Guns As A " God-given Right"

[Winchester]

I'm just noting the irony of your anti-state rants while you yourself are employed/managed by them.  It calls to mind the line in the Godfather part 2 where Michael Corleone tells Senator Geary "we're part of the same hypocrisy". 

I made a Morpheus meme about it some time ago. I've also mocked my situation in here.

 

The inherently evil portion of my job is the mechanism by which I get my money. 

[superblue]

Funny how this is not understood, yet many believe you have a right to be protected, which does not exist.

 

Another funny thing, prior to 1969 an eight year old  could go into any gun store and purchase a gun and bullets. No ID. No background checks, etc. Never any mass shootings or school shootings.

 

But back to your question of why America instituted a 2nd Amendment. Over the course of time, the first thing a tyrannical government takes away is your arms, this happened to the Jews in Germany, the Russians under Lenin, the Chinese under Mao, the Cubans under Castro, etc. The Constitution was created where fear of the people would keep the government in check (whereas fear of the government and its whimsy is tyranny). So the 2nd Amendment protects the other amendments.

 

As for the founders:

 

"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington

( until they threaten to dismantle the republican and democratic parties that are destroying this country )

 

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

- Thomas Jefferson

 

( unless it is a white man defending himself from a black man who is perpetrating a crime that is considered racist , there must be rules in place which prevent racists from getting guns )

 

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."

- John Adams

 

( Only in the State of Texas, all other states, good luck and expect your butt to be dragged into court. )

 

 

 

 

Even the police would rather have us armed, not against them, but the crime rate plummets in areas where there are legal, law abiding gun owners.  ( now you know the only ones we can really trust to tell us who should have a fire arm is the government more over the democratic party, if they say only the police and federal agents should have them, then by gosh we should listen an respect them because they are more educated than the rest of us. )

 

Sorry about the long winded post, but there was a time where I didn't quite get it until I realized, I am fully responsible for my own well being and can't sue the police department if they didn't protect me or my family. We are on our own at 2 am when some hapless idiot breaks into your home, who are you turning to then? The phone?

 

 

The posts for keeping our right to bear arms always needs to be long winded and very detailed, as sarcasm flies over the heads of those against the second amendment.  

 

And someone answer this,  if the second amendment were to be removed, and Americans no longer had the right to own any firearm for any reason, who are we to turn to if and when the day comes that a president or anyone else in the government decides to go on a door to door raid for any reason, as what happened during the Boston Bombing.  Raiding those homes did absolutely nothing, and incase anyone forgot, the kid was found in the back yard of a boat and reported by the home owner.  Those door to door raids were nothing but an exercise in prepping Americans to be conditioned to such acts.

 

Or are we to each send a petition to the UN to come and save us when our government crosses a line ? Or are we to rely on military generals who are more concerned about their prestigious rank and esteem to suddenly drop that, risk the safety of their retirement and lively hoods and send a counter order to not obey a direct order from the commander in chief ? Or are we to rely on an out gunned police force to protect us from a military that will blindly follow any order ?

 

Who are we as a Free people to really trust 100% with our lives and freedom if we give up our right to protect ourselves with a fire arm of our choice.

[Winchester]

If the second were removed, it would not amount to an enumerated power.

[Norseman82]

 

 

But back to your question of why America instituted a 2nd Amendment. Over the course of time, the first thing a tyrannical government takes away is your arms, this happened to the Jews in Germany, the Russians under Lenin, the Chinese under Mao, the Cubans under Castro, etc. The Constitution was created where fear of the people would keep the government in check (whereas fear of the government and its whimsy is tyranny). So the 2nd Amendment protects the other amendments.

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lDb0Dn8OXE

 

 (look at Chicago where their unconstitutional laws prevent ownership, it is practically the wild west)

 

Actually, Chicago was forced to scrap the handgun ban after the Heller and McDonald decisions.  However, there is still an anti-gun bias among the local pols, such adopting a broad definition of "assault weapon".

Edited June 13, 2014 by Norseman82

[superblue]

If the second were removed, it would not amount to an enumerated power.

 

 

That is a crock, because if it were the case, the founders would not have bothered with it in the first place, but that is the least of our worries with a two party political machine that is constantly working together to make sure the other stays in power and no one else can rock the boat.

 

And if you trust the military to always do the right thing at all times, and has the best interest for the country, and will not just blindly follow orders, history has already proven that wrong, and in those instances, the police were no where around to stop them nor could they even if they wanted to, at least not with out a real fight.

Edited June 13, 2014 by superblue

[Winchester]

That is a crock, because if it were the case, the founders would not have bothered with it in the first place,

There was quite a bit of controversy around the bill of rights because of the very matter I cited, and the constitution was sold as containing very few enumerated powers.

 

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."--Hamilton, Federalist 45. (Not to put too much importance on the Federalist Papers, but it's the most easily quoted.

 

At the risk of quoting too much Kinsella, I link to the following article, which has a great argument and a ton of links to follow. http://archive.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021701.html

Edited June 13, 2014 by Winchester

[superblue]

There was quite a bit of controversy around the bill of rights because of the very matter I cited, and the constitution was sold as containing very few enumerated powers.

 

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."--Hamilton, Federalist 45. (Not to put too much importance on the Federalist Papers, but it's the most easily quoted.

 

At the risk of quoting too much Kinsella, I link to the following article, which has a great argument and a ton of links to follow. http://archive.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021701.html

all I know is the Federal Government has too much power as it is, and the States do not exercise their rights and powers as already defined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights but more over when states do exercise their rights such as Arizona dealing immigration what happens, the left and others demonize their decision and the president hops on the bandwagon.  The power was given to the states not the feds. As to protect us from falling into the exact same power that everyone was breaking away from at the time.

 

And actually the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers are the best educational documents we have towards our current government and how to handle the issues we are currently facing.

[Winchester]

all I know is the Federal Government has too much power as it is, and the States do not exercise their rights and powers as already defined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights but more over when states do exercise their rights such as Arizona dealing immigration what happens, the left and others demonize their decision and the president hops on the bandwagon.  The power was given to the states not the feds. As to protect us from falling into the exact same power that everyone was breaking away from at the time.

 

And actually the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers are the best educational documents we have towards our current government and how to handle the issues we are currently facing.

From a constitutional perspective, the states were not "given" powers. The states delegated certain powers to the federal government. This distinction is important.

 

One doesn't delegate to a superior.

[Credo in Deum]

Opposing sides should settle this debate with pistols at dawn.  Winner takes all. 

[Winchester]

Found it.

[superblue]

From a constitutional perspective, the states were not "given" powers. The states delegated certain powers to the federal government. This distinction is important.

 

One doesn't delegate to a superior

 

 

you are right, I had my thoughts backwards, but the states still do not exercise the power they actually have enough to the point that the feds understand just that. States are far more willing to be paid off instead of putting on their big boy pants.

Edited June 15, 2014 by superblue

[superblue]

Opposing sides should settle this debate with pistols at dawn.  Winner takes all. 

 

 

The South already tried that, it didn't work, had a good run at it, but in the end the North had better help.

An the South didn't even want to take all, they just wanted out of the Union .

[Winchester]

you are right, I had my thoughts backwards, but the states still do not exercise the power they actually have enough to the point that the feds understand just that. States are far more willing to be paid off instead of putting on their big boy pantaloons.

The United States essentially operate as a nation, now. We teach our kids it's a nation, they recite a little prayer in schools telling them it's a nation that is indivisible, and anyone suggesting it's possible to leave the union is branded a dangerous lunatic. It reminds me of the situation an abused spouse faces when trying to leave the abuser.

[superblue]

The United States essentially operate as a nation, now. We teach our kids it's a nation, they recite a little prayer in schools telling them it's a nation that is indivisible, and anyone suggesting it's possible to leave the union is branded a dangerous lunatic. It reminds me of the situation an abused spouse faces when trying to leave the abuser.

Absolutely right,

 

if a group were to form to seriously discuss secession  ( which just any fyi on the white house petition, needing 30,000 signatures for a response such a petition was generated for Florida and other states to be allowed to secede the answer was not only no , but that the states that did petition had no right to secede in the first place ) they would be branded terrorists and probably blown up by a drone in the middle of the night. Or thrown in federal prison . or both.

 

So if a state has what they consider a real reason to secede an creates a formal document stating that no request is needed that the state is simply done an out, and the Federal Government doesn't agree and sends in troops, what does that tell anyone about why we need to keep the 2nd amendment.

 

Hell would freeze over first before the Federal Government allowed Texas or another state to secede, states can hold off federal law for so long but not with out consequence aimed at them by the feds.

Another example of the need for the 2nd amendment, Clive Bundy ( now I don't fully agree with Bundy ) but here is the thing, had those BLM agents walked onto the property with a signed court order from a lawsuit that said Mr Bundy you lost your case against BLM you have to give up the cattle, then fine an fair BLM take it, but they crossed the line when they just arbitrarily showed up to take the cattle, and the need to demonstrate force in number and by use of firearm was necessary to tell the feds to back off. And they did for the time being.

 

The second Amendment is necessary for your average free American to remain free when a bloated federal agent following some bloated unjust law comes waltzing in to take what does not belong to them be it ones property or liberty.

[Socrates]

The state employs aggression, aggression is always evil. I hold to the non-aggression principle. 

 

Is this principle real and objectively true for everybody, or is it merely illusory, like you claim divine law to be?