Jump to content


Photo

It is time to change the narrative of the 2A


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#31 Just some guy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 116 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 16

Posted 18 March 2018 - 09:46 PM

Here's what Hamilton says in Federalist 29. Talking about forming an Army.

 

This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.''


Fast is fine, accurate is final.


#32 Mick G

    Member

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

Posted 19 March 2018 - 03:20 AM

To put it simplest terms any question on why you need a gun is a loaded question. When you start explaining "Well I need a rifle for hunting" or "I need a pistol for self defense" or "I need a shotgun for skeet and trap" you are playing right in the hands of the gun grabbers.

The simple answer is that the 2A gives you the Right to keep and bear arms and that Right shall not be infringed.

Just as the 1A gave them the Right to ask you that question which you have answered. Now you can both go your separate ways.

Everybody just exercised their Rights granted to them by The Bill of Rights.

Keep it simple, no need to cite The Federalist Papers, Heller or James Madison in your answer.

It's a loaded question that's probably going to asked by a simpleton who has no idea what you are saying if it gets too complicated.

Unless they have a script with answers to responses in their hands then let it rip if you want.

You aren't going to change their minds, they started with a loaded question.



#33 Smallbore

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,445 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 07

Posted 19 March 2018 - 07:18 AM

Here's what Hamilton says in Federalist 29. Talking about forming an Army.
 
This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.''


This explains why the socialist want to take our guns. The socialist just smiles when you quote the Federalist papers.

#34 Prairie Pucker

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,730 posts
  • Joined: 25-March 13

Posted 19 March 2018 - 01:34 PM

 

To put it simplest terms any question on why you need a gun is a loaded question.The simple answer is that the 2A gives you the Right to keep and bear arms and that Right shall not be infringed.  Just as the 1A gave them the Right to ask you that question which you have answered. Now you can both go your separate ways.

 

Or an even simpler answer, "Because I don't want to be like you, buddy."


- PP

"One State---One Law"

NRA Endowment Life; ISRA


#35 Sal Bandini

  • Members
  • 8 posts
  • Joined: 30-January 17

Posted 19 March 2018 - 02:41 PM

To put it simplest terms any question on why you need a gun is a loaded question. When you start explaining "Well I need a rifle for hunting" or "I need a pistol for self defense" or "I need a shotgun for skeet and trap" you are playing right in the hands of the gun grabbers.

The simple answer is that the 2A gives you the Right to keep and bear arms and that Right shall not be infringed.

Just as the 1A gave them the Right to ask you that question which you have answered. Now you can both go your separate ways.

Everybody just exercised their Rights granted to them by The Bill of Rights.

Keep it simple, no need to cite The Federalist Papers, Heller or James Madison in your answer.

It's a loaded question that's probably going to asked by a simpleton who has no idea what you are saying if it gets too complicated.

Unless they have a script with answers to responses in their hands then let it rip if you want.

You aren't going to change their minds, they started with a loaded question.

 

I found this video is a great example of this and how to effectively answer these loaded questions:

 



#36 chicagoresident

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,343 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 16

Posted 19 March 2018 - 03:19 PM

The website he mentions https://www.aim.org is really good for anyone that hasn't discovered it yet. Fairly well known, news that answers more of why it's an agenda rather then trying to illicit a desired reaction.

Very much in line with Korwin's speaking points here.

Edited by chicagoresident, 19 March 2018 - 03:23 PM.


#37 ScottFM

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 486 posts
  • Joined: 09-January 17

Posted 20 March 2018 - 05:52 AM

 

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.

 

 

 

 

If you read past the first couple of pages in the Heller decision you come to this little gem:

 

"Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise . . . Armies”; “to provide . . . a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all ablebodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them. "

 

To summarize, the militia is the person in both the 2A and Article 1. When Scalia wrote of the individual right, he also wrote that the militia is all people, not an organized body until called forth. Therefore Article 1 Section 8 then would allow the states to regulate the right as it pertains to the individual. Had Scalia not done that, there would have been an almost immediate filing with subsequent wins for all state laws to be abolished pertaining to training and ownership of guns. Furthermore that the federal government laws would pre-empt any non-federal attempts at regulation. Which did not happen. 

 

BTW not to be overly pedantic. But in essence wasn't the Bill of Rights the 1st successful attempt at "messing" with the Constitution? Not too mention the Article 5 lays out exactly how we CAN "mess" with it! 


Edited by ScottFM, 20 March 2018 - 05:53 AM.

--

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

 

 


#38 Mick G

    Member

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

Posted 20 March 2018 - 06:48 AM

In a word NO. Those 10 amendments were added to insure our Rights.

Your long rambling missive doesn't pass the smell test.

 

From Lou:

 

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  

 

I suggest that if you don't like the Second Amendment that you try and change it.

Be prepared for what happens.        



#39 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,308 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 20 March 2018 - 08:07 PM

We are trying to keep the RKBA to be intact, and have no limits on it ("shall not be infringed").     We don't want a AWB or semi-auto gun ban or any kind of ban of weapons used in self-defense.

 

Imagine if someone were to say that free speech means you cannot use a computer to express yourself.    Or one cannot write a long brochure (i.e. high capacity magazine)    Your typical LWW would not want to be told to shut up.    That's what restricting the RKBA is - it is being told to shut up.

 

In the same way, the human right to self-defense should be emphasized.    Just as free speech is a human right, so is the right to self-defense - and the RKBA is essential to this.    One should not be limited in the weapons used to defend oneself, and that means the RKBA cannot be limited.

 

The goal of emphasizing the right of self-defense is to convince others to join the pro-2A side.   These people won't be swayed by "fighting against tyranny" arguments.  Nor "hunting" arguments.     But they do want to defend themselves from those who wish to harm them and the ones they love.


The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#40 Smallbore

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,445 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 07

Posted 21 March 2018 - 01:50 PM

   But they do want to defend themselves from those who wish to harm them and the ones they love.[/quote]
Not according to the teachers union.

#41 gangrel

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,036 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 11

Posted 21 March 2018 - 05:04 PM

These people won't be swayed by "fighting against tyranny" arguments.  Nor "hunting" arguments.     But they do want to defend themselves from those who wish to harm them and the ones they love.
Well, that...and "hunting" arguments are just silly and uninformed, because the second amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting. Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

NRA Life Member

NRA Certified Range Safety Officer

NRA Certified Instructor - Basic Pistol, PPIH, PPOH, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearm Safety
ISP Approved Firearm Concealed Carry Instructor

Utah CCW Instructor


#42 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,308 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 01 April 2018 - 07:53 AM

It is widely held that the RKBA is for hunting.    Canada and Europe have this is limited form.

 

It is widely held that the RKBA is for gun tournaments.   Canada and Europe have those.

 

But where on earth is the RKBA held for self-defense?   Here in the USA is one place under the 2A.    Canada does not recognize the RKBA for self-defense.    Neither do Europe.

 

Even Switzerland, where citizens are required to own rifles and are issued limited amounts of ammo, recognizes the RKBA as far as having a citizen militia, but not for personal self-defense.    In effect they have the tyranny fighter narrative (but more to defend their government who they believe will never turn tyrannical, but to defend their country from the other governments who will be tyrannical).

 

If we start emhasizing the 2A as the human right for self-defense, tell me, are the hunters going to turn into antis?  Of course not.   Are the hunters going to disagree with this?  Why would they?    

 

If we start emhasizing the 2A as the human right for self-defense, tell me, are the tyranny fighters going to turn into antis?  Of course not.   Are the tyranny fighters going to disagree with this?  Why would they?    In effect they believe that fighting tyranny IS self defense!   

 

So why is there such a pushback for emphasizing that the 2A is a human right of self defense?

 

The benefits are many fold.   We will stop the antis in their tracks.   We can accuse them of trying to take away power from ordinary people and giving it to criminals and thugs - and it will stick due to the self-defense narrative. 

 

What do you call people who are not antis and not pro-2A?   I'll just call them non-2A people in my statements below: 

 

Right now, look at non-2A people how  see "gun rights" - negatively.   I'm not talking about the antis, they'll always see the 2A negatively - as a license to murder.   The non-2A people hear about the people who go hunting and like guns and are like "Well, I don't go hunting so I do not have a benefit from the 2A."   The non-2A people hear the narrative of the tyranny fighters  and say "I don't want to shoot Jim the Cop, who's my friend if the government goes evil so the 2A has no benefit for me."    These people have been sold a bill of goods about the 2A and see it neutrally or negatively - but unlike the antis - they can be reasoned with. The numbers of these non-2A people far out number the pro-2A crowd and the antis put together.  They would be an asset to the pro-2A side. 

 

But if we emphasize the narrative of self-defense and it being a human right, this is something the non-2A people can see the benefit of and then they will be on our side.  We can bring them into the fold and the support for 2A would be much higher.

 

So, again, why is there such pushback for changing the narrative of the 2A to self-defense and human rights?   Even the NRA describes itself as "America's longest-standing civil rights organization." - so why can't we make the change in the pro-2A narrative?   I'm not saying not talk about the tyranny fighter aspect (just realize not everyone buys this) and talk about the hunting aspect (not everyone buys this).    But let's talk more about 

the self-defense aspect and push that as the primary narrative.  Even the NRA does this sometimes in its magazines, where they talk about the DGU's.    


Edited by BobPistol, 01 April 2018 - 08:00 AM.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#43 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,308 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 01 April 2018 - 08:09 AM

Here's one way we an use this new narrative.

 

We can use an argument like this.

 

The right of free speech is a human right.   Imagine if you were told you have that right but cannot write posts on the internet.   Or cannot publish books.   Or cannot publish videos.    The right to use a media and technology for that free speech is part and parcel of the human right of free speech.

 

Now let's take this for the pro-2A narrative emphasis I'm talking about.

 

The right of self-defense is a human right   Imagine if you were told that you have this right but cannot use a specific semi-auto gun.  Or cannot use high cap magazines.   Or cannot use a particular tool with your gun.   The right to use a media and technology for that people use for self-defense is part and parcel of the human right of self-defense.

 

If that 2A = human right of self defense idea got traction, antis are finished.  


Edited by BobPistol, 01 April 2018 - 08:09 AM.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#44 ScottFM

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 486 posts
  • Joined: 09-January 17

Posted 04 April 2018 - 03:16 PM

Here's one way we an use this new narrative.

 

We can use an argument like this.

 

The right of free speech is a human right.   Imagine if you were told you have that right but cannot write posts on the internet.   Or cannot publish books.   Or cannot publish videos.    The right to use a media and technology for that free speech is part and parcel of the human right of free speech.

 

Now let's take this for the pro-2A narrative emphasis I'm talking about.

 

The right of self-defense is a human right   Imagine if you were told that you have this right but cannot use a specific semi-auto gun.  Or cannot use high cap magazines.   Or cannot use a particular tool with your gun.   The right to use a media and technology for that people use for self-defense is part and parcel of the human right of self-defense.

 

If that 2A = human right of self defense idea got traction, antis are finished.  

But both the freedom of speech and the right to bear arms have been stated in our laws to not be unlimited rights. Human rights perhaps, but that does not even entail unlimited aspects. The right to self-defense is a good argument and it is the one that led to Heller vs. DC being a victory. But as has been stated by myself and others, Heller also affirmed the limits to that right do not extend to any weapon you want. Scalia was very clear in his opinion that the right was subject to regulation and that weapons to those in common use. Which deflates the idea that the right only extends to muskets, but it makes it clear you can't own a tank or as yet to be adjudicated a military-style weapon. For the time being you can in most states. One of the counter-arguments to the right to self-defense that I can foresee is to what weapons meet the requirements for adequate self-defense. For example, if I can defend against a reasonable threat with a certain caliber, style, and capacity handgun, then why would I or anyone need something that exceeds that and is something that exceeds it subject to restriction? I really don't have an answer, just throwing that out here for discussion. 


--

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

 

 


#45 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,308 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 04 April 2018 - 05:28 PM

"But both the freedom of speech and the right to bear arms have been stated in our laws to not be unlimited rights. Human rights perhaps, but that does not even entail unlimited aspects."

 

Not sure what you mean by "unlimited aspects"

We can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.    We can't threaten elected officials with death.   We can't commit fraud using our speech.     These are examples of speech content that is not covered by "free speech"

However, the media of how one uses free speech is not limited. 

 

Can we write posts on a forum?  Yup.   Publish magazines and pamphlets?  Yup.   Preaching on a soapbox?  Yup.   Debate in a local bar?  Yup. 

Can you name me a media where one cannot use free speech, where the government will do the prohibiting?

 

 

 

  . But as has been stated by myself and others, Heller also affirmed the limits to that right do not extend to any weapon you want.

 

 

In the same way, please show me a media of self-defense, which an individual would not be able to use for self defense?   I've seen antis go full whackjob saying we have no right to own nuclear weapons.   I agree, such a weapon is not used by an individual to protect themselves.   

 

 

"Scalia was very clear in his opinion that the right was subject to regulation and that weapons to those in common use."

 

The right of self defense is regulated.   You cannot shoot someone in the back, as they are fleeing and unarmed.   You cannot shoot someone for stealing your newspaper.    

 

However, once someone's life is in danger or one is in danger of serious injury, what limits on weapons are there?    The threat must be stopped.   Period.   

 

 

"Which deflates the idea that the right only extends to muskets, but it makes it clear you can't own a tank or as yet to be adjudicated a military-style weapon. For the time being you can in most states. One of the counter-arguments to the right to self-defense that I can foresee is to what weapons meet the requirements for adequate self-defense. For example, if I can defend against a reasonable threat with a certain caliber, style, and capacity handgun, then why would I or anyone need something that exceeds that and is something that exceeds it subject to restriction? I really don't have an answer, just throwing that out here for discussion. "

 

 

 

"Military style weapon" in an amendment which talks about the military as well ("the militia")  is clearly acceptable to be used in self-defense.  AR-15's are definitely OK. 

 

So what weapon limits are there for one's life in danger or serious injury is probable?    If a bad guy is pointing a revolver at my family, why can't I use a more powerful weapon to take him out?   If I kill him with a revolver or semi-auto pistol or an AR-15, he's still dead.    The threat is neutralized.    Of course, I would agree that a weapon that causes more people to be in danger than the original situation is definitely a limit - I can't use a nuke to take him out, that would kill my family as well as well as other innocents. 

 

I don't know about how to use a tank safely, so I'm not commenting on if it is acceptable. 

 

But where to draw the line further?   The range is very big in terms of weapons between an AR-15 and a nuke. 


Edited by BobPistol, 04 April 2018 - 05:29 PM.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#46 G214me

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,480 posts
  • Joined: 15-May 13

Posted 04 April 2018 - 05:48 PM

Answers I use when talking with non gun types and anti gun types.

 

Nobody needs an AR 47 ( No knowledge ) to go hunting......ask..... Well, what do you use for coyote, hog, varmint hunting ? that shows them they have no idea what they're talking about.

 

Nobody needs an AR 15 for self defense ......ask..... What research or training credentials or experience do you have to make that determination for every self defense situation ? 

 

We should get rid of the 2nd Amendment.....ask..... Ok, after that Amendment is gone which one should we get rid of after that ? when they say none of them explain that once the door is open someone will try to get rid of another one and ask do they support that.

 

We need more gun control...ask.... what other rights do you think we need more restrictions on ? / What's your plan for getting criminals to obey those laws ?

 

My favorite.... When someone says "oh you have a gun, really ? " I look totally shocked and say " You mean you don't ?, what happens if someone tried to attack you or those beautiful kids of yours ? are you just going to sit there and hope the police make it in time ? you gotta be kidding !!! ".  

 

NEVER be angry or insulting and be creative and always steer them to admit or realize they have no idea what they're talking about. invite them to go shooting. I have a friend that was VERY anti gun and freaked out when we got CC, it took me 2 years but now she owns a Glock 26 ( she liked mine ) and plans to get a CCL.



#47 G214me

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,480 posts
  • Joined: 15-May 13

Posted 04 April 2018 - 06:10 PM

 

"But both the freedom of speech and the right to bear arms have been stated in our laws to not be unlimited rights. Human rights perhaps, but that does not even entail unlimited aspects."

 

Not sure what you mean by "unlimited aspects"

We can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.    We can't threaten elected officials with death.   We can't commit fraud using our speech.     These are examples of speech content that is not covered by "free speech"

However, the media of how one uses free speech is not limited. 

 

Can we write posts on a forum?  Yup.   Publish magazines and pamphlets?  Yup.   Preaching on a soapbox?  Yup.   Debate in a local bar?  Yup. 

Can you name me a media where one cannot use free speech, where the government will do the prohibiting?

 

 

 

  . But as has been stated by myself and others, Heller also affirmed the limits to that right do not extend to any weapon you want.

 

 

In the same way, please show me a media of self-defense, which an individual would not be able to use for self defense?   I've seen antis go full whackjob saying we have no right to own nuclear weapons.   I agree, such a weapon is not used by an individual to protect themselves.   

 

 

"Scalia was very clear in his opinion that the right was subject to regulation and that weapons to those in common use."

 

The right of self defense is regulated.   You cannot shoot someone in the back, as they are fleeing and unarmed.   You cannot shoot someone for stealing your newspaper.    

 

However, once someone's life is in danger or one is in danger of serious injury, what limits on weapons are there?    The threat must be stopped.   Period.   

 

 

"Which deflates the idea that the right only extends to muskets, but it makes it clear you can't own a tank or as yet to be adjudicated a military-style weapon. For the time being you can in most states. One of the counter-arguments to the right to self-defense that I can foresee is to what weapons meet the requirements for adequate self-defense. For example, if I can defend against a reasonable threat with a certain caliber, style, and capacity handgun, then why would I or anyone need something that exceeds that and is something that exceeds it subject to restriction? I really don't have an answer, just throwing that out here for discussion. "

 

 

 

"Military style weapon" in an amendment which talks about the military as well ("the militia")  is clearly acceptable to be used in self-defense.  AR-15's are definitely OK. 

 

So what weapon limits are there for one's life in danger or serious injury is probable?    If a bad guy is pointing a revolver at my family, why can't I use a more powerful weapon to take him out?   If I kill him with a revolver or semi-auto pistol or an AR-15, he's still dead.    The threat is neutralized.    Of course, I would agree that a weapon that causes more people to be in danger than the original situation is definitely a limit - I can't use a nuke to take him out, that would kill my family as well as well as other innocents. 

 

I don't know about how to use a tank safely, so I'm not commenting on if it is acceptable. 

 

But where to draw the line further?   The range is very big in terms of weapons between an AR-15 and a nuke. 

 

When they use the "So can everyone have a nuke, stealth bomber, battleship ? " It shows they have no valid argument so go with...." I know you're not an irrational person so let's be serious, The 2nd Amendment makes it clear that every American INCLUDING YOU is responsible for defending the country and themselves. The right simple insures every American will be able to posses the same type of firearm that a common soldier would carry into battle, that's why it doesn't say cannon or ship which they also had at the time. but it doesn't say only single shot muskets either." Trust me they will have trouble with a rebuttal to that one.



#48 chicagoresident

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,343 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 16

Posted 04 April 2018 - 06:32 PM

"But both the freedom of speech and the right to bear arms have been stated in our laws to not be unlimited rights. Human rights perhaps, but that does not even entail unlimited aspects."
 

Not sure what you mean by "unlimited aspects"
We can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.    We can't threaten elected officials with death.   We can't commit fraud using our speech.     These are examples of speech content that is not covered by "free speech"
However, the media of how one uses free speech is not limited. 

 
Can we write posts on a forum?  Yup.   Publish magazines and pamphlets?  Yup.   Preaching on a soapbox?  Yup.   Debate in a local bar?  Yup. 
Can you name me a media where one cannot use free speech, where the government will do the prohibiting?

 
 
 

  . But as has been stated by myself and others, Heller also affirmed the limits to that right do not extend to any weapon you want.

 
 
In the same way, please show me a media of self-defense, which an individual would not be able to use for self defense?   I've seen antis go full whackjob saying we have no right to own nuclear weapons.   I agree, such a weapon is not used by an individual to protect themselves.   
 
 
"Scalia was very clear in his opinion that the right was subject to regulation and that weapons to those in common use."
 
The right of self defense is regulated.   You cannot shoot someone in the back, as they are fleeing and unarmed.   You cannot shoot someone for stealing your newspaper.    
 
However, once someone's life is in danger or one is in danger of serious injury, what limits on weapons are there?    The threat must be stopped.   Period.   
 
 
"Which deflates the idea that the right only extends to muskets, but it makes it clear you can't own a tank or as yet to be adjudicated a military-style weapon. For the time being you can in most states. One of the counter-arguments to the right to self-defense that I can foresee is to what weapons meet the requirements for adequate self-defense. For example, if I can defend against a reasonable threat with a certain caliber, style, and capacity handgun, then why would I or anyone need something that exceeds that and is something that exceeds it subject to restriction? I really don't have an answer, just throwing that out here for discussion. "
 
 
 
"Military style weapon" in an amendment which talks about the military as well ("the militia")  is clearly acceptable to be used in self-defense.  AR-15's are definitely OK. 
 
So what weapon limits are there for one's life in danger or serious injury is probable?    If a bad guy is pointing a revolver at my family, why can't I use a more powerful weapon to take him out?   If I kill him with a revolver or semi-auto pistol or an AR-15, he's still dead.    The threat is neutralized.    Of course, I would agree that a weapon that causes more people to be in danger than the original situation is definitely a limit - I can't use a nuke to take him out, that would kill my family as well as well as other innocents. 
 
I don't know about how to use a tank safely, so I'm not commenting on if it is acceptable. 
 
But where to draw the line further?   The range is very big in terms of weapons between an AR-15 and a nuke. 
When they use the "So can everyone have a nuke, stealth bomber, battleship ? " It shows they have no valid argument so go with...." I know you're not an irrational person so let's be serious, The 2nd Amendment makes it clear that every American INCLUDING YOU is responsible for defending the country and themselves. The right simple insures every American will be able to posses the same type of firearm that a common soldier would carry into battle, that's why it doesn't say cannon or ship which they also had at the time. but it doesn't say only single shot muskets either." Trust me they will have trouble with a rebuttal to that one.
Even going back to the constitution there was a lot of debate arguing that congressional control of letters of Marque was an infringement on the 2nd ammendment. And many private vessels did have cannons that could be used in self defense even if a letter of Marque wasn't issued.

It really does extend to military parity because there was a lot of fear of a large standing army.

All civil societies are pretty much in agreement of the types of weapons and targets that constitute war crimes. Most governments preemptively attack to stop WMD's. Beyond that I say anything else should be fair game. If you can house and maintain an anti aircraft gun (legal to purchase up to 1968, still legal under NFA). https://youtu.be/2eV8N0bUzA0 Most people don't know this because there hasn't been a single death (that I'm aware of) on US soil. You can also legally register hand grenade spoons. Even high explosives aren't off limits for private citizens if you can meet the storage requirements.

Edited by chicagoresident, 05 April 2018 - 12:24 PM.


#49 Smallbore

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,445 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 07

Posted 05 April 2018 - 09:08 AM

For a right to be a right it must be unlimited otherwise it is an every changing privilege.
Everyone has a right to yell fire in a crowded theatre and expected to do so in case of a fire. Our government does not yet make us remove our larynx at birth or before enterng a theater.
Miss use of a right is called crimnal behavior.
To give a government thought police power leads to tyranny.
In Illinois pocession of brass knuckles is criminal. This abuse of power in itself is criminal. There is no legitimate reason to deny all women this basic self defense tool. But the thought police have.
No law on any book has ever stopped someone from pocessing any weapon they really want and they can afford. The UN has not stopped one nation from having the bomb.
Believing that only the government can be trusted has proven to be fatal time and time again.

#50 RECarry

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,248 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 12

Posted 06 April 2018 - 06:39 AM

You've heard the left say: "Why would anyone need a Confederate flag? They were traitors to the United States who deprived blacks of their civil rights".

 

If the Confederates were traitors who must not be memorialized, then so is anyone who wants to shred the Constitution or restrict the Bill of Rights and the 2A.

 

Just as slavery was a bad thing, we must make the point that (voluntarily) being subservient to tyrants and criminals is a bad thing.


Edited by RECarry, 06 April 2018 - 06:41 AM.

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

#51 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,308 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 07 April 2018 - 10:27 AM

Precisely.

 

If one does not have the right of self defense, and that right can be infringed, then criminals rule the planet with the government's blessing. 

 

Remember, criminals are cronies of the D half of the one party system. 


Edited by BobPistol, 07 April 2018 - 10:28 AM.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#52 Twostarrz

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 482 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 18

Posted 07 April 2018 - 02:54 PM

https://www.quora.co...econd-Amendment
This spells it out pretty clearly.

Edited by Twostarrz, 07 April 2018 - 02:55 PM.


#53 THE KING

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,335 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 09

Posted 07 April 2018 - 04:27 PM

https://www.quora.co...econd-Amendment
This spells it out pretty clearly.


Thanks for posting that link. That was an awesome read. It's a shame that most people don't have the basic understanding of what the 2nd amendment actually means.

NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
ISP Certified Illinois Conceal Carry Instructor
Retired Professional Firefighter / Paramedic





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users