2nd amendment thread 2nd time around

[Hammy]

Thought I'd start another thread and maybe this time we can stick to the facts and observations.

Hammy

[Hammy]

check the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By_u5kmvq9o

Hammy

[Lazarus]

A "Must Watch."

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/former...in-this-video/

[Hammy]

Great video Laz.

Hammy

[Lazarus]

Thanks....here's a good video of Nugent v. Piers Morgan.....

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...-full-of-crap/

[jgleason]

Hard to argue with the argument this guy presents...

[java]

^^^....and there you go~!!!

Got that CNN, ABC,CBS,NBC, Washington D.C.???

[JTile]

So if you guys want to have a real discussion about the 2nd amendment, why don't you actually do that?

You guys post videos and articles, then praise each other for doing so. Throw in a couple blasts at the media and pat each other's backs yet again.

Instead, how about you actually discuss the Constitution and how you believe that the 2nd amendment stands in today's society. Maybe try using some of your own words instead of just c/p other's articles and videos.

As this thread stands, the thread title should be changed to something more appropriate.. such as

"Internet talking points against gun control"

or maybe

"The Socialist government with the help of the liberal media are going to take all my guns so I'm going to cry about it on a tile forum"

Seriously, links are used to help get your point across... not to make your point all together.

[Tool Guy - Kg]

Just as Justin is welcome to his opinion about someone else's method of communication, the others are allowed to express themselves in whatever manner they choose.

[jgleason]

For me the issue is so clear that there really isn't anything to discuss. The second amendment prohibits the government from infringing my inalienable right to bear arms. All the discussion about which guns will be allowed and what capacity magazines should be mean nothing because restricting availability qualifies as infringement.

Want to control guns and availability of certain types of cosmetic features and magazine capacities then start by repealing the second amendment.

I saw a video of Gingrich and Piers Morgan. Morgan made a point about true assault (machine gun) guns effectively banned for the past 80 years. He argued that if those could be severely restricted because of their danger in the hands of citizens then why not the AR15 with its large magazines and rapid rate of fire (yes, one bullet per trigger pull but you can empty a 30 round magazine in seconds).

Gingrich didn't have an answer for that since he agreed with government controlling access to the true assault rifles. I think that was a mistake.

Whatever gets banned today simply opens the door for future bans on things the government doesn't want you to have. Just take a look at what government attempts to do and ask yourself if they are really acting in good faith.

[John Bridge]

I've stated in other threads that the Constitution itself provides a means for change. It is a tedious process that begins at the state level. It was meant to be tedious so that the document wouldn't become loaded with amendments (like the Texas constitution has).

Nevertheless, that is the way to do it. If someone wants to limit or "infringe" the right to keep and bear arms they should propose a constitutional amendment. Why hasn't someone done this? Two reasons: It takes years to accomplish anything that way; and they are probably afraid things might not go their way.

So it's way more expedient to attempt to pass a law and ignore the Constitution, and lord knows there is plenty of precedent for that. Another way to get one's way is to allow the Supreme Court to pass judgement. The problem with each of those methods, though, is that there is no provision for them in the Constitution.

There are two major "sides" in this argument, and those sides are not going to come together on the basic question, so there is really no point in continuing to try. There are, however, certain ideas that the two sides can agree on, and that's the direction we should take here. Instead of looking for reasons to berate and ridicule each other we should be looking for commonality -- starting with the fact that we are all Americans.

For example, I don't think any serious person thinks we need more government. I think all will agree that we are spending more on government than we should be spending. Start there, and expand it one issue at a time. Quit shooting from the hip.

As to the Second Amendment, we are not going to argue it to an understanding acceptable to both sides. What I suggest is that we find a mutually acceptable way to search for understanding. Anybody got anything against reading -- books, that is? There are hundreds out there on the Second Amendment. Pick one and read.

Otherwise, I agree with Justin. This is nothing but a continuation of the other thread, and as soon as it crosses the line it will be closed. It's only a matter of time.

[java]

I gotta disagree John.

Lots of folks want more government and lots of it. How/why do you think Obama was re-elected? What is Obamacare if not a giant load of more govt?

Joe's video link of the father speaking on the gun issue is also profound in that we are up against the media as a whole. If you just took all the major new outlets spin on things a person could only think that anyone involved or close to these shootings is for Infringement of the 2nd Amendment and those who oppose such Infringements are cast as heartless and uncaring and extremists. Hard for them to make that claim against this father and that's why you don't see this reported on.

Also, did you see the Senate hearings? Total ruse.

[John Bridge]

Jason,

All I'm trying to do is find commonality to begin with, a meeting point. I already know you're on one side. The people on the other side that you are talking about don't think they are asking for more government. I guarantee it.

[jvcstone]

Originally Posted by JB

So it's way more expedient to attempt to pass a law and ignore the Constitution, and lord knows there is plenty of precedent for that. Another way to get one's way is to allow the Supreme Court to pass judgement. The problem with each of those methods, though, is that there is no provision for them in the Constitution.

I think it is safe to say that the constitution came under attack almost from the start--for instance the Alien&Sedition laws of John Adams. I think it is also safe to say that up until Lincoln's mass infringement upon the "rule of law", those attacks were to a certain degree reversed or at least minimized by others in the government. I suppose that is because the founding generation still had some influence as to what the government was up to.

I think it is also safe to say that somewhere along the line, the wisdom of the founders was lost amongst the smoke screen of power and wealth, and our "leaders??" began to "interpret" that wisdom to suit their own interests or the interests of the money that brought them to power. Finally, I think it is safe to say that we ceased being a constitutional republic a long time ago, and I don't think that anyone within the beltway wants a return to that.

However, the constitution is still the "Law of the Land", and we the people (starting generations ago) have permitted an unconstitutional, and therefore illegal government to grow up around us, and we will be ruled by that government until the constitution is revoked, thus legitimizing what is clearly wrong.

This has been accomplished through a collusion of all three branches by a "divide and conquer" strategy that seems to always be effective. The current division about the 2nd amendment is a perfect example. The fact is, the 2nd amendment was compromised a long time ago, and has lost it's value in a society which believes the government is all powerful. The same is true of every other of the first 10 amendments, and most of the Constitution in general.

It just so happens it is the right side of the coin (elephant) that is vocally protesting this time while the left side (donkey) is vocally supporting, but it was not so long ago when the 4th amendment was being gutted by a republican administration that those protesting today's constitutional issues were strangely silent. Or when the !st amendment has come under attack by either side of the coin, the general feeling is if it doesn't have any effect on me, so what. The government has learned that it can depend on that reaction--only those directly targeted by proposed unconstitutional legislation will mount a challenge, and for the most part those targets are generally minority groups (not referring to skin color here), while the majority just doesn't give a damn. Well once again, the attack is focused on a large and vocal minority, but the result will be another compromise that adds another layer of restriction on something that by law has no restriction.

But here is the point of all this---if you have nothing to say, or even support legislation that restricts the rights of some--for instance equal justice under the law for the LGBT community, or profiling for stop and frisk laws, or anything the DHS and TSA are doing to restrict the right to freedom of travel, or the nonsense of "free speech zones", then in my opinion you are being a hypocrite when protesting your favorite "right" being attacked, ----you either support a constitutional government or you don't, picking and choosing is what the government (both sides of the coin) depends on to obtain it's ultimate goal of complete power and control.

I believe that the only possible prevention is to pull the plug completely, and that cannot happen with such a polarized society. Until we as a people can once again set aside our petty but divisive differences and work for a common goal of legal and legitimate government of the people for the people by the people we best be prepared for what is yet to come. Think stasi East Germany with modern surveillance technology.

John Bridge has often called for a new constitutional convention, and I (at this point in time) believe that is quite possibly our only means of salvation. A new constitution written in light of our experience with the perversions of the old over the past 200 years could once again give us our freedom. That can only be accomplished beginning within our own individual communities--ground up since top down has proven to be a complete failure--and that is where the revolution needs to begin. Not a revolution of guns and blood, but one within the hearts and minds of our neighbors. That is in my opinion the only thing any true patriot should be working for.

JVC

[bulldog tile]

Thank you John and JB.