Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Letís be honest about guns
unitedliberty.org ^ | 25 July, 2012 | Richard Schrade

Posted on 07/26/2012 8:10:57 AM PDT by marktwain

The problem with all of the Second Amendment discussion is that very few people are willing to address this issue directly and accurately. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the right to and ability to conduct an armed revol…ution. The Second Amendment was to protect the ability of the people to violently overthrow the government.

Even if one agrees with the “Militia limitation” on the Second Amendment, the Militias to which the Amendment refers were State Militias which would have been used to fight the federal government.

When viewed in this light, it is apparent that a limitation on automatic weapons would be an infrigment on the purposes of the Second Amendment. If we want to have an honest discussion about the issue of gun control, then let’s frame the discussion correctly, “Should the people have the right to keep and bear arms that could be used to violently overthrown the central government”.

Let’s remember that this country was formed in a violent revolution. Let’s remember that at Lexington and Concord citizen fired on and killed government solidiers sent by the central government to confiscate their weapons and arms.

If we are going to have gun control then let’s not dicker around the fringes. Let those who would limit the law-abiding citizen’s access to arms first repeal the Second Amendment. That would be the intellectually honest way to address the issue.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: banglist; constitution; guncontrol; secondamendment
The last thing "progressives" want is to be intellectually honest. Honesty completely destroys their chances of taking power.
1 posted on 07/26/2012 8:11:07 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Why do cops have guns?
Why do money couriers have guns?
Why do government agents have guns?

TO PROTECT THEMSELVES!

Why do the Secret Service have guns?

TO PROTECT POTUS!

WHY NOT US?


2 posted on 07/26/2012 8:15:51 AM PDT by BillM (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BillM

I have guns for three things.

1. To protect myself and my family.
2. To defend Liberty.
3. To defy tyranny.

If someone doesn’t like it, too bad.


3 posted on 07/26/2012 8:20:45 AM PDT by BCR #226 (02/07 SOT www.extremefirepower.com...The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I’m glad to see this posted.
My husband made the same observation the other day. If the purpose of the armed citizenry is to protect ourselves from an out of control government, then the citizens have the right to keep and bear the same kind of arms that would be used against them.

Haha. As a former Navy pilot who works at a nearby air base, he has the perfect place to store his jet.


4 posted on 07/26/2012 8:23:31 AM PDT by Wiser now (Socialism does not eliminate poverty, it guarantees it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Even if the the Second Amendment were to be repealed, it would not take away our rights to bear arms as the amendment does not in itself grant that right, it merely recognizes a God given right.


5 posted on 07/26/2012 8:39:32 AM PDT by Inyo-Mono (My greatest fear is that when I'm gone my wife will sell my guns for what I told her I paid for them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BillM

In the Declaration of Independence it is specifically stated that we have “Certain Unalienable Rights And Among These Are Life,Liberty,And The Pursuit Of Happiness”.We DO have the right of Self-Defense!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


6 posted on 07/26/2012 8:45:25 AM PDT by bandleader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
the Militias to which the Amendment refers were State Militias which would have been used to fight the federal government.

Horse Hockey! A well regulated Militia is American citizens guarding against tyranny.

7 posted on 07/26/2012 8:45:34 AM PDT by BerryDingle (I know how to deal with communists, I still wear their scars on my back from Hollywood-Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Charley Reese put it very well in his column of which I quote a part:

The Orlando Sentinel
Commentary Section
July 19, 1998
“When Confronted By a Criminal, You’re Back on the U.S. Frontier”
By Charley Reese
The easiest way to resolve, in your own mind, the gun-control debate is to take this little test.
1. Do you believe that you have a right to live?
2. Do you believe that your spouse and children have a right to live?
3. If someone is threatening to kill you and your family, do you think that you have a right to defend yourself?
That’s the objective, yes-or-no part of the quiz. Now here is one final essay question:
How will you defend yourself and your family if you are confronted by an armed intruder or intruders?


8 posted on 07/26/2012 8:50:57 AM PDT by Joe Bfstplk (People should enjoy the fruits of their labor. No labor, no fruit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the right to and ability to conduct an armed revol…ution. The Second Amendment was to protect the ability of the people to violently overthrow the government.

Bingo. Any diversion from that thought is an attempt to limit the 2nd amendment. It's not about hunting. It's not about sport shooting. It's not about protection, although protection from a tyrannical govt goes hand in hand

9 posted on 07/26/2012 9:04:38 AM PDT by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

We are the militia. Judging from the amount of corruption in elections, violence and destruction from the centralist foot soldiers, like Occupy and other radical groups, it more important for citizens to be armed now than ever before.


10 posted on 07/26/2012 9:08:01 AM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BerryDingle
Our forefathers were against the presence of a large standing Army quartered within the country. There are countless quotes from men like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams that confirm their opposition. Their original intent was a citizen militia capable of being mustered rapidly to buy time for the raising of a large standing Army if need be. We kept with that mentality until WW2 and the cold war that followed. Our forefathers knew that paying for a permanent large standing Army was UNSUSTAINABLE as we are all likely to find out for ourselves eventually. Therefore, one must conclude that the days of the well regulated militia i.e. citizen soldiers have not passed us; therefore, any attempts by liberals to undermine the second amendment i.e. the constitution should be recognized as and treated as a domestic threat to the constitution and as a matter of national security. They loathe the military and are fond of saying as much but deep down in their hearts, they know they need the military because they are unwilling and completely unable to pass muster. The leftists are responsible for the MIC as much as anybody.
11 posted on 07/26/2012 9:09:15 AM PDT by RC one (this space intentionally left blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

In all fairness, limiting the 2nd Amendment to just the ability to overthrow the government is incorrect, purely based on the times. In context:

For most American Colonists, then Americans, Europeans were indeed a threat, but not the only threat, perhaps not even the worst threat. This honor would go to the northern and southern Indian tribes.

The northern tribes were affiliated with and supported by the French, and the southern tribes by the Spanish. While these European powers provided the Indians with, at the time, modern gun technology, the tribes provided sheer numbers as a threat to early Americans.

Even before the Revolution, colonists and their then British allies had fought some bitter, no quarter wars with several tribes. These were often vicious affairs, even by modern standards, especially the French and Indian War and Pontiac’s Rebellion.

This threat remained the case well into the 19th Century, until Andrew Jackson’s ‘Indian Removal Act of 1830’ (which amounted to “ethnic cleansing”), deported most southeastern Indian tribes to West of the Mississippi.

Second, while farming and animal husbandry were essential to most rural Americans, hunting for game was also needed to provide enough food to eat. So for protection from Indians and large animals like big cats and bears, as well as for food, guns were essential.

Were the government to confiscate their guns, it would put them out of business, and they would have to flee. Washington’s Whiskey Tax and the subsequent Whiskey Rebellion showed them how vulnerable they were to national government power. So they needed guns not especially to overthrow the government, but just to prevent it from oppression.

Third, while there were Sheriffs to enforce the law, they mostly operated in large cities. Most enforcement was provided by the civilian militias, effectively any man with a gun. So any limits on guns would have allowed criminals to operate freely.

The bottom line is that they had very good reasons to constitutionalize gun rights, and many of those reasons, and perhaps some new ones, still exist today.


12 posted on 07/26/2012 9:16:12 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

13 posted on 07/26/2012 9:17:43 AM PDT by Iron Munro ("Jiggle the Handle for Barry!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Even if one agrees with the “Militia limitation” on the Second Amendment, the Militias to which the Amendment refers were State Militias which would have been used to fight the federal government.

The "militia" referred to all able-bodied males capable of fighting.
The militia were not only for fighting against the federal government, if necessary, but for defending family and community against any foe, foreign or domestic.

14 posted on 07/26/2012 9:19:56 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Regarding the left and their concern for all of us:

For at least a year, we’ve been getting updates from Chicago about the wholesale slaughter taking place there, with the innocent and guilty alike dying and bleeding on the streets, mainly on the South Side.

Heard anyone calling for gun control?

Then one day in Vanillaville, Whitebread County, Colorado, a bunch of white people get killed and wounded and suddenly all the bleats coming from the compassionate left are calling for gun control NOW!

Such is the concern on the left for minorities. It certainly puts the Zimmerman-Martin flap in its proper perspective.


15 posted on 07/26/2012 9:28:30 AM PDT by DPMD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Inyo-Mono

Its comments like this that make me feel completely at home here and know we’re not lost as a nation or people!!! Thats right, the BOR is an (partial) enumeration of rights we possess inherently as human beings granted by God alone. :) Thanks for posting that!!!!


16 posted on 07/26/2012 9:48:26 AM PDT by 556x45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I hope Michael Savage reads this thread. He is out to lunch on this particular subject. Last night he said that the thought that we the people could ever take on FedGov™ was preposterous. No, he is a preposterous old man sometimes.


17 posted on 07/26/2012 9:55:17 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Bfstplk

bump


18 posted on 07/26/2012 10:05:34 AM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Let’s be honest about guns — anyone that tries to take my guns away will be shot, be they local crooks or national crooks.


19 posted on 07/26/2012 10:13:34 AM PDT by TexasRepublic (Socialism is the gospel of envy and the religion of thieves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

One more comment here...these rights aren’t only ours but the generations to come. They are ours to exercise and defend as custodians. I think its the later thats most precious b/c its our great gift to future generations.


20 posted on 07/26/2012 10:16:21 AM PDT by 556x45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wiser now
My husband made the same observation the other day. If the purpose of the armed citizenry is to protect ourselves from an out of control government, then the citizens have the right to keep and bear the same kind of arms that would be used against them.

In many instances, the farmers and merchants who opposed the columns of red coats in April 1776 had better weapons than the British were carrying.

21 posted on 07/26/2012 10:19:32 AM PDT by RobinOfKingston (The instinct toward liberalism is located in the part of the brain called the rectal lobe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I think I should be able to pool resources with my neighbors and buy a cannon and a Gatling gun, with lots of ammo for practice on a range. I’m serious. Who knows where the upcoming race war is going to spill out.


22 posted on 07/26/2012 10:20:01 AM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty; All
In most states, muzzle loading cannon and manually operated Gatling guns are perfectly legal and fairly easy to obtain. Go for it.

Up until 1968, you could legally order anti-aircraft guns and anti-tank guns and ammo through the mail without federal permission.

23 posted on 07/26/2012 11:29:25 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Joe Bfstplk
Charley Reese put it very well in his column of which I "quote a part: The Orlando Sentinel Commentary Section July 19, 1998 “When Confronted By a Criminal, You’re Back on the U.S. Frontier” By Charley Reese The easiest way to resolve, in your own mind, the gun-control debate is to take this little test. 1. Do you believe that you have a right to live? 2. Do you believe that your spouse and children have a right to live? 3. If someone is threatening to kill you and your family, do you think that you have a right to defend yourself? That’s the objective, yes-or-no part of the quiz. Now here is one final essay question: How will you defend yourself and your family if you are confronted by an armed intruder or intruders?"

The problem with this approach is that it assumes liberals are just ignorant of the truth and if somehow you hit them with very simple logic they will understand and change their beliefs. WRONG!

Liberals actually KNOW they are wrong. They just lie about it. They actually KNOW they worship a false god of benevolent government. They lie even to themselves.

I guess what I'm saying is it's simply a waste of time. We can't get along with libs. We can't live with them having power to impose their will upon us. They must not be reasoned with, they must be STOPPED.

24 posted on 07/26/2012 11:41:55 AM PDT by precisionshootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson