The Second Amendment is not about guns

[Ura-Ki]

Exactly Right on all counts! Every one on here is Tracking! The 2nd is the greatest hurdle to any who seek to undo the balance of power in these States United! You can bet, before the ink was even dry, some one was all ready plotting to usurp that document to take advantage, and the Proof that it has yet to happen is that WE are still armed, and must continue to be armed! Self Determination is what it's all about! With all that's wrong in this land today, we would be in a very different place if not for our B.O.R. and the 2nd as a means to protect and defend it! And just to remind you all just what is at stake here, if we loose the 2nd, we loose it all!!!!!

 

[BrentN]

Aligning our 2A rights with our hunting privileges has always been a mistake. Anti's love this line of logic as hunting privileges can be curtailed so easily through legislation only. Look how the vast majority of hunting is limited to 3-5 rounds of ammunition in the weapon at a time. Look how I can carry my pistol cocked and locked with my CPL, but not allowed any ammo in my rifle if it is in my truck. HUH!? Look how we have to analyze the hunting reg's every year to see what's changed with the ebb and flow of restrictions. Yea, don't ever confuse rights with privileges.

 

[Joe Banjo]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Notice the use of the word Arms and that it is capitalized.
Yeah, I notice Militia and State are capitalized too. I'm guessing this more about an outdated convention for capitalization than anything else. Just speculation.

"Arms", in this context refers to any military weapon - whether a firearm, a knife/sword/bayonet, a grenade or other explosive, mortar, cannon, etc.
I agree 100%, but truthfully we don't know exactly what the person who wrote this was thinking specifically. I'm not saying you're not right, but it's probably a good idea to keep in mind that we are inserting our own understanding on an old document. We have to, in some ways.


The basic idea being that an armed populace serves as a counter-balance against governmental power wielded by an elected few.

This is why it is so important. No so you can have a duck hunting shotgun, or a .22 for plinking, but rather so that we can remain free.

This is the real reason why so many in power want to restrict private ownership of firearms.
And restrict/regulate non-state militia players.
This is also why they want to have background checks and/or other systems that allow the government to know who owns firearms, what kind of firearms they are, and their serial numbers - so when it comes time to confiscate those firearms (or otherwise force owners to turn them in), then they have a record of the firearms, who owns them and who probably owns others - including a way to prove in court that those firearms weren't sold to somebody else.
Says who? I believe there are plenty of well meaning people out there, even some "in power", who don't think too much about trying to confiscate firearms with the goal to upset a notional balance of power. They have some different reasons that they are passionate about. And guess what, they are voting Americans with just as much of a stake in the issue as we have.
This is why they portray gun owners as unstable "gun nuts"; to get public support not just for these systems, but to make gun ownership unpopular and not socially acceptable, so that when it does come time to prohibit private firearm ownership altogether, they have the support from the majority of the populace to do so.
This "confiscation" idea a pretty commonly expressed idea in some circles, and sure, it's very plausibly part of the mix. But, I don't think it follows that there is a systematic effort to portray gun owners as unstable. Just like every slice of the population, "gun owners" is going to have some unstable elements. It is pretty reasonable that "unstable" + "deadly weapon" is scary to a lot of people. It doesn't need much push behind it to make folks feel uncomfortable. It can be real and widespread without it being a deliberate effort to make us socially unacceptable.


Remember that.

Don't let other people forget it.

Don't let other people say it is about anything else.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you, mostly. And, this is a great commentary. I appreciate you posting it.

 

[Diamondback]

@Joe Banjo We CAN also look at what WERE privately owned at the time and modern equivalents--artillery (many Revolution and 1812 battles were fought using at least some privately owned cannons) and warships (a "privateer" was a privately owned and operated sailing Man O' War operating within designated bounds set as part of its government-issued Letter of Marque & Reprisal, kind of like a Navy of PMC's).

The Founders knew of and approved of private ownership of weapons with global reach, plain and simple.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Most if not all arms used to fight the British were privately owned by the good citizens who fought that first war! Plenty of Canon and Man-O War were also bought and payed for by those same men! Horses, Lead, Powder, Flint, Wagons, and even food and aid were Provided BY the men using them!

 

[The Heretic]

I agree 100%, but truthfully we don't know exactly what the person who wrote this was thinking specifically. I'm not saying you're not right, but it's probably a good idea to keep in mind that we are inserting our own understanding on an old document. We have to, in some ways.

Actually, we do know what the people who wrote this were thinking because they wrote extensively on the subject. There are a number of books quoting letters back and forth by the authors of the amendments, the debates in public forums, including Congress, are mostly documented.

This is what is so frustrating to me; that courts and others say that the amendment means this or that when the authors were very clear about what it meant to them when they wrote it.

 

[I594 Sucks]

Very Good points all round! FEAR is the engine that drives this, and the loss of that fear empowers one side to act against the other! The 2nd is much more then that as we all know, but it's essence is that the means to protect and defend against ANY threat both foreign and domestic is what separates this country from all the others where the Gov has "conquered" it's subjects through removal of those rights!

Fear is only a part of the equation. I believe that the great majority of voters aren't afraid of gun violence...they just don't care about yours or my gun rights because they don't own guns, themselves. Many others, because they see no need for an AR15 or a 50 BMG.

My wife, unfortunately, voted for the WA law that banned smoking in restaurants and bars. She fell for the bogus lines that were being spewed and, because she no longer smokes, saw no harm in the new law. The fact that business owners were losing their right of choice never entered her pretty head, until I mentioned it to her. Once she stopped to really think about it, she immediately regretted voting the way she did.

Folks, THAT is what is killing us on many of these issues...indifference.

 

[LRHunter]

It's all about rights of humans that the government has no say over. If the government chose to take the second amendment away, it would still be our right. It's up to each individual to make a choice at that point whether to keep it or not.
I don't think we have to worry about it for the time being.
Remember Unalienable Rights are something that can't be taken away.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

[P7M13]

Jefferson at least, for one, knew of Da Vinci's concept sketches for tanks and other modern-ish weapons, so other than WMD there's little we have today they couldn't have at least imagined.

There were many historical examples of biological and poison warfare used prior to and including the Roman conquests, plus ones that followed. Both the Iliad and Odyssey contained passages citing the use of poison arrows by attackers. The Romans and Greeks poisoned water supplies and destroyed cropland, some armies drove infected people before them into the lands they conquered. I would wager, there are those who recognized the effectiveness of smallpox in weakening the enemy, as it was a well known sickness by the 15th century.

Aligning our 2A rights with our hunting privileges has always been a mistake. Anti's love this line of logic as hunting privileges can be curtailed so easily through legislation only. Look how the vast majority of hunting is limited to 3-5 rounds of ammunition in the weapon at a time.

As a kid, reading Robin Hood, I never understood the restriction of hunting (though I do see reasons now), and restriction of ammunition has never made any sense to me as far as hunting either. More on that below.

Look how we have to analyze the hunting reg's every year to see what's changed with the ebb and flow of restrictions. Yea, don't ever confuse rights with privileges.

That last sentence! One mistake I have definitely lived in my life.

This is the real reason why so many in power want to restrict private ownership of firearms.
And restrict/regulate non-state militia players.

BINGO!

This is also why they want to have background checks ...
Says who? I believe there are plenty of well meaning people out there, even some "in power", who don't think too much about trying to confiscate firearms with the goal to upset a notional balance of power. They have some different reasons that they are passionate about. And guess what, they are voting Americans with just as much of a stake in the issue as we have.

"Don't think too much...." meaning, they glibly try to confiscate to upset this "notional balance?" Can you please cite examples where this has happened? Perhaps you're talking about CA legislation? I'm ignorant and don't read the news much. I read your sentence that they act with the clear intention of doing such. This is why it's important to be vigilant. Most of the time, people don't hear the hammer and chisel in the background, chipping away at their rights. What you're talking about is a jackhammer, and people pass by, asleep, thinking, "ugh, construction." Then one day, they're told, "you cannot use this road any more," and they never saw the cause/effect unfolding before their eyes.

This is why they portray gun owners as unstable "gun nuts"; to get public support not just for these systems, but to make gun ownership unpopular and not socially acceptable, so that when it does come time to prohibit private firearm ownership altogether, they have the support from the majority of the populace to do so.
This "confiscation" idea a pretty commonly expressed idea in some circles, and sure, it's very plausibly part of the mix. But, I don't think it follows that there is a systematic effort to portray gun owners as unstable. Just like every slice of the population, "gun owners" is going to have some unstable elements. It is pretty reasonable that "unstable" + "deadly weapon" is scary to a lot of people. It doesn't need much push behind it to make folks feel uncomfortable. It can be real and widespread without it being a deliberate effort to make us socially unacceptable.

As you wrote in my earlier citation, they do have as much at stake, and I believe that many instances of legislation have been proposed at national and state levels in response to incidents with the added intention of tilting the perceived balance of power mentioned earlier. Look at Clinton's anti-terrorism act of 1996. Look at how it was leveraged into the Patriot Act of 2001.
Now elect Bloomberg and Soros into the Oval Office. Do you think this act will be used (more than it already is) against US Citizens, some of whom are regular readers (or contributors) to this board? Who then becomes a domestic threat?

I will inject into this thread, the first and second Articles of Amendment are equally important, where tyrannical rule could be implemented clearly by manipulation of the first. We see this happening in consolidation of media ownership. Then look at all the yellow journalism happening in fringe media outlets, which is repeated as "news" in more mainstream media outlets. if you look at Forbe's List of Most Influential Media Outlets you see CNN, Huffpost, NYTimes, The Ellen Show (WTF?), and I see outlet names, all of which push stories that tilt towards gun ownership being socially unacceptable. Cue the reference to Huxley's Brave New World.
Back to my point: tyranny is not always in the form of government. There has been enough blurring of the lines, especially in Congress, where we have to ask, who is actually running the country - business or The People?
I will pose the unoriginal thought: if government is the enforcement arm of business, it is in its best interest to disarm the citizenry.

Interesting times lay ahead.

 

[P7M13]

This is also why they want to have background checks and/or other systems that allow the government to know who owns firearms, what kind of firearms they are, and their serial numbers - so when it comes time to confiscate those firearms (or otherwise force owners to turn them in), then they have a record of the firearms, who owns them and who probably owns others - including a way to prove in court that those firearms weren't sold to somebody else.
Says who? I believe there are plenty of well meaning people out there, even some "in power", who don't think too much about trying to confiscate firearms with the goal to upset a notional balance of power. They have some different reasons that they are passionate about. And guess what, they are voting Americans with just as much of a stake in the issue as we have.

I separate this comment deliberately. I emboldened "record of the firearms" for the very reason that they have much more data than that. There are those on this forum and many other forums who believe we are fools for disclosing what we think/own/act. My brother would be one of them, and he comes from an extreme left wing position.

Think about it:
my email associated with this account is the same as the one with my android phone. EVERYTHING on that thing, Google has their hand in it. The information amassed on me and anyone else is massive. If they ever chose to act on it, it's easy.

IMO, Google is not your friend, nor anything/anyone associated with the internet. I know of installations that you will NEVER see on Google maps (and they're not military, either).

All in all, I don't mind being a gnat, and I have zero delusions that I'm anything more than one on the arse of a giant beast.

 

[etrain16]

Most if not all arms used to fight the British were privately owned by the good citizens who fought that first war! Plenty of Canon and Man-O War were also bought and payed for by those same men! Horses, Lead, Powder, Flint, Wagons, and even food and aid were Provided BY the men using them!

Excellent points

 

[etrain16]

Fear is only a part of the equation. I believe that the great majority of voters aren't afraid of gun violence...they just don't care about yours or my gun rights because they don't own guns, themselves. Many others, because they see no need for an AR15 or a 50 BMG.

My wife, unfortunately, voted for the WA law that banned smoking in restaurants and bars. She fell for the bogus lines that were being spewed and, because she no longer smokes, saw no harm in the new law. The fact that business owners were losing their right of choice never entered her pretty head, until I mentioned it to her. Once she stopped to really think about it, she immediately regretted voting the way she did.

Folks, THAT is what is killing us on many of these issues...indifference.

I would go one step further - for some, yes, it is indifference, for others, it's a brazen attempt to force views on others. Whether it be smoking, guns, pot, marriage, etc. No way we'll ever get out of this until both sides begin to view the rights of everyone equally. Live and let live. If your use of a gun in a felonious action leads you to jail time, then it sucks to be you - don't restrict everyone else's rights over it. If you want to smoke pot, well, I won't agree with it, but you can, just don't go out driving a car and getting someone killed - same with drinking. Use good judgment, don't do stupid things that get others killed and we should be able to make this all work.

Perhaps that's a far too simplistic way of looking at this. According to politicians, it must be much more complicated, and we have to have them to figure it out for us

 

[Slobray]

This is also why they want to have background checks and/or other systems that allow the government to know who owns firearms, what kind of firearms they are, and their serial numbers - so when it comes time to confiscate those firearms (or otherwise force owners to turn them in), then they have a record of the firearms, who owns them and who probably owns others - including a way to prove in court that those firearms weren't sold to somebody else.
Says who? I believe there are plenty of well meaning people out there, even some "in power", who don't think too much about trying to confiscate firearms with the goal to upset a notional balance of power. They have some different reasons that they are passionate about. And guess what, they are voting Americans with just as much of a stake in the issue as we have.

Please explain what these so called "well meaning people" reason for knowing who owns what kind of firearm, how many and the serial numbers of said firearms, if not for the reason of confiscation. Evidence to the contrary of your statement seems to show their true intentions:

Gun Confiscation comes to California

<broken link removed>

New York City confiscating rifles and shotguns

Malloy signs TRO/Gun confiscation law

Dangerous Person Firearms Seizure

2C:25-21d 3 Forfeiture of Weapons Following Domestic Violence Complaint

A little closer to home........
Washington gun confiscation ballot measure wins in landslide



Ray

 

[maddog]

Thanks The Heretic! Great thread! I think, and feel, that we're already revolting. Trump won, we have a Republican controlled House and Senate, we, here, are discussing -unitedly by the way -petitioning our State government to discuss and vote on bills restoring our privileges as gun owners. This is how our forefathers started rebelling against the tyranny and oppression of King George III. We are in a better position than we were last year and need to roll with this. Intelligently, respectfully arguing our position with our legislators- as we have done in the past. Letters, petitions, meetings, all avenues available to us need to be used. None of us can afford to set on the fence now. BUT, it all has to be done diplomatically, with intelligence and purpose, clear intent and sincerity. I read an article about how Mitch Greenlick was sent emails by people from out of state issuing antisemitic slurs and threats. So I sent him a letter expressing my dismay and discontent with these types of people. With a sincere and heart-felt apology. I also made clear that people like us here on this forum, are not the that type of people, that we obey laws and respect the rights of others. I also stated that I would not support anyone who attempted to force control over free people by legislating restrictions on the rights guaranteed under the 2A nor the privileges we currently enjoy. He didn't respond, but contact was made. As The Heretic posted:

View attachment 322668

 

[Ura-Ki]

Thanks The Heretic! Great thread! I think, and feel, that we're already revolting. Trump won, we have a Republican controlled House and Senate, we, here, are discussing -unitedly by the way -petitioning our State government to discuss and vote on bills restoring our privileges as gun owners. This is how our forefathers started rebelling against the tyranny and oppression of King George III. We are in a better position than we were last year and need to roll with this. Intelligently, respectfully arguing our position with our legislators- as we have done in the past. Letters, petitions, meetings, all avenues available to us need to be used. None of us can afford to set on the fence now. BUT, it all has to be done diplomatically, with intelligence and purpose, clear intent and sincerity. I read an article about how Mitch Greenlick was sent emails by people from out of state issuing antisemitic slurs and threats. So I sent him a letter expressing my dismay and discontent with these types of people. With a sincere and heart-felt apology. I also made clear that people like us here on this forum, are not the that type of people, that we obey laws and respect the rights of others. I also stated that I would not support anyone who attempted to force control over free people by legislating restrictions on the rights guaranteed under the 2A nor the privileges we currently enjoy. He didn't respond, but contact was made. As The Heretic posted:

Bingo! The Second Revolution HAS begun! WE the People have been empowered because of our B.O.R. to act, and we need to do so NOW more then ever before! Think of it like this, WE are the PATRIOTS of our time, WE have the duty now to protect and defend our rights as free citizens of our great nation, It's time we rise up UNITED for the common goal of casting off the yoke of oppression! WE need to come together as never before, our voices united as one, and take that voice to the highest seat in the lands so that we are heard!!! Our Time Has Come, Our Duty is clear! We NEED a leader NOW!!!

 

[HB of CJ]

The implications are that the private citizen or groups of citizens have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT AND DUTY to be able to, if necessary, throw off a bad government and replace it with something better. Absolute power requires absolute responsibility? Yep!

How far would this go to arm such citizens? Ideally, anything and everything up to perhaps, (perhaps) weapons of mass destruction. "The Family Nukes?" Probably not. But why not private fighting ships and aircraft? Something less?

Why not. Armored vehicles? Artillery? Crew served ordnance? Heavy man portable weapons including shoulder SAMS? Yep. Very scary is it not? Technology has taken us a great distance from the small field piece and privateer warship.

At the least the Second Amendment must guarantee the right to keep and bear anything the reasonable responsible law abiding citizen can afford and train up upon? At the minimum this would include anything he can carry upon his person. Scary is it not?

 

[Ura-Ki]

Not at all! IF I had the money ( plus the $200 for the tax stamp) I would own a M41A3 with all the goodies! I have that right, and I expect to maintain that right! it's not scary at all! This is exactly the reasons we need to maintain our rights, because we have the ability to own such things, the left fears that these things could be used against them!

 

[Cardoff]

Whew. Thanks for explaining. I thought this is what they were talking about:


Just kidding. Good topic that has promoted good discussion .

 

[Ura-Ki]

HA, We Russians Laugh at you 'Mericans! You have the right to Bear Arms, Here in Russia, We get the whole Bear!!! LOL

 

[Joe Banjo]

Actually, we do know what the people who wrote this were thinking because they wrote extensively on the subject. There are a number of books quoting letters back and forth by the authors of the amendments, the debates in public forums, including Congress, are mostly documented.

This is what is so frustrating to me; that courts and others say that the amendment means this or that when the authors were very clear about what it meant to them when they wrote it.

I stand corrected.