2nd Ammendment comment on msn
Moderators: GoodOyster, Cr0ck1
- graybellplumb
- Junior Assistant Senior Patrol Leader
- Posts: 858
- Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 9:22 pm
- Hunt or Fish: Equally Both
- Location: Bradenton
2nd Ammendment comment on msn
The 2nd amendment is actually 3 part.
The 1st in giving the States the right to a "well regulated Militia" (note: by definition, well regulated in the 1700's meant "well supplied") and the 2nd in giving the right to keep and bear arms to individuals (no qualifiers). The 3rd part, the last 4 words that say it all, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms, is as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." T Jefferson
That being said, there are many people today, who have a deep, (and a legitimate), distrust of the government.
They believe that it is in the nature of governments to accumulate and to concentrate more and more power over people's lives. More power leads to more control. It has always been so. As Lord Acton so famously stated, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Meaning that those who are given power over others will use that power.
Even if the government is not specifically intending to do so, it is the nature of large governments that this occurs.
Now the government may espouse their desire to help the citizenry, but when individuals disagree with what the government determines is in their best interest, then those in power use coersion. Sometimes subtle sometimes not so subtle.
This concentration of power and increasing coersion can be gradual (like slowly turning up the heat on a lobster in a pot), or sudden (like dropping him into boiling water).
One need only be a casual student of history to see the process at work again and again and again.
The Second Ammendment is *our* garuantee that this loss of individual freedom and increasing control of our lives cannot be done with impunity.
One need only look at what is occurring in Syria today or in Mexico, or any of a dozen other locations around the globe .to see examples of what happens when the government controls the people and when the people are defenseless to resist.
Now you may feel that this distrust is not warrented, or that it verges on paranoia. Many might agree with you. However many more, would not.
The Founding Fathers believed fervently that ordinary citizens needed to be protected from an oppressive government. If they had not, then there would not have been a Second Amendment in the first instance. They were very distrustful of the concentration of power into the hands of the few. They set up safeguards through the concepts of Separation of Powers and Federalism to prevent it from happening. They added further protections in the Bill of Rights.
The Founding Fathers, I am certain, would be aghast at the degree to which the government controls the lives of Americans today. Indeed, they went into rebellion over transgressions less onerous than what we today have allowed to be imposed upon us.
Read the Declaration of Independence. Look at the reasons that are ennumerated there. They speak of an oppressive government seeking to impose it's will, (unlawfully in their opinion), upon the citizenry.
The Second Ammendment was NEVER about what type of arms citizens might own or about what the technological developments of the future might bring. It was not about hunting. It was not about home defense. It was not about target shooting. It was about the ability of citizens to oppose and resist the oppression of a tyrannical government.
There are those Americans that honestly feel that this point of view is not applicable to the 21st century; that such concerns are the things of history. They label those like myself, as 'gun nuts' or as paranoid, even dangerous.
If you are one that believes that this distrust is stuff out of a dusty history book, and has no relevance in the 21st century, then I urge you again to to look around more carefully.
Those of us that support the Second Ammendment feel that it's relevence is as valid now as it was when it was first penned.
I wished the present administration would think this way.
The 1st in giving the States the right to a "well regulated Militia" (note: by definition, well regulated in the 1700's meant "well supplied") and the 2nd in giving the right to keep and bear arms to individuals (no qualifiers). The 3rd part, the last 4 words that say it all, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms, is as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." T Jefferson
That being said, there are many people today, who have a deep, (and a legitimate), distrust of the government.
They believe that it is in the nature of governments to accumulate and to concentrate more and more power over people's lives. More power leads to more control. It has always been so. As Lord Acton so famously stated, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Meaning that those who are given power over others will use that power.
Even if the government is not specifically intending to do so, it is the nature of large governments that this occurs.
Now the government may espouse their desire to help the citizenry, but when individuals disagree with what the government determines is in their best interest, then those in power use coersion. Sometimes subtle sometimes not so subtle.
This concentration of power and increasing coersion can be gradual (like slowly turning up the heat on a lobster in a pot), or sudden (like dropping him into boiling water).
One need only be a casual student of history to see the process at work again and again and again.
The Second Ammendment is *our* garuantee that this loss of individual freedom and increasing control of our lives cannot be done with impunity.
One need only look at what is occurring in Syria today or in Mexico, or any of a dozen other locations around the globe .to see examples of what happens when the government controls the people and when the people are defenseless to resist.
Now you may feel that this distrust is not warrented, or that it verges on paranoia. Many might agree with you. However many more, would not.
The Founding Fathers believed fervently that ordinary citizens needed to be protected from an oppressive government. If they had not, then there would not have been a Second Amendment in the first instance. They were very distrustful of the concentration of power into the hands of the few. They set up safeguards through the concepts of Separation of Powers and Federalism to prevent it from happening. They added further protections in the Bill of Rights.
The Founding Fathers, I am certain, would be aghast at the degree to which the government controls the lives of Americans today. Indeed, they went into rebellion over transgressions less onerous than what we today have allowed to be imposed upon us.
Read the Declaration of Independence. Look at the reasons that are ennumerated there. They speak of an oppressive government seeking to impose it's will, (unlawfully in their opinion), upon the citizenry.
The Second Ammendment was NEVER about what type of arms citizens might own or about what the technological developments of the future might bring. It was not about hunting. It was not about home defense. It was not about target shooting. It was about the ability of citizens to oppose and resist the oppression of a tyrannical government.
There are those Americans that honestly feel that this point of view is not applicable to the 21st century; that such concerns are the things of history. They label those like myself, as 'gun nuts' or as paranoid, even dangerous.
If you are one that believes that this distrust is stuff out of a dusty history book, and has no relevance in the 21st century, then I urge you again to to look around more carefully.
Those of us that support the Second Ammendment feel that it's relevence is as valid now as it was when it was first penned.
I wished the present administration would think this way.
- treefarmer
- Ordeal
- Posts: 1399
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 3:37 pm
- Location: LA(lower Alabama) Fl. panhandle
Re: 2nd Ammendment comment on msn
graybellplumb, WELL SAID!!!!! Treefarmer
-
- LIfe Scout
- Posts: 2184
- Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 6:54 pm
- Location: Moore County, NC
- Contact:
Re: 2nd Ammendment comment on msn
Very well said! Concur!!!!!!!
Re: 2nd Ammendment comment on msn
treefarmer wrote:graybellplumb, WELL SAID!!!!! Treefarmer
i second that!
OUT OF MY COLD DEAD HANDS
Re: 2nd Ammendment comment on msn
Really tempting to move to Wyoming.
They just passed a law making it illegal for federal agents to try to confiscate firearms.
They just passed a law making it illegal for federal agents to try to confiscate firearms.
- Jester
- scout
- Posts: 141
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:11 pm
- Hunt or Fish: Equally Both
- Location: Tampa/Citrus Park
- Contact:
Re: 2nd Ammendment comment on msn
Count me in !30.06 wrote:treefarmer wrote:graybellplumb, WELL SAID!!!!! Treefarmer
i second that!
"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." - Patrick Henry
"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." - Thomas Jefferson
The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." - Patrick Henry
"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." - Thomas Jefferson
- graybellplumb
- Junior Assistant Senior Patrol Leader
- Posts: 858
- Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 9:22 pm
- Hunt or Fish: Equally Both
- Location: Bradenton
Re: 2nd Ammendment comment on msn
This actually was a comment written by someone in a response to the gun ban in yahoo.
-
- Eagle Scout
- Posts: 3391
- Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 8:20 pm
- Hunt or Fish: Equally Both
- Location: bradenton, florida
Re: 2nd Ammendment comment on msn
I knew you weren't that eloquent! haha plumbers never are... i should know!
- graybellplumb
- Junior Assistant Senior Patrol Leader
- Posts: 858
- Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 9:22 pm
- Hunt or Fish: Equally Both
- Location: Bradenton
Re: 2nd Ammendment comment on msn
I know i wouldn't be that tactful. My response would have more stronger language. I would like to direct it to biden and obum,but they wouldn't listen.they would probaly put me in jail if I really said what i really feel.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests