Jump to content


Photo

It is time to change the narrative of the 2A


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#1 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,314 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 12 March 2018 - 05:10 AM

We need to adapt to the political environment.

 

The current 2A narrative is about being armed to protect oneself from government overreach.    "You need your arms because of Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc."    

There are also a 2A narrative about hunting.

 

Time to make a change.

 

Not all people are into hunting, and the animal rights left has made hunting sound like animal abuse.     Not everyone is willing to take up arms to overthrow a tyrannical government, and the leftist narrative of making these sound like conspiratorial Dale Gribble types has been successful to a lot of people.

But there is a part of the 2A that tends to be underrepresented - and this is our ace in the hole to gain more support for the 2A.

 

We need to start pushing the narrative that the 2A is a human right of self defense against criminals and thugs.    This needs to be pushed more than fighting tyranny or hunting.   The human right element needs to be pushed.

 

We have antis telling us "well when the 2A was written muskets were the weapons commonly available, so you have a right to muskets but not contemporary firearms.     Using a human rights narrative, we can reply that "The 1A was written before the internet, TV and radio, so are you advocating no more free speech TV, internet or radio?"   A good comeback using human rights narrative.

 

"Shall not be infringed" - we do not limit people's right of free speech because of method of exercising that free speech.    The left don't want to limit abortions by any kind of method.   They don't want to limit right of voting based on method, but they want to limit your right of self defense based on method.    

 

In addition, people are more likely to agree to a self-defense narrative versus criminals and thugs due to the large number of people negatively impacted by crime.   You can pain those who oppose the 2A as pro-thug and pro-criminal versus pro-your-human rights which the 2A is all about. 

 

Change the 2A narrative to a self-defense, human rights narrative.    

 


The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#2 bmurph44

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 527 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 17

Posted 12 March 2018 - 06:55 AM

I have to agree with you but you will never get whacko nutcase Ted Nugent and Wayne L. to go for such a common sense idea.



#3 RECarry

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,265 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 12

Posted 12 March 2018 - 06:59 AM

The left says women have a Right To Choose, but only when it applies to aborting an unwanted baby.

 

- but no Right To Choose a method of self defense that would be a deterrent to rape and unwanted pregnancy.

- but no Right To Choose to be armed in a classroom that would protect their students.

- but no Right To Choose to be armed above and beyond a useless order of protection.

- but no Right To Choose to end a threat immediately versus waiting for police to arrive.

- but no Right To Choose personal responsibility over having others tell you how you can live. 

 

The utter hypocrisy of the left.


A woman's "Right to Choose" the abortion issue starts with the words "No!", "Stop!", and "I am armed!".

#4 RevWildman

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 91 posts
  • Joined: 07-May 13

Posted 12 March 2018 - 07:27 AM

It would appear that your argument does the very thing you argue against, in carving the intent of the 2nd amendment.

 

"Shall not be infringed" is plain and simple.  Why would one not argue more than one, or indeed all, aspects of the amendments intent, rather than limit the scope.

 

While not all may be "into hunting" there are many who are.  There are many who "take up arms" to protect against the possibility of "a tyrannical government".  There are also, as mentioned, many who own firearms in order to protect themselves, their families and neighbors.

 

'Pushing' one aspect, above others, would carve the 2nd amendment into pieces leaving the intent of it in shambles, along with an underlying layer of protection that the country and its citizens enjoy and the majority expect.


NRA Lifetime Member

#5 sctman800

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,782 posts
  • Joined: 14-April 04

Posted 12 March 2018 - 07:30 AM

Very well said, Jim.


Kristofferson wrote it and Janis sang it "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

#6 Smallbore

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,490 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 07

Posted 12 March 2018 - 08:12 AM

No enemy has ever been defeated by defense.
Defending the 2nd has failed.
Comparing the 2nd to the 1st has and will continue to fail.
These attempts ignore the main
accepted philosophy behind the antis.
They believed that in a civilized society only the government has the moral authority to use force. The marxist love this.
Years back I read where a prominent international woman anti gun advocate stated to the effect that a dead woman lying at the feet if her rapist was morally superior to a woman holding a smoking gun standing over her attempted rapist.
We have to go on the attack exposing the evil of this believe.
We have for too long sat idly by letting our kids be indoctrinated in this disgusting philosophy within our schools.
Look no farther than the zero tolerance policy.
A child who defends himself against a bully is punished equaly or worse than the attacker. The victim is criticized for fighting back. Sound familiar?
During the Virginia Tech murders the students passively sat at their desks allowing the shooter to walk pass them shooting them one by one at close range. No resistance. Well indoctrinated.
The 2nd DOES NOT need to be defended.
The antis evil needs to be exposed and attacked.

Edited by Smallbore, 12 March 2018 - 08:15 AM.


#7 AlphaKoncepts aka CGS

    Firearm Instructor and Gun Rights Activist

  • Members
  • 8,251 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 12

Posted 12 March 2018 - 08:17 AM

The 2a is about many things to many people, the narrative is different for each person.


-Thomas

Member, ISRA; Life Member, NRA; NRA Certified Instructor, AGI Certified Gunsmith, Illinois Concealed Carry Instructor
www.alphakoncepts.com  www.gunrights4illinois.com  @AlphaKoncepts


#8 ScottFM

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 526 posts
  • Joined: 09-January 17

Posted 12 March 2018 - 09:15 AM

 

 

"Shall not be infringed" - we do not limit people's right of free speech because of method of exercising that free speech.    The left don't want to limit abortions by any kind of method.   They don't want to limit right of voting based on method, but they want to limit your right of self defense based on method.    

 

 

Really? We do not "limit people's right of free speech because of method of exercising that free speech"? Could have swore a whole bunch of people were upset about football players exercising their free speech last year and looked at banning that practice. Not to mention the 18 bills introduced by Republican lawmakers to limit the ways in which the right to protest you know,  the "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" 

 

BTW Heller vs. DC Scalia made a very imnportant point that the 2A is limited. "like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Which straight up means it CAN be infringed. Scalia even made the point that for the 2A Constitution protects weapons that could be carried and were in common use. Which is going to cause future cases to be brought up and dealt with. I've said it before and I will say it again, the Heller decision has a lot in it that will cause issues for years to come! 

 

You have several good points, but the 'shall not be infringed" point is moot. It isn't true under the current law and we all know that there are infringement we would want. Like we really do not want people to have nukes in our neighbourhood!  So I would not raise that one. 


--

Beer, it's the reason I get out of bed every afternoon!

 

 


#9 ScottFM

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 526 posts
  • Joined: 09-January 17

Posted 12 March 2018 - 09:19 AM

The 2a is about many things to many people, the narrative is different for each person.

True

 

I do think to mention the sportsman aspect is important too. Trap/Skeet and as seen in the Olympics the highly popular biathlon. Hunting is hit and miss. I am not a hunter, but I do not mind certain hunting. Trophy hunting is IMHO for people with way too small a penis and is highly stupid! but hunting to put meat on the table is fine. Be as kind as you can, don't make the animals suffer. But also, with all the modern weaponry and technology don't try and tell me it is man against nature. Nature is way outgunned! But I have no problem with those that do it, PETA people might. But they are a small minority. 


--

Beer, it's the reason I get out of bed every afternoon!

 

 


#10 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,712 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 12 March 2018 - 12:48 PM

It would appear that your argument does the very thing you argue against, in carving the intent of the 2nd amendment.
 
"Shall not be infringed" is plain and simple.  Why would one not argue more than one, or indeed all, aspects of the amendments intent, rather than limit the scope.
 
While not all may be "into hunting" there are many who are.  There are many who "take up arms" to protect against the possibility of "a tyrannical government".  There are also, as mentioned, many who own firearms in order to protect themselves, their families and neighbors.
 
'Pushing' one aspect, above others, would carve the 2nd amendment into pieces leaving the intent of it in shambles, along with an underlying layer of protection that the country and its citizens enjoy and the majority expect.


"Being necessary to the security of a free state."

It seems the intent is of the 2A is already spelled out.

#11 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,314 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 12 March 2018 - 06:30 PM

It would appear that your argument does the very thing you argue against, in carving the intent of the 2nd amendment.

 

"Shall not be infringed" is plain and simple.  Why would one not argue more than one, or indeed all, aspects of the amendments intent, rather than limit the scope.

 

While not all may be "into hunting" there are many who are.  There are many who "take up arms" to protect against the possibility of "a tyrannical government".  There are also, as mentioned, many who own firearms in order to protect themselves, their families and neighbors.

 

'Pushing' one aspect, above others, would carve the 2nd amendment into pieces leaving the intent of it in shambles, along with an underlying layer of protection that the country and its citizens enjoy and the majority expect.

 

I agree with much of what you're saying.

 

In the same way human rights shall not be infringed - the right to self defense is not to be infringed.     But we don't have much emphasis of the idea of self-defense as a human right as part of the 2A narrative.   

 

OK, so instead of "carving" how about emphasizing more the human rights aspect of the 2A?

My goal is to get more people on board with the 2A and I think the idea of human rights has appeal to a much larger audience than hunting and fighting tyranny.

 

 

 

 

No enemy has ever been defeated by defense.
Defending the 2nd has failed.
Comparing the 2nd to the 1st has and will continue to fail.
These attempts ignore the main
accepted philosophy behind the antis.
They believed that in a civilized society only the government has the moral authority to use force. The marxist love this.
Years back I read where a prominent international woman anti gun advocate stated to the effect that a dead woman lying at the feet if her rapist was morally superior to a woman holding a smoking gun standing over her attempted rapist.
We have to go on the attack exposing the evil of this believe.
We have for too long sat idly by letting our kids be indoctrinated in this disgusting philosophy within our schools.
Look no farther than the zero tolerance policy.
A child who defends himself against a bully is punished equaly or worse than the attacker. The victim is criticized for fighting back. Sound familiar?
During the Virginia Tech murders the students passively sat at their desks allowing the shooter to walk pass them shooting them one by one at close range. No resistance. Well indoctrinated.
The 2nd DOES NOT need to be defended.
The antis evil needs to be exposed and attacked.

 

No enemy has ever been defeated by defense?   Ask Afghanistan.   They sent Napoleon and the Soviets running for cover and all they did was defend themselves.

You're right about the prime directive of the antis.   We need more people on board the 2A.  That way we have more help against the antis.

 

The 2a is about many things to many people, the narrative is different for each person.

I agree.

 

But we need to open up the doors and let in the people who believe in human rights.

 

Changing the narrative of the 2A will help bring in more people.   I'm not saying getting rid of hunting or fighting against tyranny parts of the 2A, I'm talking about emphasizing a new and underutilized aspect of the 2A.  

 

 

==========================================

 

 

My goal is to increase the support for the 2A.  Emphasizing the human rights aspect of the 2A will bring in new people, while maintaining the base of hunters and opposers of tyranny. 


Edited by BobPistol, 12 March 2018 - 06:30 PM.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#12 RevWildman

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 91 posts
  • Joined: 07-May 13

Posted 12 March 2018 - 07:55 PM

In the same way human rights shall not be infringed - the right to self defense is not to be infringed.     But we don't have much emphasis of the idea of self-defense as a human right as part of the 2A narrative.   

 

OK, so instead of "carving" how about emphasizing more the human rights aspect of the 2A?

My goal is to get more people on board with the 2A and I think the idea of human rights has appeal to a much larger audience than hunting and fighting tyranny.

 

 

My goal is to increase the support for the 2A.  Emphasizing the human rights aspect of the 2A will bring in new people, while maintaining the base of hunters and opposers of tyranny. 

 

 

Isn't emphasizing (emphasize: give special importance or prominence to (something)) the same thing as 'carving out', when used in this form?

 

I, personally, would consider the 2nd amendment, or as was put, "the right to self defense", is, by default, a human right, as are all of the first 10 amendments, which comprise the Bill of Rights.  The way an amendment was written does not lessen the limiting power it places upon the government, which was one of the original intents of the Bill of Rights, if memory serves.

 

Perhaps, a larger educational reach needs to be used in helping everyone understand what the Bill of Rights itself is and what it means when it comes to how the framers of our Constitution worded and put together the Bill of rights to represent a method of guaranteeing and protecting individual liberties and limiting governmental power.

 

This is the one aspect of arguments made for the 2nd amendment that I've always found interesting and lacking.  It really isn't about guns, rather, with the Bill of Rights as a whole, what we, as citizens, are prepared to let our government do, or what power it has over the states and/or its citizens.


NRA Lifetime Member

#13 chicagoresident

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,549 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 16

Posted 12 March 2018 - 11:11 PM

Perhaps, a larger educational reach needs to be used in helping everyone understand what the Bill of Rights itself is and what it means when it comes to how the framers of our Constitution worded and put together the Bill of rights to represent a method of guaranteeing and protecting individual liberties and limiting governmental power.
 
This is the one aspect of arguments made for the 2nd amendment that I've always found interesting and lacking.  It really isn't about guns, rather, with the Bill of Rights as a whole, what we, as citizens, are prepared to let our government do, or what power it has over the states and/or its citizens.

So much agreement. We, even as people of the gun have began weakening on the original intent of the 2nd ammendment.

I would recommend anyone here read articles 23 to 29 of the Federalist papers
https://www.congress...ralistPapers-23 and revise your arguments for the second ammendment not on loose interpretations of a few words, but the wholesale intent of the founding fathers.

#14 Mick G

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 13 March 2018 - 04:41 AM

"Shall not be infringed" is as clear as it gets.

Do not mess with The Bill of Rights.

Most college students don't even know what The Bill of Rights is.

I find that disturbing. I had to take two Constitution tests to get my HS diploma.

I will not have a bunch of kids dictate policy when they have no idea of what they speak.

Sarah Chadwick is a high school student activist? No, she's a spoiled and well coached shill.

I also find that disturbing. These kids were playing with toys a few years ago.

Enjoy your 15 minutes kids, it sad that you have them because of a lunatic.



#15 cybermgk

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,851 posts
  • Joined: 10-October 17

Posted 13 March 2018 - 07:52 AM

By focusing on one 'aspect' of the rights guaranteed by the 2A, you, imho do the Anti-s work for them. 

 

Focus on just the hunting/sport aspect, and then you feed into the "no need for handguns or "assault" weapons.

Focus on the Self-Defense aspect, and you feed into the no high cap mag for rifles, because "handguns".

Don't focus on the anti-tyranny aspect (or self defense against governments, foreign and domestic), and you feed right into the "assault weapon" band and high cap mag ban.  Because, frankly, although there are many other arguments for semi-automatic rifles, and standard capacity (what they call high capacity) magazines, the concept of a militia of citizens rising up against a foreign invader or corrupt/tyrannical US government NECESSITATES the most state of the art weapon. 

 

As mentioned by others, there simply is no rational argument that holds against ALL the aspects of the inalienable rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment,  .Limit our side, and you not only allow them to divide and conquer, but you make their job that much easier. 

 

Remember, it isn't the anti's side we are trying to convince.  That is never going to happen.  It's John and Jane Q Public's opinion we are trying to win.  Broader the message, the stronger the message, and the broader the appeal to those folks.


ISRA Member

NRA Member

U.S.A.F Veteran

Single Father of 2


#16 Mick G

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 13 March 2018 - 10:23 AM

By focusing on one 'aspect' of the rights guaranteed by the 2A, you, imho do the Anti-s work for them. 

 

Focus on just the hunting/sport aspect, and then you feed into the "no need for handguns or "assault" weapons.

Focus on the Self-Defense aspect, and you feed into the no high cap mag for rifles, because "handguns".

Don't focus on the anti-tyranny aspect (or self defense against governments, foreign and domestic), and you feed right into the "assault weapon" band and high cap mag ban.  Because, frankly, although there are many other arguments for semi-automatic rifles, and standard capacity (what they call high capacity) magazines, the concept of a militia of citizens rising up against a foreign invader or corrupt/tyrannical US government NECESSITATES the most state of the art weapon. 

 

As mentioned by others, there simply is no rational argument that holds against ALL the aspects of the inalienable rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment,  .Limit our side, and you not only allow them to divide and conquer, but you make their job that much easier. 

 

Remember, it isn't the anti's side we are trying to convince.  That is never going to happen.  It's John and Jane Q Public's opinion we are trying to win.  Broader the message, the stronger the message, and the broader the appeal to those folks.

 

The rational argument is "Shall not be infringed"

It means exactly what it says. There should be no division.

You cannot rewrite The Bill of Rights or The Constitution.

It isn't us against them, it's the USA against a few billionaires,

Michael Bloomberg and the Soros brothers.

Those same people use high school students to do their dirty work.

The sad part is those kids don't even know they are being used.

Its all smoke and mirrors, it always has been.

Yet The Bill of Rights and The Constitution hold STRONG.

You don't argue The 2nd Amendment by breaking it into pieces.

 

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 - authenticated by Thomas Jefferson

 

There's your argument.



#17 357

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,089 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 12

Posted 13 March 2018 - 09:44 PM

"Shall not be infringed" is as clear as it gets.
Do not mess with The Bill of Rights.
Most college students don't even know what The Bill of Rights is.
I find that disturbing. I had to take two Constitution tests to get my HS diploma.
I will not have a bunch of kids dictate policy when they have no idea of what they speak.
Sarah Chadwick is a high school student activist? No, she's a spoiled and well coached shill.
I also find that disturbing. These kids were playing with toys a few years ago.
Enjoy your 15 minutes kids, it sad that you have them because of a lunatic.


+1

Their emotional blackmail is disgusting. It's an unalienable right.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
George Orwell

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will loose both"
Benjamin Franklin

#18 Smallbore

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,490 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 07

Posted 14 March 2018 - 10:31 AM

For a right to be a right it must be unlimited otherwise it is a government controled privilege.
We can all declare our love for the 2A and explain this to the antis until we are blue in the face.
They do not care.
They have no respect for it's fundamental premise.
They have bought the belief that only government should have arms.
They are brain washed in marxism.
We have to some how attack their warped core belief.
We have to show them the wisdom of self reliance in all aspects of life.
We have to hope the young generation will see the destructive power of relying on government.

#19 soylentgreen

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,246 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 15

Posted 14 March 2018 - 11:51 AM

My strategy has ceased to be to justify the second amendment. My answer is, I don't need to justify my constitutional rights. The discussion is over.



#20 techgeek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Joined: 02-January 14

Posted 15 March 2018 - 05:29 AM

My strategy has ceased to be to justify the second amendment. My answer is, I don't need to justify my constitutional rights. The discussion is over.

 

Given how dirty the anti's are playing I have went the same route.  Nothing common sense about the proposals and bills that are being put up so I'm done listening to their BS.



#21 Prairie Pucker

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,741 posts
  • Joined: 25-March 13

Posted 15 March 2018 - 11:33 AM

We need to adapt to the political environment.

 

Not everyone is willing to take up arms to overthrow a tyrannical government, ... 

 

We need to start pushing the narrative that the 2A is a human right of self defense against criminals and thugs.    This needs to be pushed more than fighting tyranny or hunting. 

 

 

IMO we do a poor job of connecting the tyranny of Great Britain that the Founders experienced to the present day tyranny of the Left we witnessed following Trump's election.  Weeks of violent rioting, arson, vandalism, traffic stoppages, conservative speakers shouted out of auditoriums, colleges and universities banning conservative speakers, etc. all in the name of anarchy.

 

I would also argue that the Obama-era deep state traitors left behind who used their positions to give Clinton a pass while actively working against the President are another type of tyranny.  Undoubtedly there remain others.

 

The 2a is about many things to many people, the narrative is different for each person.

 

Is that a good thing?  Most people seem to be fairly clear about the intention of the 1A and the rest of the Bill of Rights, yet apparently consider the 2A to be made out of rubber suitable for accommodating pop culture norms.  Witness the silly notion that prevailed up till 2001 that although the 1A and the other eight are about individual freedoms and rights, the 2A was considered to be only a collective right of the state to arm its own militia (National Guard.) 

 

The 2A doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bears arms," it says "the right of the people.."  Reinterpreting (as began in the 1900's) is a slippery slope.  Beginning to do so only establishes troublesome precedents.

 

Much the same thing occurs with a "progressive" interpretation of the Bible.  Instead of trying to accommodate their lives to God's word, many try to reinterpret the Bible to accommodate their lifestyles to the point where it becomes nothing more than a collection of fuzzy fables and fairy tales. 

 

If we're not careful, the same thing will happen to the 2A.


- PP

"One State---One Law"

NRA Endowment Life; ISRA


#22 soylentgreen

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,246 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 15

Posted 16 March 2018 - 11:28 AM

 

My strategy has ceased to be to justify the second amendment. My answer is, I don't need to justify my constitutional rights. The discussion is over.

 

Given how dirty the anti's are playing I have went the same route.  Nothing common sense about the proposals and bills that are being put up so I'm done listening to their BS.

 

 

They can't be moved. They've made up their minds and no amount of fact or logic is going to change it. You can explain until you're blue int he face that an AR-15 is not a machine gun. They will never believe you. There's no point in arguing.



#23 vito

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,751 posts
  • Joined: 30-October 04

Posted 17 March 2018 - 05:34 PM

The "shall not be infringed" argument moves exactly no one on this issue. Every right specified in the Bill of Rights is infringed upon to a greater or lesser degree. Even the most conservative justice we have had in years, on the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia said that the 2nd Amendment is subject to limitations. I don't think our arguments in support of the 2nd Amendment need to be limited to any one aspect of what this right gives us. We should stress that it supports the natural right of self defense against thugs, terrorists and anyone else that means us harm, AS WELL AS the right to maintain arms sufficient to protect against a tyrannical government AND the right to have the means to legally hunt game. But to those who are emotionally terrified of guns, think all guns are bad, think it is actually better for teachers and students to cower in fear as a gunman stalks the halls of their school rather than having a teacher armed and POSSIBLY able to stop or slow the attack, none of the arguments mentioned above will move them one iota. They don't care about the Constitution. They don't care about due process. They only are fixated on their fear of themselves or their children being shot and possibly killed and despite all facts think that banning guns will make a huge difference. 

 

With people who do not accept the plain language of the Constitution as binding on them, I urge them to stop trying to ban one type of gun or another, stop with the little fixes of universal background checks and national registration of firearms, and to go straight to what they think is the REAL solution, the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Let them use their energy in this fruitless quest to change our Constitution and in the mean time we are free to push the edges of gun rights to meet our needs and desires. In fact, by being a bit arrogant, and throwing the 2nd Amendment right into their face, preferably with a sneer or smirk, it just might get them to change their focus and use the rest of their emotional based life to try to repeal the 2nd Amendment. 


Retired U.S. Army and Veteran of the Vietnam conflict

NRA Life Member

Fully retired!

 


#24 chicagoresident

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,549 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 16

Posted 18 March 2018 - 04:49 AM

With people who do not accept the plain language of the Constitution as binding on them, I urge them to stop trying to ban one type of gun or another, stop with the little fixes of universal background checks and national registration of firearms, and to go straight to what they think is the REAL solution, the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Let them use their energy in this fruitless quest to change our Constitution and in the mean time we are free to push the edges of gun rights to meet our needs and desires. In fact, by being a bit arrogant, and throwing the 2nd Amendment right into their face, preferably with a sneer or smirk, it just might get them to change their focus and use the rest of their emotional based life to try to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

This is the best strategy. Force them to drop the platitude "I believe in the second ammendment but.."

Do this by pointing out all the ways legislation they want passed will be worked around by both legal and illegal gun owners. Explain how it will be legally challenged, loopholed, or outright disobeyed.

Let them lead themselves down the path of outright saying in order to achieve their means a gun cannot exist in America. When they use the line "its flawed legislation, but at least it's a start to ending gun violence" force them to change gun violence to civilian disarmament.

Once they go down that path they will never win.


To change the subject what is with people always bringing up the 2nd ammendment in regards to hunting? Hunting has nothing to do with the 2nd ammendment. Go poach on federal land or someone else's private land and try to use any constitutional ammendment to justify your reasons. Good luck with that.

Hunting (in a "not infringed" unlimited sense) is not a guaranteed right. It is rightfully restricted by several other ammendments and landmark legal cases concerning property rights, state's rights, and resource rights. Even on your own land you can't shoot down a bald eagle and eat it for dinner, nor should you be able to.

Edited by chicagoresident, 18 March 2018 - 04:54 AM.


#25 ScottFM

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 526 posts
  • Joined: 09-January 17

Posted 18 March 2018 - 06:28 AM

 

By focusing on one 'aspect' of the rights guaranteed by the 2A, you, imho do the Anti-s work for them. 

 

Focus on just the hunting/sport aspect, and then you feed into the "no need for handguns or "assault" weapons.

Focus on the Self-Defense aspect, and you feed into the no high cap mag for rifles, because "handguns".

Don't focus on the anti-tyranny aspect (or self defense against governments, foreign and domestic), and you feed right into the "assault weapon" band and high cap mag ban.  Because, frankly, although there are many other arguments for semi-automatic rifles, and standard capacity (what they call high capacity) magazines, the concept of a militia of citizens rising up against a foreign invader or corrupt/tyrannical US government NECESSITATES the most state of the art weapon. 

 

As mentioned by others, there simply is no rational argument that holds against ALL the aspects of the inalienable rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment,  .Limit our side, and you not only allow them to divide and conquer, but you make their job that much easier. 

 

Remember, it isn't the anti's side we are trying to convince.  That is never going to happen.  It's John and Jane Q Public's opinion we are trying to win.  Broader the message, the stronger the message, and the broader the appeal to those folks.

 

The rational argument is "Shall not be infringed"

It means exactly what it says. There should be no division.

You cannot rewrite The Bill of Rights or The Constitution.

It isn't us against them, it's the USA against a few billionaires,

Michael Bloomberg and the Soros brothers.

Those same people use high school students to do their dirty work.

The sad part is those kids don't even know they are being used.

Its all smoke and mirrors, it always has been.

Yet The Bill of Rights and The Constitution hold STRONG.

You don't argue The 2nd Amendment by breaking it into pieces.

 

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 - authenticated by Thomas Jefferson

 

There's your argument.

 

But even without changing the Constitution Article 1 Section 8 clearly states that regulating gun ownership is appropriate. 

 

The Militia Clause as it is known was clarified in United States v. Miller, "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." The result means that states can regulate firearms. That authority was only recently clarified in DC V. Heller to mean that a state cannot not allow ownership of firearms. IOW a band is unConstiutional, but that arms in "common use" are allowed. That "common use" issue will be the basis of future court discussion. Furthermore in DC v. Heller it was found that the "The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment." 

 

Just saying that the 'no infringement' issue is moot. Even when it was written as the militia clause was in use from the beginning and adoption of the Constitution. There is a reason that the argument is not actually used in courts and instead only on bumper stickers and political flyers. 


Edited by ScottFM, 18 March 2018 - 06:29 AM.

--

Beer, it's the reason I get out of bed every afternoon!

 

 


#26 chicagoresident

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,549 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 16

Posted 18 March 2018 - 07:56 AM

But even without changing the Constitution Article 1 Section 8 clearly states that regulating gun ownership is appropriate.

I would disagree. Again, the first 10 ammendments are natural laws, and congress was to make no law that put restrictions on natural law.

Again, this is why I go back to the federalist papers articles 23 to 29. It's not a ratified legal document like the constitution, but it discusses the topics more in depth to expose the reader to the original intent of what federal and state governments could and couldn't do.

There was concern that Article 8 could be used for military conscription, but the federalist papers warned that the militia was not to force people to drill or drill so much it would take away from their livelihood.

The Federalist papers also defined "well regulated" as military parity.

Further the Federalist papers both acknowledged needing a federal army outside of the milita of citizens and the dangers of having a standing army outside of the militia. Part of the prescription was making sure the militia while not as skilled as the federal army should outnumber them and out equip them. Checks and balances.

There was also an early court case (I'll have to dig it up) that even went as far as saying leaving the issuance of letters of marque up to congress was a 2nd ammendment infringement in itself.

Edited by chicagoresident, 18 March 2018 - 07:25 PM.


#27 RECarry

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,265 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 12

Posted 18 March 2018 - 07:03 PM

This year I am noticing more folks outside our ranks realizing that the left has hijacked "Right To Choose" solely for their pro-abortion agenda.

 

And they are saying wait a minute, the left is denying us the Right To Choose self-defense in all situations where danger presents itself. 


A woman's "Right to Choose" the abortion issue starts with the words "No!", "Stop!", and "I am armed!".

#28 Mick G

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 18 March 2018 - 07:40 PM

 

 

By focusing on one 'aspect' of the rights guaranteed by the 2A, you, imho do the Anti-s work for them. 

 

Focus on just the hunting/sport aspect, and then you feed into the "no need for handguns or "assault" weapons.

Focus on the Self-Defense aspect, and you feed into the no high cap mag for rifles, because "handguns".

Don't focus on the anti-tyranny aspect (or self defense against governments, foreign and domestic), and you feed right into the "assault weapon" band and high cap mag ban.  Because, frankly, although there are many other arguments for semi-automatic rifles, and standard capacity (what they call high capacity) magazines, the concept of a militia of citizens rising up against a foreign invader or corrupt/tyrannical US government NECESSITATES the most state of the art weapon. 

 

As mentioned by others, there simply is no rational argument that holds against ALL the aspects of the inalienable rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment,  .Limit our side, and you not only allow them to divide and conquer, but you make their job that much easier. 

 

Remember, it isn't the anti's side we are trying to convince.  That is never going to happen.  It's John and Jane Q Public's opinion we are trying to win.  Broader the message, the stronger the message, and the broader the appeal to those folks.

 

The rational argument is "Shall not be infringed"

It means exactly what it says. There should be no division.

You cannot rewrite The Bill of Rights or The Constitution.

It isn't us against them, it's the USA against a few billionaires,

Michael Bloomberg and the Soros brothers.

Those same people use high school students to do their dirty work.

The sad part is those kids don't even know they are being used.

Its all smoke and mirrors, it always has been.

Yet The Bill of Rights and The Constitution hold STRONG.

You don't argue The 2nd Amendment by breaking it into pieces.

 

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 - authenticated by Thomas Jefferson

 

There's your argument.

 

But even without changing the Constitution Article 1 Section 8 clearly states that regulating gun ownership is appropriate. 

 

The Militia Clause as it is known was clarified in United States v. Miller, "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." The result means that states can regulate firearms. That authority was only recently clarified in DC V. Heller to mean that a state cannot not allow ownership of firearms. IOW a band is unConstiutional, but that arms in "common use" are allowed. That "common use" issue will be the basis of future court discussion. Furthermore in DC v. Heller it was found that the "The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment." 

 

Just saying that the 'no infringement' issue is moot. Even when it was written as the militia clause was in use from the beginning and adoption of the Constitution. There is a reason that the argument is not actually used in courts and instead only on bumper stickers and political flyers. 

 

 

I don't read Article 1 Section 8 that way. Your interpretation is borderline subverting the Constitution.

If it were that easy then Obama would have tried it, been tried and found guilty.

Just saying don't mess with The Bill of Rights or The Constitution.

That's a American and not a treasonous thing to say.

 

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 - authenticated by Thomas Jefferson

IS NEVER A MOOT POINT.

 

There's interpretation and then actuality. Simply put you are grouping together a bunch of rulings as one and interpreting.

That's pretty much exactly what the left is trying to do. You are trying to break the second amendment down into separate points.

That doesn't fly with me or most who understand what The Bill of Rights stands for.

You are spewing Fighting Words which are not protected under the 1st amendment.

 

 

 



#29 Lou

    Resident Old Guy

  • Members
  • 13,075 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 04

Posted 18 March 2018 - 08:20 PM

From the Heller Decision:

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

https://www.supremec...7pdf/07-290.pdf

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -  George Orwell

A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again. 


#30 chicagoresident

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,549 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 16

Posted 18 March 2018 - 08:46 PM

 They can't be moved. They've made up their minds and no amount of fact or logic is going to change it. You can explain until you're blue int he face that an AR-15 is not a machine gun. They will never believe you. There's no point in arguing.

Exactly, 2A compromise is debating if the 2nd extends to WMD's. Anything short of this is giving an inch. We need to tow the line at bearing arms that might send us to the Hague, not plastic black rifles that fire little 223 caliber varmint rounds.

You used to be able to legally order MilSurp anti aircraft guns from the backs of magazines. Nobody ever murdered anybody on US soil with an antiaircraft gun, why did we ban those? https://www.youtube....h?v=iIfrSmZLQX8

Even during prohibition machine gun murders were pretty rare. Yet a bunch of FUDD's gave those up and won't fight to win them back. An AR15 selectfire is no more dangerous then one bullet one trigger pull.

Defend your right to own a machine gun, don't waste your time explaining what is and what isn't a machine gun. That's their trickbag they're putting you in.

"I wish I could legally by a new select fire AR15, but you took it away from me".

Remind the anti's how much we've compromised and let them know we are done compromising. We want what they took from us. No more giving without getting anything back. This is the narrative we need to change to.

This is a zero sum game and we're losing pretty bad.

Edited by chicagoresident, 18 March 2018 - 10:37 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users