I Support the Second Amendment…But

[NYFelon]

no one's mentioned the fact that the "The 2A doesn't apply to __________ because ____________ didn't exist at the framers time." is the argument of the gun grabbers. Semiautomatic handguns didn't exist in 1789, ergo the 2A can't apply. machine guns didn't exist, ergo the 2A can't apply. Insert whatever you like here: __________ and you still have the same statement.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I don't have time right now to compose a full reply to this, Silverado, but I'll come back to it later. For now, I'll say that nuclear weapons are terrible things that IMHO no one should own, but I don't get to make that decision. They exist, and the Founders' intent was that the People be at least as well-armed as their government. Their reasoning was sound: there is nothing about governmental power that confers some magical ability to properly handle certain technologies.

There are certain things that are, by their very nature, the exclusive purview of governments. National defense is one of those, and this is what nuclear weapons were designed for. If you want to maintain some semblance of civilization, it is necessary to keep these weapons out of the hands of individuals with their own petty agendas. At least the government is SUPPOSED to exert the will of the entire people, through the election process. The fact that this is not the case with respect to other issues (taxes, social programs, etc.) does not mean that the government has no business regulating anything.

The founders also intended slaves to be 2/3 of a person and women to enjoy second class citizenship and stay in the kitchen. I'm quite glad that we, as a nation, have shed those abominable notions. You seem to gloss over their hypocrisy of championing freedom and "all men created equal," when it is obvious that some were certainly more "equal" than others in their time. I'm quite happy to live in 2011, rather than 1791.

You've focused pretty solidly on the issues of slavery and apparent misogyny. What I don't see you addressing is that the men of 1791 were products of their times and their views likewise were products of their times. If we were viewed by people 230+ years from now, I'm sure they would find problems with some of our views... maybe on gay marriage, maybe as regards our treatment of felons, but we do our best with what knowledge and experience we have. Are we oppressing homosexuals by disallowing them from marriage? People of 2241 might think so, no matter how enlightened we consider ourselves to be.

You worry about the people, individuals, with their petty agendas. I worry about government and its petty agendas. I don't think that government has no business regulating anything, I'm merely demonstrating that obvious poor judgment and irresponsibility shown as a pattern amongst a group of people should, IMHO, give rise to the belief that such people are not trustworthy to handle matters of life and death, if they cannot manage such simple things as a math problem (Income>=expenses, not income<expenses).

My position is less that "everyone should have a nuke" - hell, there are people on this planet that i don't think should have the right to breathe and people on this board that I wouldn't trust with a cap gun, but it's not my place to deny them their rights- and more that it is not the place of some construct of our people to define and control the mere possession of an item. You, OTOH, seem comfortable with the idea of using the power and force of government to enforce your will that none have a technology you fear on others. These clowns can't seem to grasp the simple concept that you don't spend more money than you have, a concept even a five-year-old can comprehend, and these are the ones you prefer have unilateral and sole control of a technology that can, as you said, vaporize a city?

You trust a group of men who kept their fellow man enslaved and relegated women to second class citizenship over 200 years ago to create a document that ensures freedom to all men? The Constitution, in theory, is a brilliant document that should ensure the highest level of freedom to all Americans. It was, even at the time of its adoption, implemented in a flawed way, because that is the nature of man. Our government will always be flawed, because it is made up of humans like you and I. It is STILL our elected government, and as I believe that nuclear weapons are properly reserved for national defense, and have no place in private hands, then YES, I believe that government control of them is the least bad option.

Well, I'll take that last as a move in the right direction; you're calling gov't control of nuclear weapons "bad". It is bad, yes, but when government has a monopoly on force (or force of a specific type), liberty is not advanced.

A man has to have principles, IMHO. One of mine is that the initiation of force against another is wrong. You know as well as I that people can either be forced or persuaded to do a thing. When they are armed, (including the will to use those weapons,) they can no longer be forced, they must be persuaded. That scares the hell out of politicians, because most of them don't have the ability to persuade their employers to do anything but keep them in office, and that only by the fear that a bigger buffoon and/or a bigger crook will get in.

If politicians are so scared of armed constituents, why is our government so bad? I doubt that they are scared of much of anything regarding the populace, except for losing a re-election bid. I'm not sure how your argument about initiating force against another fits in with private possession of nukes. I don't agree with you that the initiation of force is ALWAYS wrong. Broad platitudes like the ones you seem to be fond of completely ignore the intricacies of society and humanity.

Why? Because when we have the choices of bad and worse, we don't have much option of who to put in office. If you doubt that politicians fear an armed populace, why do they constantly push for more "gun control"? Yes, they do fear a loss of re-election, and that's the more relevant threat; no one has the will to use those weapons in that manner today (and this is a GOOD thing)
I didn't say that the initiation of force was ALWAYS wrong... I don't generally like "always" and "never" statements. That said, though, I can't think of a time that the initiation of force is a good thing. Note that the use of retaliatory force is not the same as the initiation of force.

OK.. Now to address the other points: My comparison with cannons... In Revolutionary times, those were the height of WMD and the towns were smaller and the construction limited in its capacity to withstand an attack by them. Comparison of those towns and those weapons with today's cities and tac. nukes is apt, albeit noting once again that I stipulate that a cannon didn't vaporize a whole town with one shot nor did it irradiate the town.

The fact that you are again attempting to equate artillery with nuclear weapons makes me wonder whether I am wasting my time having a conversation with you. If a man on a hill, or even a group of men, started firing a barrage of artillery into a town or city, there would be a real chance to stop the attack by returning fire with artillery, or sending a company of armed men to deal with the problem. Destruction with nuclear weapons is massive and instantaneous. Your comparison is simply invalid and irrelevant.

The use of cannon on a city can be countered, yes, IF you have some type of force that can be used to respond to it. I don't dispute, as I said earlier, that nuclear devastation is on a different level, I only said that cannon were the WMD of the Founders' day.

No prohibition in the BoR against libel, slander, or sacrifice? True. Those things cause actual harm, however. There was no prohibition against having a pen, being able to speak, or owning a knife. Should government be the only ones to possess pens and knives to prevent libel and sacrifice? Should we restrict the right of free speech for all to prevent slander by some?

Re: the amendment process: If you want to amend the 2A to specifically exclude nukes from private ownership, that is your choice to attempt to begin that process. You'll have to start by getting 2/3 of either the House or the Senate, then 2/3 of whichever one you didn't start with, then 3/4 of the state legislatures to agree with you. The Founders were wise men and knew that having an ability and process with which to amend the basic framework upon which all our laws are based was absolutely necessary, but they also knew not to make it an easy thing to do.

It is not necessary to amend the Constitution unless the majority of the citizenry sees a flaw or injustice that needs to be corrected. I am very comfortable in thinking that a huge majority of my fellow citizens would agree that government regulation of nuclear weapons is reasonable, so I don't anticipate a convention anytime soon.

A huge majority of our fellow citizens would also agree that the LTCH is no infringement and given a little creative formation of the questions, they'd also agree that the average citizen has no need to own a machinegun or short barreled rifle or shotgun.

The problem with that is that we don't have a Bill of Needs, and once again, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. All of the above are infringements.

Banning child molesting leads to banning of intercourse? Not a valid comparison. Banning people from having working sex organs because they might eventually commit some type of molestation, now we're getting closer to the comparison. Remember, you're advocating the ability of government to ban the mere possession of an item; that has nothing to do with using it.

Possession of a nuclear weapon is not the same as the possession of some benign "item." The nature of these weapons precludes them from inclusion in your broad platitudes and principles, IMHO.

At what point is the nature of the weapon acceptable for mere citizens to be permitted to own (after asking permission of their servants to do so, of course)? Suppose I want dynamite. Do I have to justify why or specify in what manner I intend to use it to do so? (This of course presumes that I'm truthful in giving my reasons.)

Lastly, I'm sure your point in your closing sentence is to show that the Founders were not infallible. True, they were not. They were far wiser than most (perhaps all) of the living citizens today, however, despite their prejudices.

The founding fathers argued amongst each others the same, or worse, than modern day politicians do. While they were excellent statesmen, and provided an excellent framework for a government, their blatant hypocrisy in enslaving others while espousing "freedom for all" leads me to believe that men haven't changed much in the last 200....or 2000 years.


Blessings,
Bill

When everything you know tells you that the woman who cooks, cleans, and raises your children is inferior, and when you have no reference to prove with certainty that the people you call "slaves" are, in fact, people just like you, you have no reason to not treat them as such. Note that in NO way do I condone that behavior nor excuse it. I understand where it came from, much as I understand that most liberals think they're doing what's right and good for society. I don't agree with many of the precepts they embrace, but I understand that they think they're doing the right thing.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Westside]

WOW did I open up a can of worms. The point I was trying to make was not what we should or shouldn't be allowed to do or have. But rather what we can or can't do or have as a result of legislative action by the government that results in punishment. The severity of punishment is mute for the point of my argument.

Just because you can yell fire in a crowded theater doesn't mean you should.

Should and Will are two very different words that have lost there true meanings in today's conversational language.
Should - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Will - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[HICKMAN]

I think some of you guys are seeing my point. Most parents have STOPPED teaching their boys how to be MEN! Most boys these days have no idea how to shoot a gun, skin a squirrel, start a fire, split wood or even catch and skin a fish.

Too much time on computers, watching TV, playing little league or pee-wee football... not giving equal time to hunting, fishing, camping or even basic skills.

The Constitution doesn't require us to "take training" to invoke our 2nd Amendment right... because owning, carrying and using a gun was NORMAL!

The responsibility, like everything else in life, falls squarely on the parents.

 

[Westside]

I think some of you guys are seeing my point. Most parents have STOPPED teaching their boys how to be MEN! Most boys these days have no idea how to shoot a gun, skin a squirrel, start a fire, split wood or even catch and skin a fish.

Too much time on computers, watching TV, playing little league or pee-wee football... not giving equal time to hunting, fishing, camping or even basic skills.

The Constitution doesn't require us to "take training" to invoke our 2nd Amendment right... because owning, carrying and using a gun was NORMAL!

The responsibility, like everything else in life, falls squarely on the parents.

We are not arguing the quality/methods of parenting in this thread. That is for another thread. The point of this thread is should you be allowed to carry a gun or other weapon. Just because your parents didn't teach you something doesn't mean you can't do it. And Just because you do take a training class doesn't mean you CAN do something.

 

[Bill of Rights]

If you feel threatened by someone else's owning/using a gun, do you have the right to take that gun away from them?

Would that fall under anyones definition of self defense?

Absolutely, if that person is using the gun in a manner that is a clear, present, and immediate danger to me or someone important to me. Otherwise, I'd have to see some very convincing facts to make it acceptable IMHO.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Silverado]

When everything you know tells you that the woman who cooks, cleans, and raises your children is inferior, and when you have no reference to prove with certainty that the people you call "slaves" are, in fact, people just like you, you have no reason to not treat them as such. Note that in NO way do I condone that behavior nor excuse it. I understand where it came from, much as I understand that most liberals think they're doing what's right and good for society. I don't agree with many of the precepts they embrace, but I understand that they think they're doing the right thing.

Blessings,
Bill

Now who is making excuses for ridiculous ideas that even a 5 year old knows better than to believe? There were a good many men who realized that slavery was wrong in the 1700's, so don't give me that "product of their time" BS. Was committing adultery with your slaves part and parcel of life in the 1700's also, or does Thomas Jefferson get a pass because you agree with his politics?

I'm afraid we'll just have to disagree on a great many things. Your naive idealism will never mesh with my objective realism.

 

[wag1911]

The Militia Act of 1792

See Article 1. It gives us a pretty clear indication of what an early Congress, with help from some of our Founding Fathers, felt was the armament necessary to be carried by the common man for service in times of emergency.

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less han twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

Note that it's a list of the same armament that was regularly carried by enlisted troops.

Today's soldier carries everything from machine guns on down to knives. So far as I know, they do not regularly carry nuclear arms (though one could make the case of suitcase nukes - not regular carry gear, however). Today's common man should be able to carry everything from machine guns on down to knives - AND NOT BE INFRINGED. Nuclear arms, not so much.

So that no Helmke types come in here thinking that this only applies to the National Guard, let one of our founders explain it to you:

Richard Henry Lee Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 169 (1788) - A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Now who is making excuses for ridiculous ideas that even a 5 year old knows better than to believe? There were a good many men who realized that slavery was wrong in the 1700's, so don't give me that "product of their time" BS. Was committing adultery with your slaves part and parcel of life in the 1700's also, or does Thomas Jefferson get a pass because you agree with his politics?

I'm afraid we'll just have to disagree on a great many things. Your naive idealism will never mesh with my objective realism.

Our current politicians know that theft is wrong, too, as is adultery, as is pederasty, and yet, they still do those things, too. I don't excuse the actions of those men, quite the contrary. Yes, five-year-olds today know better than to believe those ideas. Did they in the 1700s? I don't know. There were other pressures, economic among them, that pushed for slavery to remain, too. Again, that does not excuse it. I would ask you, though, if your actions in criminal justice were viewed in 2241, would the present-day use of chemical agents to cause incapacitation be viewed as barbaric? I think they might, but it's one of the best tools available today for that purpose.
Was adultery with slaves part and parcel? Possibly. I don't know and haven't done a study of it. Whether it was or not, though, it's still wrong. When you make promises to someone to be faithful to them, more especially if you make those promises before God, there should be an expectation that you will fulfill those promises. This does not in any way take away from the value of Mr. Jefferson's views on the nature and place of government in our lives, any more than Adolf Hitler's idea that became the Volkswagen excuses his murderous insanity.

I am an idealist, yes, but naivete is not something of which I'm often accused, nor something I've been correctly accused of in many, many years. I hold ideals and principles as I said upthread. I am also a realist, however, in that I do understand the points you're making (again, as I said upthread) that nukes in private hands would probably be a very bad thing. In our society, people in general are not very self-responsible. Specific people, however, are, and either way, I don't agree with government telling me what I'm allowed to own or carry. That's not a free society. If freedom and liberty are anathema to you, you're absolutely correct: We'll have to disagree.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

The Militia Act of 1792

See Article 1. It gives us a pretty clear indication of what an early Congress, with help from some of our Founding Fathers, felt was the armament necessary to be carried by the common man for service in times of emergency.

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less han twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

Note that it's a list of the same armament that was regularly carried by enlisted troops.

Today's soldier carries everything from machine guns on down to knives. So far as I know, they do not regularly carry nuclear arms (though one could make the case of suitcase nukes - not regular carry gear, however). Today's common man should be able to carry everything from machine guns on down to knives - AND NOT BE INFRINGED. Nuclear arms, not so much.

So that no Helmke types come in here thinking that this only applies to the National Guard, let one of our founders explain it to you:

Richard Henry Lee Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 169 (1788) - A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.

Now there is an argument against private ownership of nukes with which I could agree... the catch is that in Revolutionary times, there was no agency that possessed the "bigger stuff" (cannon and ammo wagons then, tanks and Stingers, etc. today.) The people were as well armed as the troops with what they personally carried. When the troops are possessed of the ability to disrupt any and all communication without interfering with their own, when they can bring to bear a weapon that can incapacitate the people who employ them, what one carries on his person is only part of the picture, IMHO.

There are no easy answers, I think, but the gov't having control over arms is not the right one in any event, IMHO.

Thanks for your post.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Westside]

Our current politicians know that theft is wrong, too, as is adultery, as is pederasty, and yet, they still do those things, too. I don't excuse the actions of those men, quite the contrary. Yes, five-year-olds today know better than to believe those ideas. Did they in the 1700s? I don't know. There were other pressures, economic among them, that pushed for slavery to remain, too. Again, that does not excuse it. I would ask you, though, if your actions in criminal justice were viewed in 2241, would the present-day use of chemical agents to cause incapacitation be viewed as barbaric? I think they might, but it's one of the best tools available today for that purpose.
Was adultery with slaves part and parcel? Possibly. I don't know and haven't done a study of it. Whether it was or not, though, it's still wrong. When you make promises to someone to be faithful to them, more especially if you make those promises before God, there should be an expectation that you will fulfill those promises. This does not in any way take away from the value of Mr. Jefferson's views on the nature and place of government in our lives, any more than Adolf Hitler's idea that became the Volkswagen excuses his murderous insanity.

I am an idealist, yes, but naivete is not something of which I'm often accused, nor something I've been correctly accused of in many, many years. I hold ideals and principles as I said upthread. I am also a realist, however, in that I do understand the points you're making (again, as I said upthread) that nukes in private hands would probably be a very bad thing. In our society, people in general are not very self-responsible. Specific people, however, are, and either way, I don't agree with government telling me what I'm allowed to own or carry. That's not a free society. If freedom and liberty are anathema to you, you're absolutely correct: We'll have to disagree.

Blessings,
Bill

And the word of the day is brought to you by BILL OF RIGHTS.

anathema Anathema - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

You may now returned to your regularly scheduled thread.

 

[Silverado]

If freedom and liberty are anathema to you, you're absolutely correct: We'll have to disagree.

Blessings,
Bill

I am all for as much freedom as possible, so long as civilization remains. Liberty without responsibility is chaos, and there can be no civilization OR liberty when chaos rules. Since you and I agree that people are not "self-responsible," as you put it, then one can only draw the conclusion that it would be wholly irresponsible to allow the proliferation of nuclear arms to every individual. Perhaps to allow such a thing would be the technical ideal of complete freedom, but when measured against reality, it would bring the destruction of any semblance of freedom that you hold dear. See Afghanistan or Somalia, with it's lack of government and attendant power struggles between the various warlords and tribes.

I'm not willing to risk millions of lives over an abstract concept of what you believe "freedom" to be. If you feel that your unachievable non-reality based goal of total and complete freedom, without reasonable regulation in a governed society, is worth watching the world burn, well....you are free to believe that. Thankfully, yours is certainly an extremist view.

Freedom is not an anathema to me. But ludicrosity certainly is.

 

[Hammerhead]

I am all for as much freedom as possible, so long as civilization remains. Liberty without responsibility is chaos, and there can be no civilization OR liberty when chaos rules. Since you and I agree that people are not "self-responsible," as you put it, then one can only draw the conclusion that it would be wholly irresponsible to allow the proliferation of nuclear arms to every individual. Perhaps to allow such a thing would be the technical ideal of complete freedom, but when measured against reality, it would bring the destruction of any semblance of freedom that you hold dear. See Afghanistan or Somalia, with it's lack of government and attendant power struggles between the various warlords and tribes.

I'm not willing to risk millions of lives over an abstract concept of what you believe "freedom" to be. If you feel that your unachievable non-reality based goal of total and complete freedom, without reasonable regulation in a governed society, is worth watching the world burn, well....you are free to believe that. Thankfully, yours is certainly an extremist view.

Freedom is not an anathema to me. But ludicrosity certainly is.

I think you and Bill are on the same page. Bill's not suggesting that everyone be allowed to own, use, or carry nukes on a regular basis. That is not realistic. However, the choice should be in the hands of the person or people, not the government. This is the principle backing the 2A.

The freedom is in the choice. If politicians take that choice away, they've taken the freedom. Should you or I carry a suitcase nuke everywhere we go, just in case? No, simply because it's irrational and goes against my (and probably your) common sense. However, what has happened is that people have forgotten that personal responsibility and accountability means more freedoms.

The populace cries out when "bad menz with gunz hurts kiddies" and want guns restricted accordingly, refusing to place the blame squarely on the "bad menz" where it belongs. You see it after every shooting tragedy. Columbine - knee jerk reaction to kids with guns at school. VA Tech - knee jerk reaction to wrongfully obtained guns. Arizona - knee jerk reaction to extended GLOCK magazines. Yes, people want to see "justice" and would feel better if the shooters would be tried, convicted and sentenced (preferably to death they say) but they also blame the inanimate object because it caused the shooter to do bad things.

The focusing on the object used instead of the person wielding it leads to hopolophobic and tapinophobic ferver which politicians who have their own agendas swoop in licking their chops and promising to stop the bad things from happening, if only they'd be allowed to regulate the bad objects. We all know that these regulations on "bad objects" do nothing to stop criminals, who by their nature ignore laws and regulations, but trample the rights of the law abiding and those who take personal responsibility and accountability for their actions.

To paraphrase a well known pro-2A statement, tactical nukes don't kill people, people wielding tactical nukes kill people. Or another, "the suitcase nuke in my living room didn't jump up and detonate turning my neighborhood into glass at all today, it must be defective since it just sat there."

I could go on, but my point is that people stop taking personal responsibility and realizing they're accountable for their own actions, they expect to either A) get away with anything (i.e. criminals) or 2) they expect the someone else to do it for them (i.e. the government) so they can feel all warm and fuzzy and "safe". This is also why they get their undies in a twist when those of us who do take responsibility and realize we're accountable for our actions do the things we do in the name of freedom and personal protection. Their sensibilities are offended, their warm and fuzzies are interrupted, and their false morally superior reliance on someone mandated to protect them is disturbed.

Shall not be infringed doesn't have caveats, not for hopolophobia, not for type, style or size, and certainly not for blowhard ego chest bumping promising to rid the world of bad things.

 

[alvispace]

There's no mandatory training for how to perform a safe liquor store hold up. Shouldn't we concentrate on getting those guys to be safe before worrying about keeping non-criminals from hurting others? The least they could do is invent a gun with sights on the side for when a gang bangers gets serious and start biting their bottom lip and turns his gun 90 degrees. That would improve unsafe aiming right?

 

[beararms1776]

The point of this thread is should you be allowed to carry a gun or other weapon.

Yes! A person who does not display a danger to themself or others should not have their natural right restricted. A firearm has only 2 purposes for proper use, shooting sports and self defense against the armed tyrant.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I think you and Bill are on the same page. Bill's not suggesting that everyone be allowed to own, use, or carry nukes on a regular basis. That is not realistic. However, the choice should be in the hands of the person or people, not the government. This is the principle backing the 2A.

The freedom is in the choice. If politicians take that choice away, they've taken the freedom. Should you or I carry a suitcase nuke everywhere we go, just in case? No, simply because it's irrational and goes against my (and probably your) common sense. However, what has happened is that people have forgotten that personal responsibility and accountability means more freedoms.

The populace cries out when "bad menz with gunz hurts kiddies" and want guns restricted accordingly, refusing to place the blame squarely on the "bad menz" where it belongs. You see it after every shooting tragedy. Columbine - knee jerk reaction to kids with guns at school. VA Tech - knee jerk reaction to wrongfully obtained guns. Arizona - knee jerk reaction to extended GLOCK magazines. Yes, people want to see "justice" and would feel better if the shooters would be tried, convicted and sentenced (preferably to death they say) but they also blame the inanimate object because it caused the shooter to do bad things.

The focusing on the object used instead of the person wielding it leads to hopolophobic and tapinophobic ferver which politicians who have their own agendas swoop in licking their chops and promising to stop the bad things from happening, if only they'd be allowed to regulate the bad objects. We all know that these regulations on "bad objects" do nothing to stop criminals, who by their nature ignore laws and regulations, but trample the rights of the law abiding and those who take personal responsibility and accountability for their actions.

To paraphrase a well known pro-2A statement, tactical nukes don't kill people, people wielding tactical nukes kill people. Or another, "the suitcase nuke in my living room didn't jump up and detonate turning my neighborhood into glass at all today, it must be defective since it just sat there."

I could go on, but my point is that people stop taking personal responsibility and realizing they're accountable for their own actions, they expect to either A) get away with anything (i.e. criminals) or 2) they expect the someone else to do it for them (i.e. the government) so they can feel all warm and fuzzy and "safe". This is also why they get their undies in a twist when those of us who do take responsibility and realize we're accountable for our actions do the things we do in the name of freedom and personal protection. Their sensibilities are offended, their warm and fuzzies are interrupted, and their false morally superior reliance on someone mandated to protect them is disturbed.

Shall not be infringed doesn't have caveats, not for hopolophobia, not for type, style or size, and certainly not for blowhard ego chest bumping promising to rid the world of bad things.

Pretty much this, yes, except that it's not a matter of everyone being "allowed" to carry a suitcase nuke, a Stinger, an AK, or even a .25 Auto, it's a matter of the whole culture where "allowed" is the paradigm. I don't agree with everyone needing permission to do so. If you are free, you are free and ask no permission. Our society has come to a place where we celebrate and congratulate "getting your permit" or license or whatever your individual state calls it. Why? Because having that little paper is the ticket to being "allowed" by man to exercise the rights given you by God at your birth. Four of our states have it as close to right as it can be in this country. Maybe the "Constitutional Carry" map will look like the "Shall issue" map currently does someday... Maybe I'll actually live to see it in my lifetime. I can hope.

Thanks for your help.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[MTC]

The thread topic was the phrase, "I support the Second Amendment, but ..." or people who use it or similar as a prefatory clause to establish, in their mind, some sort of bona fides with their audience before moving on to the main clause, the statutory restrictions they support or advocate.

Whether it be a candidate for political office or a casual acquaintance, it follows the same pattern, varying depending on the subtopic at hand.
When the topic was the media hoopla over the mislabeled "assault weapons", it was, "I'm a lifelong hunter and NRA member, but ..." followed by his statement of support and reasoning why scary-looking semiauto firearms should be banned or restricted to police and military only.

When the topic is mandatory licensing/permitting (requirement to apply and submit personal info, fingerprints, background check, get sign-off/approval from a police or bureaucratic agency assigned to the task, etc.) and be charged a fee as a prerequisite to carrying your own sidearm off your own property, it goes something like, "I'm a strong supporter of [firm believer in] constitutional carry, but ..." followed by lengthy diatribes that belie that prefatory statement, often using the dreaded 'convicted felons and the mentally ill' in various straw man arguments as rationale for their support for this number one tenet of gun control.

The nuke argument is an extension of what I call "the rocket launcher argument". So named due to its frequent use by gun control proponents, especially during the "assault weapons" craze of the '90s, not only for shock value, but also to ridicule citizens advocating repeal of infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, by derailing the discussion into a type of argumentum ad absurdum. (They sometimes substitute "bazooka", "RPG", or similar.)

It behooves RKBA supporters not to be drawn into such arguments over what in some circles is classified as ordnance, and instead concentrate on the definitions of the words in the 2nd Amendment and various State constitutions that cannot be disputed without revealing the intellectual dishonesty of those who seek to redefine the terms to justify and rationalize the infringements they seek to impose.

When they aren't busying themselves with the terms "well-regulated" and "militia" using 20th century definitions, advocates of gun bans and restrictions will move on to argue about what constitutes "arms", and finally - as seen through the "new paradigm" pushed by long-time proponents of the collective rights theory - the redefinition of the word right itself. (Possibly as a stop-loss for the gun control movement, as more and more citizens are realizing the extent of the infringements, and to persuade the American people through their "modern scholarship" that the licensing of their rights is somehow legitimate and "what the Founders thought".)

If we cannot agree on basic infantry small arms: rifles (to include select-fire), pistols, shotguns and machine guns, then there is no point in moving on to discuss more destructive weapons or ordnance.

If we cannot even agree on what a right is, and what it means to have a right, there is no point in moving on to self-imposed or statutory restrictions, then issues of crime and punishment.