Just a reminder.

An unarmed society is a helpless society when it comes to protecting yourself from bad guys no matter which quarter they might come from. Hang onto your knives and guns at any cost, kids. Listen to Semp, old Uncle Bill and all the others.

I've often wondered how history might have been changed if each of the Jews that ended up as smoke from the gas chambers during WWII had a gun and the will to use it. Think about it.

And, Wal, it's good to see you dropping in. I cautioned Maui Rob that the forum was addictive and it is and I'll pass that same advice and warning on to everybody. Drop in when you have a little free time or are looking for a PGA but don't let the forum take away from your life. It's here to add to it, not to take away.

It's my duty and obligation to be here but I can tell you honestly there are times when I'd like to be on that beach in Mexico.
 
I agree with Walosi about the 2nd amendment. I too went into depth researching it at one time in my life, over ten years ago now. The current Attorney General sees the 2nd as an individual right, upsetting modern Governmental interpretation. The Supreme Court has ruled rarely upon it and left enough unanswered so that both sides claim support from the high Bench. Most Historians familiar with the subject believe it an individual right.

There is no purpose enumerating other than an individual right in the Bill of Rights.

As strongly as I feel about the 2nd, I am careful not to brand others who may be undecided, amibivilant, misinformed or uninvolved. How else will people hear the truth if not from us?

munk
 
I rarely (and wisely so) jump in on political threads. I read Beo's post, and considering it comes from a person not raised in our traditions, it is not offensive to me. I am a very strong believer in the RTKBA. I believe it is an individual right, granted by God, and merely affirmed in our Constitution.
Beo, if you have the time, try reading The Federalist Papers.

Completely OT, has anyone heard from our friend JP? I hope he is well.

--Mike L.
 
Can't pass up a soapbox!

The sad thing is that every human being on this earth has these same rights and yet so few are free. Every one of us, man, woman and child, of every nation, race and religion has exactly the same rights. What the majority of the people of the world lack is a government that is required by it's own laws to respect these inherent rights, and the power to do something about it if they are violated. Our laws enumerate these rights, but they do not bestow them. Our rights are inherent in our humanity and the power and responsibility to enforce them lies with us as individuals. The Constitution will not stop a bullet nor will it open a cell door. It is an idea, but if you believe in that idea, and live it and defend it and are willing to fight and die for it then it will keep you free. You may suffer and you may die but you will be free. It is a mighty responsibility. You must believe and you must live what you believe. Every right is a responsibility, every freedom a duty. You can't pick and choose; you can't say that you want to be free to speak your mind but that he can't because you don't like what he has to say. If you want the right to life, be ready to defend your neighbor’s. If you want freedom of religion then respect the weirdo down the street when he does his thing. If a particular right doesn't seem important to you then think about one that does and defend them both because if one goes so do they all. One piece at a time, for the common good, for the children, for safety's sake or for some other excuse or empty promise.

It is our right and duty to enforce our rights. Everything that we let slip away was paid for in blood by our forefathers and will have to be bought back, with interest, in the same coin, by our descendents.

Be a citizen. Think for yourself, vote, speak out. Buy a rifle and know how to use it. America has lasted over two hundred years. Rome lasted a thousand, most of it as a despotic tyranny. They started out as a republic but they got lazy and wanted someone to take care of them. Sound familiar?

God bless you all.
 
Mike, thanks for reminding me our rights are unalienable, the founders acknowledging as coming from God.

munk
 
If you consider the time at which the second amendment was written it seems fairly obvious that the founding fathers were aware of what could happen when the common folk were armed. And they didn't have a problem with that.
 
Bill, & others - Sorry if my earlier post came across as offensive. The point is that I've heard those anti-2nd Amendment arguments before, enough times that I really don't need to hear them again. The main reason (IMHO) why the USA has managed to preserve so many of its freedoms is the sublime wisdom of its constitution, and the strength of the constitution is its integrity, the way that each right confirmed thereby underwrites and supports the others. To seek to undermine one part of it is an assault on the whole. This includes stealth attacks in the form of attempts to twist and corrupt its meaning.

But I'm not an American, and the sanctity of the US constitution is none of my business; except that I'm also human, and therefore the noblest & finest creations of the human mind and spirit are my legacy too. It's like when the Taleban blew up the statues of Buddha; something wonderful and precious was lost, and I lost out too. I live in a country with no constitution, and therefore have no rights, only a general licence from my government to do such things as are not specifically forbidden - a licence that can be withdrawn at any time at the whim of 600 men and women in London. For that reason I reckon I understand the true value of the constitution rather more than many Americans.

Rant over. If I misunderstood what Beoram was trying to say, I apologise. It just worries me rather when I hear the language of Mordor in the woods and fields of the Shire...
 
I once heard a retired cop say, "if only she were armed she wouldn't be raped and dead." That statement made by my former teacher in college stuck with me. Unlike my mother who still to this day doesn't undestand why people need to be "prepared" at all times. :) :rolleyes:
 
There is a lot of history behind the American Bill of Rights, the memory of the mass conscript armies of Europe in the 30 years war, the Magna Charta and the Rights of Englishmen, proscriptions, confiscations and pogroms. The founding fathers were wise and worldly men, they knew what they wanted to accomplish and what to avoid. The evils that they feared are still here, they are just more subtle now. In the old days the nobility could pillage and rape at will, now we call them celebrities. In the old days there were robber barons, now we have Limited Liability Corporations. Back then the royalty fought it out in battle for the power to do their will bringing civil war and ruin to their own people, now massive political machines spin a fabric of lies and illusion to pit working people against each other, so they can have the power to remain in control. If you are an American cherish your freedom, if you are not, remember, we were revolutionaries once.
 
Tom Holt;
I didn't realize there were many of you real Britishers left. I'd assumed the socialization experiment a success and most happy with Paradise.

Your example of the Taliban destroying the statues of Budhha is a good observation of the mutual responsibility we bear. Much easier to bear with everyone as equals, armed.

munk
 
The second amendment is the foundation the others were built on.

Anyone who relys on police protection is in a dream world. Dial 911, wait 20 minutes, and die.
Click to expand...

Joke:

Why does america need a 2nd amendment (if the first one so clearly expresses people's rights)? Just in case we forget the first. :)
 
Just to be clear - I wasn't making an anti-2nd Amendment argument by any means. In fact, my (academic) interpretation of the 2nd amendment was that bearing arms was not a right, but a responsibility, a duty (I'm not expressing an opinion one way or other). Wal (and N2S and others) have set me straight about the implicit assertion of individual rights. Wal and some others and I had a discussion about 'gun control' a number of months ago which was very informative to me - I just try to keep an open mind about things and not get myself wedged into asserting a position for the sake of being consistent (consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, as they say). So I suppose I wasn't really trying to 'say' anything.

I would disagree about the strength of the constitution being its integrity (but I'm happy to be set straight) - seeing as we are discussing emendments - the constitution has been changed quite a bit over time and that changing has been fought over of course, with blood spilt within America (I'm thinking of the US civil war).

The UK doesn't have a constitution as such, though the Magna Carta (or, the 'Big Paper' as I call it ;) ) is very much the same sort of thing - and in fact the US Constitution derives some of its content from the Magna Carta.

I wouldn't disagree that the US constitution has much nobility to it - but to a large extent I believe it is re-affirming common law (dating back to the Anglo-Saxon period and ultimately common to Germanic peoples), which is in effect in the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia, India, &c. Though I believe in practice individual rights are violated in the US as much as they are in the UK, but that's just an opinion.

Personally I'm more interested in the common law notions which underlie the constitution than I am in the document itself. I suppose I baulk at the idea of enshrining a single manifestation of those ideas -- for the same reason that flags don't particularly inspire me -- which is the fact that I worry that the symbol (the document, the flag) becomes an empty idol so to speak. There's a distinction, in my mind, between defending the Constitution and defending the ideas of the Constitution, and I have no doubt which one is the important task.

But I'm rambling - even the best ideas require interpretation and working from the abstract to the concrete and particular is never very easy.

--B.
 
Beo, defending the constitution, or the ideas behind the constitution are not the main problem we face. The thing too many miss is the need to keep the original ideas and ideals attached to the document itself, as part of the interpretation. My involvement with the second was to research correspondence among the signers as to their clearly stated personal intent. This was when we anticipated the need for this information, to use in countering the arguments against concealed weapons permit laws. The idea that we need permits still galls me, but the opposition contains multitudes of revisionist historians, cloudy emotionalists, and downright liars. Only recently, a Prof. Belleisles has been debunked for his falsification (not erroneous, plain old made-up) of historical records, claiming he could prove that very few early Americans even owned firearms. There is a contingent that dearly desires an unarmed America. Some are hoplophobes, and follow the hope that no guns will mean no violence, and bigger turkeys at Xmas. Some still believe in an obtainable Utopia, in their lifetime, and vent their frustrations in every direction. Some are more sinister, and work the other groups like puppet masters. Their end agenda is a weaker American public. You ae right in saying we have had our rights infringed as much as nations without our constitutional backing. Still, so long as we are armed, we are too dangerous to push too far, or too quickly. We will vote (if we are awake) to shortstall or at least delay much of this, but if cornered or given the ultimatum, we will fight. It will not be a revolt - our government is "Of the People, By the People". If it comes to it, it will be a much louder election than we have had in years, and the tree of Liberty will again have been watered with the blood of tyrants. And there won't be as much sediment in the gene pool.
 
Nice to see that others have put it much better, but to me, the interpretation that some rights are specifically reserved to the feds, others to the state, and when it says " the right of the people " in the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Court has always, to my knowlege, said that the right of the people means it is reserved to the people.

We had and still have a Director of Civilian Marksmanship. The NRA signed on to the idea it was patriotic, and would help save time in a time of war, if folks already knew how to shoot. Through the 'fifties and into the 'sixties and beyond the NRA continued to sponsor matches using the military service rifle. To my knowledge one can still buy rifles directly from the government by attending and shooting in 2 or 3 matches and retaining proof of it.

I don't like some ( many ) things the NRA has done lately, either.

Oh, and Semper Fi, good to meet a fellow endowment member.
 
Damn, Walosi, that was good writing. I wish I'd written that. The letters between founders is just one more item in the lengthy proofs historians use for the individual right to keep and bear arms.

munk
 
Originally posted by Rusty
...
I don't like some ( many ) things the NRA has done lately, either.

Oh, and Semper Fi, good to meet a fellow endowment member.
Click to expand...

Rusty

I echo your sentiments about the NRA. There are some things I don't like about the organization but it seems to be the best we have to carry the fight for the 2nd Amendment. Personally, I lean more to the Neal Knox camp who some would say is right wing even for the NRA.

Semp --
 
Originally posted by RonS
Be a citizen. Think for yourself, vote, speak out. Buy a rifle and know how to use it.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly, Ron. Especially the "vote" bit. This item is at least as important to the health of our democracy as an armed citizenry.

I'm not proud of some of the episodes in our history as a nation. But I AM proud of the fact that I can state this, and that our political system gives us, the citizens, the ability to review that history, hold our politicians to account, and, if necessary, to redress past wrongs.

The key to our system is the involvement of the public in the political process. Voting is the supreme manifestation of that involvement.

Some of you are a good distance to the right of me, politically speaking - at least on some issues. Nevertheless, I urge all of you to vote in ALL elections at every level of government.

S.
 
Rusty:

The DCM is still out there. I qualified for a rifle a couple of years back (which was also my entre into service rifle matches).

What made me do it? Although I've supported the 2nd Ammendment all of my adult life, I never had a personal interest in things that went "bang" until Mr. Clinton signed the Brady bill. That changed things for me.

I generally hate slogans. They package reality a little too neatly. However, "from my cold, dead hands" is about right, IMO.

S.
NRA #25564434
 
Voting is very important, although the numbers in California's voter turnout showed that less than half our people went to vote. I constantly hear people complain about what's wrong with California, even though they're the people that told me that they can't go vote because they're "too tired from work".
 
n2s has touched upon a very key point:

"The key word for me is actually the use of the word "free" in "free state". The Constitution did not create a strong federal govenment. It creative a representative body that would serve as a collective creature of the the states (the original 13). The original sturcture was something like the present European Union, a union of independent states. This clause ensures that each state will be allowed to maintain it's own army, and then it goes further. "

In the recent presidential election, the fact that the president of the United States is elected by the states, not by "one person, one vote" was completly ignored by most. But that's the reason that the electorial college exists.

The relevance of this to the the current discussion is that if the state's rights outlined in the constitution are negated, those of the individual will surely follow. The fact that members of congress have actually proposed disbanding the electorial college show that all must be on their guard.

This concept seems to be a unique feature of our government, and in discussions with Europeans about the election, nearly incomprehensable to them, even though I compared it to the European Union.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top