Second Amendment is challenged there is but one retort, the "that will never happen in the United States" argument. To this argument you answer "what, you mean the government would never confiscate our firearms like King George was attempting to do to the colonists? If he had succeeded would we have ever been the United States?" That will usually send people in a tailspin. Anyone you are having this argument with aims to take away your guns already!

    There are many variations on this retort but it is very weak. History is replete with governments confiscating the citizenry’s weapons. More often than not this regime then goes on to horrendously oppress its people, murder dissidents, and finally collapse into the ash heap of history.

    Please folks, know that protecting the First Amendment is the REAL reason we have the right to bear arms, everything else that stems from this right is a fringe benefit.
     

    N8RV

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Oct 8, 2012
    1,078
    48
    Peoria
    Excellent

    Well said, LT.

    Or, as my spare tire cover says ...

    Liberty2.jpg


    Who can argue with Thomas Jefferson?
     

    cosermann

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    14   0   0
    Aug 15, 2008
    8,392
    113
    ... we do not have it for personal protection...
    While it is true that the purposes of the Second Amendment include the ability to resist tyranny, provide for the common defense, and secure our other rights - the purpose of personal, self-defense is also part of the reason why we have the Second Amendment.

    The natural right of self-defense (or the right to life) is how the right to the common means to defend oneself (i.e. arms) worked it's way into common law, and eventually into the Constitution.


    Quotes from the founding fathers themselves confirm that self-defense was part of their thinking. Here are but 2 examples:

    "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. - Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764"

    "Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense..." John Adams, 1788(A Defense of the Constitution of the Government of the USA, p.471)."

    The Indiana Constitution reinforces this idea: "The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State." - Article 1
    Section 32. (As do the constitutions of many of the states that originally ratified the U.S. Constitution including PA, CT, DE, MA, NH, and VT.)

    The natural right of self-defense also worked it's way into the Heller Decision. See: The Natural Right of Self-Defense: Heller's Lesson for the World by David Kopel :: SSRN

    In fact, I see self-defense as THE foundational principle. Many other uses of arms are simply extensions/aggregations of self-defense, whether it's "self-defense" against a foreign power or "self-defense" against a corrupt regime, etc.

    Don't be too quick to toss self-defense out as the reason, or one of the reasons, for the Second Amendment.
     
    Last edited:

    N8RV

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Oct 8, 2012
    1,078
    48
    Peoria
    Damn cool tire cover!

    Did you make that or buy it?

    Thanks. Stock tire cover, made the vinyl sticker quote.

    I have a small cutter/plotter that I bought years ago. I've used it for making all kinds of stuff from vinyl stickers to cloth appliques.

    Unfortunately, the software that came with the plotter is so old and elementary that it won't even run on anything newer than Windows XP. Consequently, I'm out of the sticker business. :(

    Glad you like it though. I'd say about once a week someone will stop me in a parking lot and comment about it.
     
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 17, 2009
    934
    18
    Dyer
    By "personal protection" I mean the kind that pops into liberals minds, "bad guy breaks into the house in the middle of the night". So I guess I half agree. First and foremost it is there for freedom from Tyranny.
     
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 17, 2009
    934
    18
    Dyer
    Maybe this deserves a new post, but this comes from coserman's reply to my post:

    On the other side is the United Nations, which claims that self-defense is
    not a right, but is a violation of the right of the criminal attacker, which
    seeks to outlaw all defensive ownership of firearms, and which has
    declared that laws in the United States and other nations which allow use of
    deadly force against rapists and other violent predators are a human rights
    violation.

    Amazing, "self defense is a violation of the right of the criminal attacker". GFY UN.
     

    cosermann

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    14   0   0
    Aug 15, 2008
    8,392
    113
    ... On the other side is the United Nations, which claims that self-defense is
    not a right ...

    Good tie in. Without a natural right of self-defense, a state can simply say to the arms of its citizens, "no thanks, we have a standing army for that." Then the state will violate that right to varying degrees.

    Here are a few excerpts from the original constitutions of the original states that ratified the U.S. Constitution for a bit more historical context on the subject. I referred to them in a previous post, but didn't include excerpts:

    PA - "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." - Declaration of Rights, Sec. 21

    CT - "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." Art. 1, Sec. 15.

    DE (the 1st state) - "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use." Art. 1, Sec 20. (amended 1987)

    NH - "
    All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state." Art. 1, 2a.

    VT (14th state) - "
    That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State..." Chp. 1, Art. 16.

    There's one more, but it's not MA as cited earlier. I'll have to find it later. Gotta go now.

    Good discussion. This is something we have to have firmly fixed in our thinking.
     
    Last edited:

    John Galt

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Apr 18, 2008
    1,719
    48
    Southern Indiana
    I can't imagine having a Right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness and NOT have a Right to defend them. I believe the Founding Fathers to be the greatest collective group of moral, learned genius's ever to assemble at a single time.

    Compare now to todays leaders .......
     

    John Galt

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Apr 18, 2008
    1,719
    48
    Southern Indiana
    I guess the Manhattan Project participants will have to concede.

    Not taking away from their accomplishment, but that was for a specific goal based upon their shared expertise. I view the Founding Fathers as contributing something larger than themselves to all of mankind. I did not intend to start a "Yeah, but ...." argument, only an acknowledgement of an attempt to protect our gifts of Natural Rights by a vastly differing group of men.
     

    downzero

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 16, 2010
    2,965
    36
    Not taking away from their accomplishment, but that was for a specific goal based upon their shared expertise. I view the Founding Fathers as contributing something larger than themselves to all of mankind. I did not intend to start a "Yeah, but ...." argument, only an acknowledgement of an attempt to protect our gifts of Natural Rights by a vastly differing group of men.

    I'm not disagreeing with you, I just think that the statement was a bit broad. The world's collective genius has been harnessed many times, and for many reasons, and while I'm a fan of the founder's philosophy myself, I don't think it amounts to the greatest accomplishment in the history of mankind.
     

    beararms1776

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 5, 2010
    3,407
    38
    INGO
    I can't imagine having a Right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness and NOT have a Right to defend them. I believe the Founding Fathers to be the greatest collective group of moral, learned genius's ever to assemble at a single time.

    Compare now to todays leaders .......
    We couldn't imagine today, what it would have been like without their greatness.
     
    Top Bottom