I've had a few days to think. Last week, we had a pretty heated and passionate discussion on where bumpfire stocks fell with regards to the Rights safeguarded by the Second Amendment.
In the course of that argument, a line was drawn, and another member quit.
We were a unified front through 8 years of scheme after scheme to disarm us, yet we not only defended what tattered remains of our Rights were left us, but began stitching them back together - winning in legislatures and in courtrooms. Gun Rights had never been more secure, even after 8 years of Obama - because We, the People secured them through defiance and outright hostility towards those who would disarm us.
At a time when we should be united, fighting against those whose sole purpose in life is the destruction of our Rights, our Liberty, our free way of life - we instead find ourselves separated by internal squabbling on the completely fundamental parts of the argument for the unalienable Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.
So here we find ourselves - the "gun friendly" GOP in full control of the federal government and the biggest threat to the Right to Arms is coming from them - and the suddenly fractured front that held through 8 years of Obama.
I cannot help but feel partially responsible for some of that fracturing, given what happened last week.
So with that in mind, I just want to ask everyone: what does the Second Amendment mean to you?
You needn't answer here - it's a question you first need to dwell on deep within yourself, the knowledge of what it means, and then to know the lengths to which you would go to protect it.
From my perspective, the main issue of not understanding the Second Amendment is a matter of context....one which both the anti-gun lobby and even the pro-gun lobby propagate:
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting...it has nothing to do with sport shooting....it has nothing to do with collecting firearms.
If one believes that all men are created equal, then that's final. If one believes we all have the unalienable Right to Life - then logic and reason demand that we also have the unalienable Right to defend that Life from
from outside aggression, whether the threat comes from one person, a group of people, a government, or society at large. (Conversely, if one does not believe all men equal or equally entitled to the Right to Life, then that in itself identifies a philosophical position that is antithetical with a society based on Liberty and individual Rights.)
Since the founding of the Republic, the most effective means of defending one’s life has been firearms. It is the great equalizer in physical combat, as it allows the weak to stand against the strong on equal footing. It is the very implement which separates the Citizen from the subject, the free man (or woman) from the oppressed.
In the simplest terms, an armed populace cannot be forced or coerced against their will; they must be convinced. Any population properly trained and sufficiently armed combined with the willingness to use both is an effective check against abused power....be it by a central government, a local despot, a criminal element, or an angry mob. It's not so much that arms protect the Constitution (though in the case of these United States, that remains true) so much as arms protect the People from abuse of power by any who intend to rule them rather than govern by their consent.
At it's heart, the Second Amendment is simply putting in writing your right as a human being to defend yourself against threats to your life, liberty, and your pursuit of happiness.....whether that threat comes from a criminal element or the very government the Constitution established.
The Founders understood, and many of us are never taught - or if we were we have forgotten - the Right to arms undergirds every other right in the Bill of Rights, including those spoken of but not named specifically.
What good is the Freedom of Speech if the government has a monopoly on force and is able to repress it?
How can the citizenry demand the government respect their rights if their voice is the only weapon in their arsenal?
When the Amendment was written, America had just loosed herself from the yoke of a tyrannical government, and wanted to ensure that We, the People had the ability (not the Right....a Right is inalienable and cannot be taken from you and was not and is not the gift of men or their governments) to do so again if the need arose.
The Declaration of Independence states:
Arms grant the citizenry the final say in how we are governed. Such a thought seems anathema to most modern citizens because we have all lived in relative prosperity under a government that only recently began a rapid assault on individual liberty. But the last 2 decades should demonstrate that left unchecked, government makes intentional and systematic violations of the Rights of the People as a normal part of doing business.
The debate now is now different than it was when Thomas Jefferson described gun control back in 1774-76:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
Have laws against guns kept guns out of the hands of criminals? Have laws against murder....rape....theft kept criminals from committing these acts? A person that breaks the law will not be deterred by yet another law....how does that make sense to anyone?
So that is why ".........shall not be infringed." means precisely that to me. That is why I am so forthright in my position- for without the Right to Arms, no other Right is safe. Bumpfires now is semi-autos later. And it would mean passing on a country that is less Free than the one I was born into. That's what I think whenever one cries "Think of the children!"
So my challenge to everyone else is to think about what it means to you, and to recognize that now is not the time to relax, just because it's our "friends" stabbing us in the back.
We need to rekindle the same fires that were burning in our bellies the 8 years that a Democrat occupied the White House, stand shoulder to shoulder once more and FIGHT.
Nothing short of the survival of the Republic depends on it.
In the course of that argument, a line was drawn, and another member quit.
We were a unified front through 8 years of scheme after scheme to disarm us, yet we not only defended what tattered remains of our Rights were left us, but began stitching them back together - winning in legislatures and in courtrooms. Gun Rights had never been more secure, even after 8 years of Obama - because We, the People secured them through defiance and outright hostility towards those who would disarm us.
At a time when we should be united, fighting against those whose sole purpose in life is the destruction of our Rights, our Liberty, our free way of life - we instead find ourselves separated by internal squabbling on the completely fundamental parts of the argument for the unalienable Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.
So here we find ourselves - the "gun friendly" GOP in full control of the federal government and the biggest threat to the Right to Arms is coming from them - and the suddenly fractured front that held through 8 years of Obama.
I cannot help but feel partially responsible for some of that fracturing, given what happened last week.
So with that in mind, I just want to ask everyone: what does the Second Amendment mean to you?
You needn't answer here - it's a question you first need to dwell on deep within yourself, the knowledge of what it means, and then to know the lengths to which you would go to protect it.
From my perspective, the main issue of not understanding the Second Amendment is a matter of context....one which both the anti-gun lobby and even the pro-gun lobby propagate:
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting...it has nothing to do with sport shooting....it has nothing to do with collecting firearms.
If one believes that all men are created equal, then that's final. If one believes we all have the unalienable Right to Life - then logic and reason demand that we also have the unalienable Right to defend that Life from
from outside aggression, whether the threat comes from one person, a group of people, a government, or society at large. (Conversely, if one does not believe all men equal or equally entitled to the Right to Life, then that in itself identifies a philosophical position that is antithetical with a society based on Liberty and individual Rights.)
Since the founding of the Republic, the most effective means of defending one’s life has been firearms. It is the great equalizer in physical combat, as it allows the weak to stand against the strong on equal footing. It is the very implement which separates the Citizen from the subject, the free man (or woman) from the oppressed.
In the simplest terms, an armed populace cannot be forced or coerced against their will; they must be convinced. Any population properly trained and sufficiently armed combined with the willingness to use both is an effective check against abused power....be it by a central government, a local despot, a criminal element, or an angry mob. It's not so much that arms protect the Constitution (though in the case of these United States, that remains true) so much as arms protect the People from abuse of power by any who intend to rule them rather than govern by their consent.
At it's heart, the Second Amendment is simply putting in writing your right as a human being to defend yourself against threats to your life, liberty, and your pursuit of happiness.....whether that threat comes from a criminal element or the very government the Constitution established.
The Founders understood, and many of us are never taught - or if we were we have forgotten - the Right to arms undergirds every other right in the Bill of Rights, including those spoken of but not named specifically.
What good is the Freedom of Speech if the government has a monopoly on force and is able to repress it?
How can the citizenry demand the government respect their rights if their voice is the only weapon in their arsenal?
When the Amendment was written, America had just loosed herself from the yoke of a tyrannical government, and wanted to ensure that We, the People had the ability (not the Right....a Right is inalienable and cannot be taken from you and was not and is not the gift of men or their governments) to do so again if the need arose.
The Declaration of Independence states:
Arms grant the citizenry the final say in how we are governed. Such a thought seems anathema to most modern citizens because we have all lived in relative prosperity under a government that only recently began a rapid assault on individual liberty. But the last 2 decades should demonstrate that left unchecked, government makes intentional and systematic violations of the Rights of the People as a normal part of doing business.
The debate now is now different than it was when Thomas Jefferson described gun control back in 1774-76:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
Have laws against guns kept guns out of the hands of criminals? Have laws against murder....rape....theft kept criminals from committing these acts? A person that breaks the law will not be deterred by yet another law....how does that make sense to anyone?
So that is why ".........shall not be infringed." means precisely that to me. That is why I am so forthright in my position- for without the Right to Arms, no other Right is safe. Bumpfires now is semi-autos later. And it would mean passing on a country that is less Free than the one I was born into. That's what I think whenever one cries "Think of the children!"
So my challenge to everyone else is to think about what it means to you, and to recognize that now is not the time to relax, just because it's our "friends" stabbing us in the back.
We need to rekindle the same fires that were burning in our bellies the 8 years that a Democrat occupied the White House, stand shoulder to shoulder once more and FIGHT.
Nothing short of the survival of the Republic depends on it.
Last edited:
