If you own a firearm and I assume all members of the USCCA do, then you should know what rights and responsibilities you have. The USCCA does a great job on various what if scenarios, training, and education.
I think another topic should be on educating gun owners on the Second Amendment. There is a very good article I found covering the founding fathers thinking through today’s struggles to keep the right to bear arms. The website is The Second Amendment - Definition, Text & Rights - HISTORY
7 Likes
-
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
-
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
12 Likes
I am surprised, well maybe not so much, that so many “progressives” call for the federal government to restrict a individual right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Please note I said “guaranteed”, and not granted, as our rights are natural and supersede the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. These same people would scream at federal restriction of the civil and political rights enjoyed in the United States, including the right to due process of law and the freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition. However well meaning they now wish to ignore these words “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Simply put, our founders understood the nation might, at times, need to make a call to the people to grab their arms and come to the aid of the standing army in defense of the nation. It should be clear that the individual weapon of these citizens should be close to being on par with the individual military weapon. To be otherwise would render the militia useless. This makes perfect sense because this citizen warrior has a weapon he is comfortable with and is not stored in some common location that can be seized or destroyed. It also follows that self defense requires the same. Self defense is simply the natural corollary of the right to life. We have the natural right to life. It follows that one has a right to defend one’s life from whatever source.
There are those who say that only the militia have the right to bare arms. Some will claim that means the National Guard. There is much discussion in our founding documents about the militia, and the standing army, but one point is always clear, the militia comes from the “People”. There is a single statement of fact that Madison makes in federalist 46. He says, “…besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…”. We can argue the meaning of militia, but we can not argue from where it originates. The Militia comes from the people volunteers and not some standing select group. They become “well regulated” after formation. The “People” are the same as the referenced ones who “do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.” The “People” are one and the same for all our guaranteed natural rights. The “People” are all the citizens of the states.
I wrote the above a long time ago and have lost much of it and my source material to time, but it still forms the core of how I frame a debate on the 2nd.
10 Likes
One article I found that explained the 2nd amendment quite well.
Currently The Second Amendment reads:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
They then explain the following:
Prefatory clause : “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.”
Operative clause : “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The prefatory clause is the lead-in that “announces a purpose” for the operative clause.
The operative clause is the actual protected right
So, the Amendment could be rephrased for better understanding:
" Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
10 Likes
Well said.
It’s amazing that some people can’t extrapolate or simply synthesize the basics of the two clauses.
4 Likes
9 Likes
Did anyone like the presentation? It explained a lot more than the wording of the Second Amendment.
2 Likes
The SJW Progressive Left does not believe in free speech. They only believe in speech that agrees with their political positions. They often use Fascist tactics to shut up those that don’t agree with them. They also believe in more State control and less individual freedom. The don’t believe in “natural rights”. They think that the State can grant rights or take them away as their politicians see fit to do so. The trajectory of the SJW Left is towards, Socialism, Communism and top down rule by The State. That is why anyone that believes in freedom should no longer vote for Democrats. The Democratic Party is being taken over by people that hate freedom. Their Utopian view of the future is very similar to the book “1984”. We must fight them politically every chance we get and elect good people that support freedom, our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
10 Likes
It’s not that The Left doesn’t understand the two clauses. Their goal is to change the meaning of those statements to undermine freedom and replace it with Authoritarian concepts. Look at the Supreme Court ruling on abortion to see how the original meaning has been changed to support the agenda of The Left. The ruling on homosexual marriages is very similar. I am not against legal homosexual relationships similar to a marriage but the SCOTUS ruling on that is not consistent with our Constitution or our Bill of Rights. The Left looks at their agenda and then looks at every way possible to change the original meaning of these documents to achieve their goals.
5 Likes
I understand what you’re saying. The communist left will always be deaf and blind to the clauses.
More concerning to me; I was referring to the pro 2A community. As we all know, there are those that are misinformed on the true meaning and want to debate it.
3 Likes
The NRA is our best defense. All USCCA members should join it as well.
3 Likes
@Simjack - If you are referring to the link in your original post as the “Presentation”, then yes it is full of good information. Would help us when talking to some of the anti gun folks.
From original post - The website is https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/2nd-amendment
2 Likes
The NRA is not our best defense. We The People are our best defense.
8 Likes
@Patrick47 and @Simjack - I have heard that a lot of folks are not happy with the NRA. One of the things I keep getting from them is a call for money and it does get exhausting to get all that mail.
However, someone needs to take on the governors, mayors, and other people who are passing laws or regulations that infringe on our rights.
The average person can’t fight city hall so having a group like the NRA is very beneficial to the rest of us. We also need to support our local gun rights groups. The NRA can help at the national level as well as a more local level. I feel this is probably what @Simjack was referring to in his post. I agree with him that the NRA and local gun right groups need our support as much as we are able to give.
1 Like
Question: do you think that a judge, prosecutor or even the jury will know and/or uphold your right just because?
1 Like
Of the 3 I would say the jury is your best bet. Judges and Prosecutors are employees and will tow the line to keep their jobs, a jury by design is a short term task.
3 Likes
Right Greg. What I’m trying to say here is that you are at the mercy of the level of bias for or against you in any case. There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. I’ve been in Law Enforcement for 18 years and I’ve seen the same law applied differently to different people. There is nothing black and white about it. Police is looking to pin a crime onto the suspect that best fits the bill. Prosecutors are there to convict said person, not necessarily to find the truth. As with all checks and balances the defense attorney will try to even the scales but it depends of the ability of each side that often determines the outcome which may or may not have a thing to do with the actual guilt or innocence of the person whose in a pickle.
**Detlef Goellner **
3 Likes
Reading back through this thread I am reminded that when the discussion turns to the 2nd and the debate rages there are a few things that seem to always get thrown about. (1) the type of weapon (2) the who it applies and (3) the where it originates. I try and lay all that out in my core debate, modifying it to the people I’m having the discussion with. The last time I debated it was on FB and my opponent was a very liberal computer programmer I have known since my early working days. We got in the discussion following one of the ‘mass’ shootings and his posting of the usual ‘blame’ the weapon. He prides himself on being very logical, really to the point of extreme arrogance. After I presented my argument worded to fit the situation his only reply back was “Well OK, how would you address/fix the ‘mass’ shooting problem?” In other words he left the field attacking the 2nd and went to a totally different position
Attention spans in most of these debates are short so very long explanations fail to hold interest and too short of ones do not convince or derail. The trick is hit hard and fast before your opponent can gather his thoughts.
3 Likes
Are you rich and know where the next government attack on the 2nd amendment? Did you know Los Angeles banned guns and the NRA sued them and won?
I think you are wrong on this one.
1 Like