National The 2nd Amendment Is Clear.

[cigars]

Going forward, Washington AG Bobby Fergusen shall be known and referred to as Turd Fergusen. That is all.

 

[Xaevian]

A group of people could stare at a black and white piece of paper for years. If that group was constantly being told, by people they respected, that the piece of paper is actually a rainbow of colors, eventually many in that group will agree that it's a rainbow of colors. The people that brushed off that rainbow of colors nonsense and realize it's still a black and white piece of paper would probably be true 2A supporters.

But who would be right? Your interpretation or theirs? How do you know that you're not the one getting it wrong? What if it was 100 people seeing it one way, and you alone see it another? What of it were 10,000? 1 million? Do you see what I'm getting at?

 

[American123]

A thought provoking take, to be sure. I just place more importance on the will of a society as a whole over the will of the individual. Without the agreement on and adherence to the social contract it's just anarchy all the way down.

If you study history you will see that this adherence to "the will of society" has led to more than 100 million people being killed by their own governments over the course of the 20th century.

What is a society except for many individuals? By promoting the freedom of the individual, you promote the freedom of a society - without freedom of an individual there can be no free society.

Your concern of absolute anarchy is not warranted or historically supported. Armed societies, societies where there is widespread ownership of capable weaponry, are inherently more stable and safe than societies where only specific groups are armed. What we see time and time again throughout history is that the disarmed populace is at the mercy of the armed groups, and it time and time again had not ended well for the disarmed populace.

If people truly cared about "saving life" they would see that the mass slaughter of disarmed societies accounts for more death (by multiple orders of magnitude) than the deaths that occur as a result of criminal activity.

As I've said in another thread. During the 20th century, disarmed populaces "for safety" resulted in more than 100 million people being killed either by their own government or at the hands of an armed group with an agenda. America could experience a mass shooting, killing 20 people a day, every day of the year for 100 years, and it wouldn't even be 1% of the deaths the world saw of "disarmed people" during the 20th century.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Those who choose to interpret the meaning of the 2nd has A) Never actually read the simple sentences it is , and B) Never read the Federalist Papers to actually get the truth of it! Anyone who has a problem with the basic text of the 2nd is an Idiot who shouldn't be allowed to come near law making! It was written to be as simple and easy to understand as possible, so that there could be no doubt whatso ever as to it's clear intensions as an absolute!

 

[American123]

But who would be right? Your interpretation or theirs? How do you know that you're not the one getting it wrong? What if it was 100 people seeing it one way, and you alone see it another? What of it were 10,000? 1 million? Do you see what I'm getting at?

This starts to get at the notion of relativism. Which is to say that "the truth" depends on how many people believe it.

The truth is the truth regardless of the whole world believing a lie and 1 person believing what is, in fact, the truth.

Regarding the constitution, people interpreting it through their modern lens of what it means is entirely unnecessary. There are documented speeches, and written works of founding fathers that express the intentions of the constitution, no interpretation is needed.

 

[CamoDeafie]

It was for the Greater Good that the Jews were rounded up into cattle cars.

It was for the Greater Good that Chinese peasants were sacrified.

It was for the Greater Good that North Korea be allowed to continue.

It was for the Greater Good that Native Americans were nearly exterminated and assimilated

It was for the Greater Good that Saddam was left alone the first time around

It was for the Greater Good that blacks were enslaved

It was for the Greater Good that Jim Crow laws were made

It was for the Greater Good that Prohibition passed.

It was for the Greater Good that NFA was passed

It was for the Greater Good that NAFTA was made, sending jobs overseas

It was for the Greater Good that Christians forced other people to convert or die in the Middle Ages.


The Greater Good has been used as justification for a great many terrible things.

 

[American123]

It was for the Greater Good that the Jews were rounded up into cattle cars.

It was for the Greater Good that Chinese peasants were sacrified.

It was for the Greater Good that North Korea be allowed to continue.

It was for the Greater Good that Native Americans were nearly exterminated and assimilated

It was for the Greater Good that Saddam was left alone the first time around

It was for the Greater Good that blacks were enslaved

It was for the Greater Good that Jim Crow laws were made

It was for the Greater Good that Prohibition passed.

It was for the Greater Good that NFA was passed

It was for the Greater Good that NAFTA was made, sending jobs overseas

It was for the Greater Good that Christians forced other people to convert or die in the Middle Ages.


The Greater Good has been used as justification for a great many terrible things.

Literally the only time the phrase, "the greater good" is used is to attempt to justify oppressing or otherwise negatively impacting one group for the benefit of another.

 

[VanceInWA]

I always tell anti-gun people that if they want to change gun ownership in America, they need to repeal the second amendment. As it stands, as long as the second exists, it's clear cut in my mind that the people should be able to bear arms as they see fit.

I do, however, and probably in opposition to most opinion here, agree that the Constitution is and should be a living document, and should change with the times - so, if the second amendment actually is repealed by vote of the majority of our nations citizenry, I would respect that decision.

While the constitution can change, as we saw with alcohol, my respect for eliminating the 2nd would be zero. I see nothing respectful about that.

 

[nwslopoke]

If it was so clear, why is there an issue?

The bullies in the capital put up a fence and backed it up with 19 yo armed with machine guns. They don't have a problem with guns. They believe guns are only to kill. What was the threat? If DC was under such a threat why were they planning to not defend civilians?

Those politicians believe they are like kings. Not accountable to the people anymore. Any politician supporting defunding police and pushing gun control clearly wants a submissive unarmed population. Those unarmed are willing to trust those that want you unarmed.

 

[arakboss]

But who would be right? Your interpretation or theirs? How do you know that you're not the one getting it wrong? What if it was 100 people seeing it one way, and you alone see it another? What of it were 10,000? 1 million? Do you see what I'm getting at?

I guess I will be happy eating lunch at the table by myself.

 

[HelloKitty187]

Anyone that starts a sentence with "I support the second amendment, but..." needs a kick in the sack.

 

[No_Regerts]

If it was so clear, why is there an issue?

I used to think chromosomes and the gear in the pants meant something, but apparently I'm wrong.

 

[NeoBlackdog]

A thought provoking take, to be sure. I just place more importance on the will of a society as a whole over the will of the individual. Without the agreement on and adherence to the social contract it's just anarchy all the way down.

And that's where you go wrong! Our system is set up to protect the individual, not the group. If each individual's rights are protected then the group as a whole is protected.
If you want to be protected as part of 'the herd' then move to friggin' China.

 

[arakboss]

I used to think chromosomes and the gear in the pants meant something, but apparently I'm wrong.

It's how you interpret the chromosomes.

 

[arakboss]

I could be way off base. Maybe having a 2nd Amendment that is interpreted differently by many different people and generations will expand our freedoms around firearms? That doesn't appear to be the case so far?

My belief is that, having many people who are claiming to support the 2nd Amendment but with seemingly unlimited exceptions, weakens it. Allowing one exception invites additional exceptions, which has resulted in where we are today. Those who promote exceptions have already got their foot well in the door. It's highly unlikely we will ever be able to fully shut that door again. Maybe the best we can do is to prevent the exceptions from gaining further entry?

 

[Stomper]

I disagree with the idea that you can support the 2nd Amendment and simultaneously support infringment of firearm freedoms. Here is another quote from Washington AG Bobby Furgeson:

""I support the second amendment, you can support the second amendment and still support common sense gun reform,"

This is false. You can not support both. The 2nd Amendment is clear when it says "shall not infringe". It does not say that you can infringe when it is politically convenient, when public opinion leans that direction or when kids are getting shot up in schools. If you don't like how absolute the 2nd Amendment is then there is path for Congress to change it. They can add all the exceptions they want if a large majority wishes to do so.

There is a very very long list of people from Biden to Scalia who claim to support the 2nd Amendment in one breath and with the next breath list exceptions where our firearm freedoms can be infringed upon.

Call yourself whatever you want but the 2A is absolute regardless of what tortured interpretations the robes use to limit it. We are forced to live with their interpretations or risk the potential of being locked up. A true 2A supporter won't be fooled by those who support infringment of our freedoms while also professing themselves as 2A supporters. You can be one or the other but not both.

Then it's not very clear, is it?

Should anyone actually be surprised? The Ten Commandments are also pretty clear and concise, and look how well THAT has turned out.

 

[Yarome]

The 2nd is one flippin sentence. It's short, concise, written in plain english and contains no ambiguity. Politicians and even every day folk may wish to try and redefine what a "free state", or "infringement" means, but I believe it was written so clearly and in as few as words as possible for the express purpose of leaving no room whatsoever of reinterpretation.

If it is the will of the people to alter the languge and meaning of the 2A we are absolutely free to do so... and there is a process for that. Use it, or shut the bubblegum UP!

Respectfully.....

 

[Paolung]

I disagree with the idea that you can support the 2nd Amendment and simultaneously support infringment of firearm freedoms. Here is another quote from Washington AG Bobby Furgeson:

""I support the second amendment, you can support the second amendment and still support common sense gun reform,"

This is false. You can not support both. The 2nd Amendment is clear when it says "shall not infringe". It does not say that you can infringe when it is politically convenient, when public opinion leans that direction or when kids are getting shot up in schools. If you don't like how absolute the 2nd Amendment is then there is path for Congress to change it. They can add all the exceptions they want if a large majority wishes to do so.

There is a very very long list of people from Biden to Scalia who claim to support the 2nd Amendment in one breath and with the next breath list exceptions where our firearm freedoms can be infringed upon.

Call yourself whatever you want but the 2A is absolute regardless of what tortured interpretations the robes use to limit it. We are forced to live with their interpretations or risk the potential of being locked up. A true 2A supporter won't be fooled by those who support infringment of our freedoms while also professing themselves as 2A supporters. You can be one or the other but not both.

... the Constitution is and should be a living document, and should change with the times - so, if the second amendment actually is repealed by vote of the majority of our nations citizenry, I would respect that decision.

That's not what's meant by a "living document" as used by the liberal left, in my experience. They don't mean "it can change (because times change), provided the methods devised to change it, which are listed in the document itself, are followed."

What they instead mean, in my experience, is something like, "we're in different times now, so we should interpret it differently" - bypassing the difficult (for good reason!) process to change it entirely. They change it by "reinterpreting it" for a different age... sort of like a Hollywood "reboot" of a film that changes the original such that it kinda resembles the original, but definitely isn't.

 

[red442joe]

It seems pretty straightforward to me too but somehow we ended up in a place where a bunch of faux 2A supporters believe shall not meant infringements are welcome. I see it here on NWFA all the time.

This!
pinheads......

Joe

 

[HA556]

The Greater Good has been used as justification for a great many terrible things.

Yep, the "Greater Good" meaning the good of their own agenda!

Unfortunately, the freedoms of this country seem to give some the idea, they are free to walk all over others rights!