The argument we ALL need in our back pocket

[Bill of Rights]

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.

Just curious: What do you think is?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jrogers]

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.

This is tinfoilhat territory. The 2nd amendment is safer than it has been in decades. There are no serious threats to firearm ownership on the horizon. Stop taking the nonsense the NRA and GOA sends you to drum up donations seriously and you'll live a much less stressful life.

Cue ten pages of ranting about the UN and Obama and Feinstein and whatever other boogeymen you all are worked up about this week.

 

[N8RV]

This is tinfoilhat territory. The 2nd amendment is safer than it has been in decades. There are no serious threats to firearm ownership on the horizon. Stop taking the nonsense the NRA and GOA sends you to drum up donations seriously and you'll live a much less stressful life.

Cue ten pages of ranting about the UN and Obama and Feinstein and whatever other boogeymen you all are worked up about this week.

Ahhh, the smug condescension of the erudite left. Please don't insult those of us who actually pay attention to current events, have read history and can see clearly the path our country is on. You want to live in denial, go ahead.

 

[Liberty's Teeth]

Oh no, nobody is coming for our guns. They are perfectly safe. I will shut down my Ingo membership now.

 

[gvonpaul]

Well said.

 

[Chaz]

Outstanding info thread!! May I ask you LT, if I can quote part of your first post? It was written well and to the point. But if not, I will put my own quote together. I'm just not a great literary figure.
Thank you.

 

[dmazzio]

Great thread. Thank you LT for the refresher.

 

[hacksawfg]

I respond like this when people say we have nothing to worry about from the government (and yes, I did steal it from the picture).

I like the quote "Sure you can trust the government, ask an Indian (or Native American if you prefer)."

I'm pretty sure anybody from Japan who lived in the US during WWII could also provide some valuable insight on how the government deals with people in times of crisis as well.

 

[cosermann]

Yet another pro 2A ruling. And notice all the use of "self-defense" language:

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/NY0PNXWM.pdf

While the argument of this thread is true, it is the argument for the means of self-defense that is the more fundamental and foundational argument.

 

[Liberty1911]

This is tinfoilhat territory. The 2nd amendment is safer than it has been in decades. There are no serious threats to firearm ownership on the horizon. Stop taking the nonsense the NRA and GOA sends you to drum up donations seriously and you'll live a much less stressful life.

Cue ten pages of ranting about the UN and Obama and Feinstein and whatever other boogeymen you all are worked up about this week.

I agree 2A rights are as strong today as they have been for 80 years.

However, it's foolish to think there isn't a significant segment of the population, and their political leaders, who would take 2A rights from citizens.

Look at the 7th ruling today, it was 2-1. One vote away from upholding a complete ban on CC. You want to make any bets on which political party appointed the judge who was willing to ban CC for all citizens?

People have to be vigilant about their freedom. Elections matter and although Democratic elected officials may not be clamoring for gun bans, they have no problem appointing judges who will take away your rights by judicial fiat.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I agree 2A rights are as strong today as they have been for 80 years.

However, it's foolish to think there isn't a significant segment of the population, and their political leaders, who would take 2A rights from citizens.

Look at the 7th ruling today, it was 2-1. One vote away from upholding a complete ban on CC. You want to make any bets on which political party appointed the judge who was willing to ban CC for all citizens?

People have to be vigilant about their freedom. Elections matter and although Democratic elected officials may not be clamoring for gun bans, they have no problem appointing judges who will take away your rights by judicial fiat.

Just because someone has a D after their name doesn't make them anti, no more so than a R makes them pro-gun rights. Judge Posner, for example, was appointed by Mr. Reagan, but is reportedly pretty strongly anti-gun. His opinion of today belies that, but shows that his personal feelings about the issue don't cloud his dedication to his job and his duty to judge impartially. I respect that.

My point? Don't let party lull you into a false sense of security. Check out candidates' positions yourself, based on their past speeches and more importantly , if available, votes.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[downzero]

Just curious: What do you think is?

Blessings,
Bill

I don't mean to suggest that there was one philosophy in founding the country, but their ideas, and the government they crafted, was truly unique in its time and a model for the world since.

 

[Liberty1911]

Just because someone has a D after their name doesn't make them anti, no more so than a R makes them pro-gun rights. Judge Posner, for example, was appointed by Mr. Reagan, but is reportedly pretty strongly anti-gun. His opinion of today belies that, but shows that his personal feelings about the issue don't cloud his dedication to his job and his duty to judge impartially. I respect that.

My point? Don't let party lull you into a false sense of security. Check out candidates' positions yourself, based on their past speeches and more importantly , if available, votes.



Blessings,
Bill

I agree that "R" or "D" doesn't always indicate how a specific person will vote/rule on a specific issue.

In fact, I don't identify as R or D myself

However, being R or D is generally indicative of what someones views are on a particular issue. Far more R's are supportive of gun rights than D's, and D's are far more likely to view judicial fiat as a valid means to further their agenda.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I agree that "R" or "D" doesn't always indicate how a specific person will vote/rule on a specific issue.

In fact, I don't identify as R or D myself

However, being R or D is generally indicative of what someones views are on a particular issue. Far more R's are supportive of gun rights than D's, and D's are far more likely to view judicial fiat as a valid means to further their agenda.

Usually I agree, and I've made the same argument myself, in re: Rs generally being more supportive of gun-related rights. I'll take issue with your latter comment, however, hopefully without threadjacking too terribly, in that Rs are just as willing to use judges to circumvent laws that are seen as inconvenient. Consider the rhetorical question, "How many Republicans (or Conservatives, if you prefer) would welcome a Supreme Court decision reversing Roe v. Wade?"

The problem is not R vs. D. It's not even Liberal vs. Conservative. The problem is statism vs. liberty. I know some will disagree strongly with my analogy. I welcome the disagreement, noting that it doesn't change the facts.

The OP is completely correct. We have the 2A to protect the 1A. We have both to ensure the Constitutional protections Americans enjoy of our basic and natural rights. My belief in and exercise of my basic rights, so long as that exercise does not infringe upon rights you have by birth (and the reverse as well) should be no one's business and certainly not that of some collective entity called "government".



Blessings,
Bill

 

[Liberty1911]

The problem is not R vs. D. It's not even Liberal vs. Conservative. The problem is statism vs. liberty. I know some will disagree strongly with my analogy. I welcome the disagreement, noting that it doesn't change the facts.

Blessings,
Bill

I think that's a good point and gets to the heart of the issue. I do think though that "strict constructionism" will only be found on the R side of judicial appointees.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I think that's a good point and gets to the heart of the issue. I do think though that "strict constructionism" will only be found on the R side of judicial appointees.

If at all, yes. The Rs have violated the Constitutional mandates of the 10A alone more times than I think any of us care to count, they just do it on different issues. The solution is to go back to that "Strict Constructionism", and I applaud your reply on that basis.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[cosermann]

Came across a couple of Alexander Hamilton quotes along the self-defense lines in an article by Walter Williams recently:

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed," adding later, "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government." - Alexander Hamilton

The second quote is from Federalist Paper #28 which can be referred to here - The Federalist Papers - THOMAS (Library of Congress) .

So, again, this right to rebel against tyranny is nothing more than the aggregated right of self-defense expressed in the context of government of, by, and for the people.


[/FONT]

 

[Liberty's Teeth]

I totally agree with your original statement and the most current.

 

[Tandor]

+1 Liberty!

 

[Liberty's Teeth]

I like that! +1 for Liberty! (Not me, liberty)