I’m proud to have the rights and privileges that our Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantee U.S. citizens. Given the uneven history of human civilization, it’s a miracle men and women of power in this nation continue to recognize these great documents as legal and binding almost a quarter of a millennium after the writing. Or do they?
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/concealed-carry-report-executive-orders/
I feel privileged to be able to purchase and carry, but if ever that might be taking away, I would want to “never give up”.
Maybe persons of power recognize, not so much the 2A of 1789, but the will of the people today. Perhaps being able to defend oneself with a firearm can resonate with the other side, the undecided, or more from the mainstream.
My personal desire is for less “Prohibited” signage, as I often have to enter businesses. In my state, one of my trainers from CCW Permit class shared that many from the anti-gunner community complain about us being able to purchase and or carry. My trainer’s point was that before we can purchase or carry, we have to pass background checks, therefore, we are not just anyone, per se. That made me appreciate and value when those us have to “pass”. I think my trainer instilled that in us, as a strong supportive stance when we face opposition to our freedom/rights. I’ll stand and fight for less “Prohibited” signage.
Regardless of the actions the federal government is trying to take we have the right to defend ourselves and our individual states have the ability to set their own regulations to a degree. Maintain your training, continue to train and educate those around you, your students, family, friends. The only way to get through this world of chaos and to ensure that we are able to stand up for ourselves is to have the RIGHT information and the confidence to proclaim that which we hold dear. This doesn’t mean go out and speak badly about anyone or anyone, but just redirect the conversations you hear to those of truth, fact and actual evidence. Help teach those around you to THINK CRITICALLY. The definition of which is : Critical thinking is the analysis of facts to form a judgment. The subject is complex, and several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, unbiased analysis, or evaluation of factual [evidence]
: Etymology and origin of critical thinking
In the term critical thinking , the word critical , (Grk. κριτικός = kritikos = “critic”) derives from the word critic and implies a critique; it identifies the intellectual capacity and the means “of judging”, “of judgement”, “for judging”, and of being “able to discern”.[] thinking are as ancient as its etymology, traceable, ultimately, to the teaching practice and vision of Socrates 2,500 years ago who discovered by a method of probing questioning that people could not rationally justify their confident claims to knowledge. Taken from wikipedia for expedience.
What positives can be done without breaking the bank, to build defense against these red flag laws? Our Constitution is under a major destruction and needs legal assistance to reinforce our Constitution.
We do not need to repeat the high cost of the late
1770’s fighting the British or the early 2000’s fighting
another Civil War. It will not solve telling everyone that they have and carry a prize winning firearm or
can shoot like SGT. York. Plus it will not be wise to
brag that you own $100K worth of top of the line of weapons.
Someone stop this hell for us all. There are some people that live in total fear and there are some people that careless and answer back with a firearm.
Since President Biden has stated “But no amendment — no amendment to the Constitution is absolute…” perhaps he can answer the following questions:
If no amendment to the Constituion is absolute, in which American citizen’s homes can the Federal government quarter soldiers without the owner’s consent (3rd Amendment)? If no amendment to the Constituion is absolute, on which American citizens can the Federal government impose cruel and unusual punishment (8th Amendment)? If no amendment to the Constituion is absolute, which American citizens can still be enslaved (13th Amendment)? If no amendment to the Constituion is absolute, which American citizens can have their right to vote denied because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude (15th Amendment)?
If no amendment to the Constituion is absolute, which American citizens can have their right to vote denied based on their sex (19th Amendment)? I could go on, but the President has taken an indefensible position that should be challenged at every turn. Ultimately, it really does not matter what the President says when it comes to the Constitution. But it does matter when he makes foolish proclamations because it is embarrassing. And if I hear “you can’t shout fire in a crowded theater…” as, a justification for imposing limits of free speech, one more time I think I will vomit. Oliver Wendell Holmes famously proclaimed “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic…” Holmes was making the point that FALSE speech intended to INCITE or PANIC was not and should not be protected speech. His point was not to illustrate that the First Amendment was not absolute, but rather that free speech and false speech, particularly when it is intended to harm others, are two different ideas. In what would become his second most famous phrase, Holmes wrote in Abrams vs United States that the marketplace of ideas offered the best solution for tamping down offensive speech: “The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas – that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.” The antidote to bad ideas or speech with which you disagree is not less speech but more speech.