Skip to comments.Second Amendment Pledge
Posted on 01/06/2013 4:24:43 PM PST by DrNo
I was listening to Tom Gresham's Gun Talk radio program today (Sunday, December 30, 2012) and heard a FANTASTIC call from "Mark" in Corpus Christie, TX whereby he presented what he called the "Second Amendment Pledge"
This was so good that I took a moment to transcribe in verbatim his brief but poignant call for all of us to enjoy.
While he didn't say, but I am sure that this was intended primarily for all the lawful gun owners of the United States, but it seems just as applicable to any elected politicians (I am sure that only a hand full of them would swear by it).
I for one have already taken this pledge as my birth right - thanks to mark from Corpus Christie for so eloquently putting it into words!
So, here it is; as heard on hour 2 of Tom Gresham's Gun Talk radio show at 29min 18sec Sunday, December 30, 2012.
I pledge to uphold defend and comply with the Second Amendment to the bill of rights in our United States constitution. Abiding by the original intent of our founding fathers in recognizing the preexisting God given, inalienable right of we the people together and individually to acquire, keep and bear arms.
The advance of technology does not alter nor affect this right. Any action, edict, decree or demand by any entity which negatively impacts or infringes on our right to modern state of the art arms and magazines is a treasonous criminal act, an unjust and an illegal law null and void.
It is my highest duty and honor to respond to such a despotic lawless act with peaceful civil disobedience, contempt, defiance and resolute hyperactive resistance.
We should ask all our legislators to take this pledge.
The gov will never be able to usurp our 2nd amendment.
As the gov might say: “it depends on the meaning of “usurp” (apologies to WJC)”
That won’t stop them from trying.
From the link:
But where, Id like to ask my colleagues in the media, is the reporting about the psychiatric medications the perpetrator who had been under treatment for mental-health problems may have been taking? After all, Mark and Louise Tambascio, family friends of the shooter and his mother, were interviewed on CBS 60 Minutes, during which Louise Tambascio told correspondent Scott Pelley: I know he was on medication and everything, but she homeschooled him at home cause he couldnt deal with the school classes sometimes, so she just homeschooled Adam at home. And that was her life. And here, Tambascio tells ABC News, I knew he was on medication, but thats all I know.
Using the word “usurp” in the same sentence with WJC automatically makes it sound like a filthy word...
They can try all they want we still have the house. No gun grabbing bill will pass. Thank God!
They said no man is an island, but gun grabber Chris ‘Corpus’ Christie is the exception.
I’d say ROTFLMAO, but that would show my age!
Abiding by the original intent of our founding fathers in recognizing the preexisting God given, inalienable right of we the people together and individually to acquire, keep and bear arms.
Those are contradictory terms.
Many here will argue that certain "people" should not have guns and that's okay with them.
Its either a Right or it isn't, you can't have it "your" way.
Maybe it is time that a national figure such as a rep or senator or maybe even Rush or Hannity to start an online petition to affirm the sanctity of the Second Amendment in it’s entirety.
The advance of technology does not alter nor affect this right.
What exactly is the right written about above? What is the definition, or meaning or description of that right?
Who’s this “we” you refer to? Republicans? Like Boehner? Good luck.
They already have, now we'll see how far they will get/go.
Ah...er....um....is it related to “self defense?”
The weeper of the house isn’t the the only voice, he has a LOT of conservatives that won’t vote on a gun grabbing bill.
The house caved on taxes, we have to be sure they don’t cave on this. The media pressure will be immense!!
The house won’t cave on this, there are too many democrats in ‘hunting’ states that pretend gun rights are our right. The whole hunting thing is LOL funny, the second amendment it to protect us from government. Not that they’ll address that part of it. But you already know this.
The house caving on taxes is another issue. 98% didn’t see an increase. If we can get just 50% of our agenda implemented, isn’t that better than 0%? We’re in a battle for our republic. Anything that stops the tyranny is better than nothing. Right now we’re in the battle of our lifetime.
Nope, enjoy that bolt action .30-06 and lever action .30-30. Oh, and enjoy that pump action 12 ga, as long as it only has a five shot tubular magazine with a 3 shot plug.
If you're a really good boy, we might let you keep your 6 shot revolvers, but we're still considering our position on any handguns whatsoever.
As for anything, handgun or long gun, that accepts a detachable box magazine, or anything that self-loads? Fuhgeddaboudit.
DiFi and Bloomie.
The Second Amendment is part of The Constituion, which each member of congress swears to uphold. If they violate that pledge, why would they uphold a pledge to uphold the Second Amendment? Most of the scumbags in congress will say anything to stay in office anyway.
When it comes to the 2nd amendment, the only “we” I know is me and my gun.
If it is, does that mean that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" does not extend to keeping and bearing arms for offensive use?
"...to acquire, keep and bear arms."
Really? He got re-elected speaker didn’t he? Did these conservatives you are relying on stop that? Don’t trust republicans anymore; they just screwed you if you hadn’t noticed.
So someone who has acquired arms can keep and bear them on or in your real property, store, tavern, etc whether you agree or not since you didn't put a limit on the right.
What if they acquired them illegally, as in "stole them"? Does the right to keep and bear arms include the right to keep and bear arms that one has acquired by theft? Or is that excluded from the right?
Kind of lost me in the end with vagueness. If that means killing an f'n liberal enemy, I am with you.
National Gun Registration is nothing more than a prelude to gun confiscation, and no less than a declaration of war by the Obama Administration against the Constitution, Western Cultural Traditions and Judaeo-Christian values.
Evidently you are not blessed because the depth and breadth of your ignorance is truly astounding. The existence of one right does not discard other rights and the words “ legally acquired” do not appear in the second amendment. WHY, YOU ASK? Because to the normal American of even less than average intelligence, this is understood.
You wanted an exegesis on the entire Bill of Rights? Why didn't you say so?
What if they acquired them illegally, as in "stole them"? Does the right to keep and bear arms include the right to keep and bear arms that one has acquired by theft? Or is that excluded from the right?
If you think anyone has a right to steal then we no basis for a discussion on rights.
“Does the right to keep and bear arms include the right to keep and bear arms that one has acquired by theft?”
The stupid is strong with this one.
“...the depth and breadth of your ignorance is truly astounding.”
I know that. (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance.)
“The existence of one right does not discard other rights...”
But one right may end where another right begins.
“...and the words legally acquired do not appear in the second amendment. WHY, YOU ASK? Because to the normal American of even less than average intelligence, this is understood.”
1. The word “acquired” also does not appear in the second amendment, and I was responding to that addition by another poster.
2. To “the normal American of even less than average intelligence”, what else is understood even though it doesn’t appear in the second amendment? More importantly, what is understood by some and not by others, and how do we come to a common understanding, or at least be able to live with the “misunderstandings”, so that we can join to better fight our common opposition in the gun control movement?
This isn't a right to punch holes in paper targets and (with advance permission from the EPA and from PETA) to hunt? Who would have guessed.
For now I'm just concerned with the words "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" and maybe anything else in the BOR that might be pertinent like The right of citizens of the United States to vote .
Why didn't you say so?
Well I did ask "What exactly is the right written about above? What is the definition, or meaning or description of that right?"
If you think anyone has a right to steal then we no basis for a discussion on rights."
I see that as an evasion. I didn't say anyone has a right to steal. I'm fully aware that if your children are trapped in a wrecked car that is starting to burn, no one has the right to take without permission the fire extinguisher of a person who is not present and put the fire out before it becomes a conflagration that consumes your children, and the car.
much ado about nothing...
Deliberate stupidity is not an admirable quality.
Why would/should anyone trust ANY elected official when the oath they take isn’t worth spit!?
They regularly quote the Preamble as some ‘extra’ duties/powers when A1S8 spells it all out for them. The 9th and 10th are in shreds and just about every other Amend. is hanging by a thread?!
From DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
The barn door on "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" was left open.
The pro Second Amendment crowd needs to get a handle on the true meaning of this right in order to defend it. Judging from various comments on this forum we don't have that handle.
I just want people to start thinking.
I think you are making a silly argument. Of course people need to know what their rights are, they are usually determined by the Supreme Court and not we the people. Change the court and it is all gone. 9 people rule America? Methinks not. Then What? We the people will have to decide if its worth dying for.
If you want to do some more thinking look at the cases on 18 u.s.c. sec. 922(o),
Hey there Kris, how’s the weather up at the pole? :)
Anyway, you’re asking some illuminating questions. In law school, when the professor tests the limits of a point by raising all the hidden qualifications/asssumptions etc., we call that slicing the balogna. It’s actually a good exercise. You just know some lib will come along and ambush you with one of these, so I appreciate the practice.
As for the right to self defense, that is inherent and implied in the right to life, and clearly the founders did recognize that right, as captured in the Lockean formulation, Life, Liberty, and Property. If you have a right to live, but cannot exercise it freely, it is a right denied. If you have a right to life, but cannot own the private property required to live it, it is still a right denied. And if you have a right to life, but cannot keep it when attacked, but must forfeit it to any criminal, private or public, who decides to take it from you, it is categorically a right denied.
But what limits that right? If I have understood you, that is the essence of your question, and it is a reasonable question, but I believe it has a reasonable answer (or answers). The problem of rights is that they do not occur in a vacuum. The universe is not a single Self alone by itself. It is God and you and me. Thus there are always at least two parties to any transaction in which a particular right is either given its due or else denied. For example, with abortion, the only way to preserve both parties alive, mother and child, is to not intentionally kill either party. To honor the right of the one without honoring the right of the other is still an unjust denial of the right of life to someone. To honor the rights of both, in proper balance, is the objective, theoretically, of our entire system of justice.
So too with the 2nd Amendment. It sometimes happens that the only way I can defend my right to live is to threaten or take the life of another. We have different ways of accounting for this apparent contradiction, but most commonly we say that the aggressor forfeits their right to live to the extent they threaten my life and put me in a situation where I have no choice but to respond with lethal force. A person who has an unalienable right cannot lose that right against their will, but may voluntarily surrender that right, and they assume the risk of adverse consequences when they do so.
Furthermore, you can extrapolate from this the right to collective self defense. You raise the question of an offensive use of arms. What may be offensive use as between two individuals, if it occurs in the context of a larger defensive action, may still be justifiable. I think here we are getting into just war theory, and that does have a bearing on the 2nd Amendment, but may be a bit difficult to capture in a single post. Suffice it to say that for a natural law republic such as ours, acts of individual aggression, if the larger context is collective self defense, can be justified under traditional just war theory.
Therefore, keeping and bearing arms, as it is always tied to the right to life, and is therefore always ultimately defensive, can still be taken to imply a capacity for effective individual aggression in a defensive context. Less abstractly, if, hypothetically, Vermont launch a tank attack against Texas (no laughter, please), individual Texans would have a natural and a constitutional right to individually acquire and use tank killer weapons on invading Vermont tanks.
In theory then, there is no limit on the scale of the right, as long as it is justified by an unjustifiable threat to the life of the individual or the group.
As for legal ownership of a weapon versus illegal, it is irrelevant to the question of necessity for defensive protection of life. Under even ancient legal systems, an act of theft may cause the forfeiture of the right to freedom, or to an equivalent or punitive value for the item stolen, but not the forfeiture of life.
Here a hypothetical may be helpful. If I am a simple burglar stealing a weapon to use in a future felony, I am assuming the risk that goes with burglary, in law the presumption of a potential lethal threat to the rightful owner. But if I am a civilian prisoner of the Taliban, in a run down section of Detroit, and I steal a gun and use it to effect my escape, that comports with the natural law basis for the 2nd Amendment, and while it may be a technical violation of lesser laws, those laws are by definition subject to the higher laws. The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law. In just societies, when the two are in conflict, deference is given to the spirit, not the letter. In tyrannies, the opposite is true, especially for the slave class.
As for whether I can control who carries a weapon onto my property, that again will be a matter of finding a just balance of rights. First, under the Constitution we have a right to choose our associations. If I own a piece of property, and I want to exclude all parties that carry guns, or even if I want to exclude all parties who part their hair a certain way, that is an expression of my liberty. So if I own a shopping mall or a theater, I can establish gun-free zones. And if I am a potential customer, I have a right to shop where I please, and if I feel unsafe in a gun-free zone, I should shop elsewhere.
Again, I understand perfectly what you are trying to do, and I don’t see it as a bad thing, just easily misunderstood. There is strong emotion on both sides. What is needed is the level of preparation of a well trained salesman. We conservatives are in the business of selling the virtues of conservatism, and we must sell to a market that has lost contact with many of the truths we take for granted. The pitch must be built on first principles, points so inarguable and basic that the customer just has to keep saying yes to each of the next steps in our logic until they arrive at our irresistible conclusion. Than means we have to understand the potential objections, evasions, and obfuscations as deeply as if we held them ourselves. Only then can we show our customer how our product overcomes those hurdles. Any discussion which gives us a greater ability to do that is a benefit to the movement.
“Hey there Kris, hows the weather up at the pole? :)”
I think you have me confused with someone else:) I’m KrisKrinkle with an “n”, not Kris Kringle with a “g”. The weather here has been a little North Pole-ish though.
As to the rest of your post: Oh, good Lord, someone who understands. But it’s bedtime. I read through your post and didn’t find anything I disagree with, but did find a couple things I might comment on. That’ll have to wait till I’m more awake though.
Donate to OathKeepers using the ling below
Current laws in many states make most ownership of weapons illegal without a special dispensation, a permit. These are illegal laws infringing upon our God given right, yet they are seldom challenged.
I already addressed your paragraph 1: n not g :)
As to paragraphs 2, 3, 5, 9, 10 and 12 I have no comment. I might quibble over words, but I think wed just end up in what Ive heard called violent agreement.
As to paragraph 4, But what limits that right? If I have understood you, that is the essence of your question Thats close. A right is at least limited by ones ability and the similar rights of others. Arguably one does not have a right to free speech if one is mute by birth or accident (sign language and so forth aside for the moment) because such a one does not have the ability to speak. Also, one does not have a free speech right in the face of anothers property right to say things offensive to that other when he says not to say such. On the other hand, if youre on anothers property and that person proposes a sexual liaison, you do have a free speech right to say No no matter how offensive the other thinks that is. But to fully know the limits of a right, we have to know what that right is, what the words mean. Does the right to free speech include sign language? It does if sign language is speech, so is sign language speech? What is covered by the words freedom of speech? Do they cover a right to slander? I dont care all that much about that right now, but I do care about what is covered by the words The right of the people to keep and bear arms.
In paragraph 6 you bring up just war theory which leads to just use of force, and youre correct, thats more difficult to capture here than I want to attempt. But, is an arm that is not compliant with just war or just use of force covered by the right of the people to keep and bear arms? Several years ago in England, someone used a tricked up umbrella to inject a poison pellet into a man and murder/assassinate him. An arm like that umbrella is pretty much only good for murder or assassination. As such, is it covered by the right of the people to keep and bear arms?
In paragraph 7 you write: Therefore, keeping and bearing arms, as it is always tied to the right to life, and is therefore always ultimately defensive, can still be taken to imply a capacity for effective individual aggression in a defensive context. I have to disagree that keeping and bearing arms is always ultimately defensive. I think some people and some peoples throughout history have kept and borne arms for offensive purposes.
As to paragraph 8, since I disagreed with paragraph 7 I cant say that the thought in paragraph 8 follows from paragraph 7. I might or might not agree with it for other reasons.
Now about paragraph 11. One of the problems I have with the discussion of property rights vs any other rights is that folks dont say what property rights are in any coherent way. They just say theyve got them and they trump any other rights. And there are various kinds of property: real, personnel, intellectual, tangible, intangible. You write So if I own a shopping mall or a theater, I can establish gun-free zones. Well my neighbors and I have an intangible property right in our neighborhood, our community, our town. If we have established that in our neighborhood, our community, our town, that there will be no gun free zones, then I dont believe that the anti-gun mayor of New York City, the rich Mayor Bloomburg, who is never even going to set foot in our neighborhood, community, town has the right to establish a gun free zone in the mall or grocery store he recently bought there, just because he owns the property. As to shopping elsewhere, consideration of rights should take a broader more universal view. Depending on the time and place one is living, there may be no elsewhere to shop.
Peace to you also.