But why should some not be allowed to own a firearm at all. It's a right, right?
Do you REALLY believe in the 2nd Amendment?
- Thread starter vito
- Start date
- Status
But why should some not be allowed to own a firearm at all. It's a right, right?
So, all good with illegal immigrants and domestic abusers?
Someone call Websters, elitism is being redefined.
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
I can help you with that.
The long gun demonstrations in Texas were used as a tactic to bring public attention to a grievance. Eyebrow-raising demonstrations are nothing new when it comes to rights grievances, and have had a long history of success in America.
Despite prophets of doom and naysayers who also profess their support of the 2A, while the OC demonstrations were going on across Texas both gubernatorial candidates were openly supporting OC freedom. I guess their campaign staffs must have forgot to tell them about the public backlash tsunami, eh? The dreamed up avelanch of public backlash that naysayers were crying about and predicting would set back gun rights (some stubbornly still do) was little more than wishful thinking to satisfy their own selfish personal bias against OC.
Open Carry will soon become effective. The good people of Texas will prove worthy of these freedoms as are the good people all across the nation who are free to legally open carry.
Don't fret... your worry about open carry has been proven wrong in over 40 states across America.
Last edited:
keith44spl
Member
*
I think that sound more like a definition of an narcissist's point view....than that of an elitist....
.
Last edited:
You know...I see it written in the Bill of Rights (because it's not in the Constitution itself), but I've been totally unable to find what chapter and verse mentions the right to bear firearms in the Bible - it's not in the Old Testament, the New Testament or even the Apocrypha.
Can you help me out with that? Or are you referencing some other god or some other holy text?
I've always regarded the Second amendment as a right written, ratified and conferred upon us by our founding father Americans, and as such potentially able to be repealed by our fellow contemporary Americans if at some point in time, a 2/3rds majority of Americans decides that the "right"is more trouble than it's worth.
Old TexMex
Member
Well sir, since "you've always regarded it..." Then that should be enough for you.
The Right to K&B wouldn't be the first to be trampled by man who are ever so much smarter than their Creator.
keith44spl
Member
I'm a thinkin here, about the above post....Of BB57
Not to cross over the religion rules....
Jesus said in Luke 22:36King James Version (KJV)
36: ..... "But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
Peter carried a sword, David killed a giant with a sling, a popular weapon in it's time....
My Bible, the KJV is full of folks killing....Why, the first man was killed with a jaw bone of an ***.....
I think it all started in the Garden with that ol serpent. So, after that, we all needed to be a packin'
.
Not to cross over the religion rules....
Jesus said in Luke 22:36King James Version (KJV)
36: ..... "But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
Peter carried a sword, David killed a giant with a sling, a popular weapon in it's time....
My Bible, the KJV is full of folks killing....Why, the first man was killed with a jaw bone of an ***.....
I think it all started in the Garden with that ol serpent. So, after that, we all needed to be a packin'
.
Last edited:
Absalom
SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
You are putting your finger on a big problem, that a lot of 2A-advocates do not seem to appreciate.
They seem to view constitutional rights as something written in stone which is eternal, absolute and inviolable. The reality is that that simply isn't so.
There is a gentleman in our parts who practices open-carry with an AR for the declared purpose of "educating the public about 2A rights". He is a nice guy, but when you talk with him, as I have, you detect the attitude that people who don't like it need to be habituated to seeing openly carried guns, and if that doesn't work for them they can go to heck because it's a right, and they can't do anything about it.
Of course, if enough people get ticked off enough, they CAN do something about it. Ever since the Founding Fathers used the principle of "Popular Sovereignty" to get rid of King George, and built a republic on that principle, ANYTHING is disposable if a sufficiently large majority of the people wants to dispose of it.
Right now, we're doing pretty well. CCW laws expanding, open carry, reciprocity laws, Supreme Court; all going in the right direction. But some of these are the result of political constellations that may not last 5, 10 or 20 years down the road; demographics certainly don't favor us.
So in-your-face triumphalism may be counterproductive. And unnecessarily antagonizing people to make a point about "rights" may make you feel all righteous, but is likely not the best long-term strategy. "But we won!" is not an argument.
Last edited:
OP
vito
US Veteran
Talk to any other than a far-leftist minister, priest, or rabbi and they will answer your question better than I can from a religious perspective. But in the Ten Commandants there is a prohibition on murder "That shalt not murder" (often mis-translated as "thou shalt not kill". The bible describes moral killing such as in wartime. The concept that life is sacred, and valued by God, gives us the moral obligation as well as the right to defend ourselves. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and when they stated in the Declaration of Independence the phrase about rights "endowed by our Creator" to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" they were re-affirming that these are natural, God given rights to all humans. The right to life clearly includes the right to defend one's life against an attacker.
The Bill of Rights, as the first ten amendments to the Constitution, is a part of the Constitution, not a lesser ranked authority, as soon as it was ratified by the states. It does not give us the right to bear arms, it affirms that this is a natural right that the government cannot infringe upon. As with the other rights included in the Bill of Rights, it is a limit upon the power of government, not something the government is permitting citizens to exercise.
Over the years since the Bill of Rights was ratified, courts have held that the 2nd Amendment rights are not without limit, and certain specific infringements have been ruled to be within the boundaries of the Constitution. But recent Supreme Court decisions, such as the Heller decision and the MacDonald vs City of Chicago have confirmed that the rights included in the 2nd Amendment apply to individuals and not some formalized government led and sanctioned "militia".
The Bill of Rights, as the first ten amendments to the Constitution, is a part of the Constitution, not a lesser ranked authority, as soon as it was ratified by the states. It does not give us the right to bear arms, it affirms that this is a natural right that the government cannot infringe upon. As with the other rights included in the Bill of Rights, it is a limit upon the power of government, not something the government is permitting citizens to exercise.
Over the years since the Bill of Rights was ratified, courts have held that the 2nd Amendment rights are not without limit, and certain specific infringements have been ruled to be within the boundaries of the Constitution. But recent Supreme Court decisions, such as the Heller decision and the MacDonald vs City of Chicago have confirmed that the rights included in the 2nd Amendment apply to individuals and not some formalized government led and sanctioned "militia".
Wolves in sheeps clothing, progressives. They see no limits on gov't power over the individual.
Rights are not granted at the whim of the electorate.
Rights are not granted at the whim of the electorate.
Last edited:
Old TexMex
Member
A little clarification from me on my post I believe is called for: the Bill of Rights is a group of Amendements and thus "a part of" the Constitution. The Constitution shows us that the Peoples rights are not granted by government, but rather protected both by and from government and man. Therefor, I assert, those Rights came from elsewhere. The Constitution and Declaration does mention and allude to Natural Rights, and Gods Nature.
Everything comes from that source, not government, which can only restrict, not give, Natural Rights.
Thank you for your patience.
Everything comes from that source, not government, which can only restrict, not give, Natural Rights.
Thank you for your patience.
If you're too dangerous to have basic Rights you're too dangerous to be in public. Many of those terrible "convicted felons" served no time in prison. It was simply nothing but a Rights/money grab by the Justice Industry.
See above.
Illegals should be deported as they're discovered. But if we're going to do what we're currently doing than illegals should be allowed guns also.
Old TexMex
Member
For those who missed civics class regarding our Rights, this researcher has given a few points from those who framed our Constitution, and why:
Bill Of Rights
"Find out just what the people will submit to and you will have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
Frederick Douglass, August 4, 1857
Bill Of Rights
"Find out just what the people will submit to and you will have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
Frederick Douglass, August 4, 1857
Last edited:
I agree with you about the part in Yellow, but to be fair you have to put it in it's proper context. The people who drafted the Constitution were by and large different people with a different agenda than the folks who drafted the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. The authors of the Constitution were a lot less keen on individual freedom and liberties than they were on creating a government that provided a healthy environment for commerce and property ownership.
As a result the Constitution was thin on protections for individual liberties and freedoms. The Bill of Rights was added as a means to obtain the necessary support to get it ratified by the states.
---
As for the rest, you can "assert they came from elsewhere" all you want, but they were written, ratified and conferred by men. Over the history of the Constitution amendments have been passed that have modified the original document. For example, slavery is no longer allowed and an entire class of people now enjoy freedoms that were denied by the founding fathers - you know...those guys who were so keen on property rights, with the healthy support and agreement of the Genesis 9:25 crowd.
I'd get into my suspicions about God's views on slavery in the US, but that would be getting even further into an inappropriate discussion of religion.
---
I also agree however with this:
/... government, which can only restrict, not give, Natural Rights.
If we're not careful and responsible in our exercise of our second amendment rights, our fellow americans, through our legally established government and our electoral process will restrict the bejeezus out of our "natural rights".
Once again, this is not about "God given rights", it's about the good Lord helping those to help themselves. We need to take that to heart and we need to take personal responsibility for our actions to ensure that we exercise our second amendment rights responsibly and with due consideration and compassion for our fellow man. If not we'll lose them. The Bible has plenty of examples of how things go south in a hurry when men put their own pride, arrogance and self righteousness above their concern for the rights and feelings of their fellow man.
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
What makes you think "we're" not responsible or won't be?
Last edited:
smokindog
Member
Could not disagree more. The whole idea was to restrict and confine the government, not the people. Because of this, many felt it was not necessary to enumerate rights.
Bill Of Rights
Bill Of Rights
TexasRaider
Member
I never fret. Unless some John Wayne wannabe who is living in a 1950's Western movie fantasy sits next to me in a restaurant. I suspect this won't be the end of the arugument, though. Just as Code Pink, NARAL and ACORN have adopted the screaming victim motif of 'My rights are being trampled!' the extreme wing of the gun community has followed suit. I look forward to the morons of Open Carry Texas coming back in a year or two explaining why not being able to have flamethrowers or hand grenades is a hostile plot by a tyrannical government.
However, I can help you, though. Try reading a bit of Judge Antonin Scalia, the most powerfully conservative, originalist, 10th Amendment Justice on the Court in ages, and he succinctly and correctly argues that it is only logical that firearms ownership and carry must have limits. No, you can't have a shoulder fired rocket launcher. That's a limit. Surprise, limits exist. And limiting the open carry of a 30 round M4 from places where the community doesn't want it is NOT infringing on your right. It's respecting the rights of the other 70% that don't want some yahoo cosplaying Rambo next to their kids at Burger King.
It's insane to think anyone should be able to carry any type of weapon anywhere at anytime. That's not a Constitutional argument, that the firearms community's version of 'Si Se Puede"....scream, rant, march, whine, threaten and self flagellate with faux martyrdom while demonizing anyone who dares disagree. Abbot signed that bill because he couldn't NOT sign it - a Hallelujah Chorus of extremist gun fanatics screaming "COMMUNIST OBAMA LOVER!" would have seriously damaged his career. He had no choice but to sign, even though from my understanding he is personally no fan at all of that bill.
You know, it seems like the Counterculture won after all, if 2nd Amendment defenders have to essentially become community organizing demonstrators and agitators, adopting the very tactics of those they say they can't stand, just to get their point across.
Like I said, happily carry openly, if it's the law. But understand that there are a lot of gun owners that realize how unsafe, unwise and selfish it is, and just because they don't line up and crow the same tune you do, doesn't make them turncoat, liberals or Marxist plants. It just means some very intelligent people disagree with a totally unneeded, unwarranted and not-Constitutionally supported law.
TexasRaider
Member
I think that sound more like a definition of an narcissist's point view....than that of an elitist....
Thanks for the active demonstration of the point I made.
You did well, you get a cookie.
smokindog
Member
Precisely why we're a republic and not a democracy, to avoid the tyranny of the majority. And for the record, they are rights, not needs, precisely to keep a few superior thinking people from arbitrarily imposing their values on others.
90+% of southerners supported segregation so by your logic, it should have never been changed. And newsflash, the vast majority of us don't want your children running around restaurants (not burger king) when we're trying to enjoy a nice meal but that'll never happen either.
This is the flaw with the argument that a Federal government should have such sweeping power. It was always intended to have a weak Federal government and localized experiments (the States) so the best systems would flourish/compete and people could decide what was best for them by choosing where to live. Local education, local laws, local taxes, ...
Without debating the pros/cons of openly carrying a shoulder launched missile, can you tell us what right of yours would be violated if I did carry one? Mind you, being hysterically fearful of something is not a violation of your rights. You point that out yourself. I believe you called these people morons.
Stop trying to belittle those that disagree with you and sounding so superior in your views. Your closing statement basically says, "agree with me so you too can be intelligent". If you can't tell, I disagree that you sound intelligent by insulting people and making unsubstantiated claims. You blame others for whining yet that's all you did in your entire post. It was amusing as I read because all along I was thinking, "this sounds like the stereotypical person from Austin".
And for the record, I dislike open carry in most urban situations but I support the rights of those that disagree. But when I'm out working on my property, I want the other person to see that I am not alone. I have my reasons for that and I should NOT have to get YOUR permission nor grant my need.
EDIT - Sir, you will note I refrained from name calling here, I suggest you do the same in the future. Also, if your argument held water, I would suggest you should not carry a badge, let alone a gun, but thankfully for you, I don't get to use my feelings to control your life.
90+% of southerners supported segregation so by your logic, it should have never been changed. And newsflash, the vast majority of us don't want your children running around restaurants (not burger king) when we're trying to enjoy a nice meal but that'll never happen either.
This is the flaw with the argument that a Federal government should have such sweeping power. It was always intended to have a weak Federal government and localized experiments (the States) so the best systems would flourish/compete and people could decide what was best for them by choosing where to live. Local education, local laws, local taxes, ...
Without debating the pros/cons of openly carrying a shoulder launched missile, can you tell us what right of yours would be violated if I did carry one? Mind you, being hysterically fearful of something is not a violation of your rights. You point that out yourself. I believe you called these people morons.
Stop trying to belittle those that disagree with you and sounding so superior in your views. Your closing statement basically says, "agree with me so you too can be intelligent". If you can't tell, I disagree that you sound intelligent by insulting people and making unsubstantiated claims. You blame others for whining yet that's all you did in your entire post. It was amusing as I read because all along I was thinking, "this sounds like the stereotypical person from Austin".
And for the record, I dislike open carry in most urban situations but I support the rights of those that disagree. But when I'm out working on my property, I want the other person to see that I am not alone. I have my reasons for that and I should NOT have to get YOUR permission nor grant my need.
EDIT - Sir, you will note I refrained from name calling here, I suggest you do the same in the future. Also, if your argument held water, I would suggest you should not carry a badge, let alone a gun, but thankfully for you, I don't get to use my feelings to control your life.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
