Who, but the politicians in the Democratic party, are passing the “gun control” laws? Who, but the politicians in the Democratic party, are in control of the states with the most restrictive “gun control” laws? What party in Virginia did not even bring Constitutional Carry out of committee in this year’s legislative session? What party was responsible for passing the Jim Crow era laws? What party has passed Constitutional Carry in 20+ states?
Yes, the RKBA should not be a political issue, but it is, due to the Democratic elites not believing in our inalienable, natural rights.
I have heard this as well. Calling it the Bill of Rights is misleading. As what they are intended to do is limit the government’s REACH into our personal freedoms.
Ha ha ha ha!
I remember some years ago, two people in my family were having a heated political discussion. After several rounds, the fiscal conservative was making some headway, and the die-hard progressives yielded that he was making valid points. Immediately after that, for reasons I still don’t understand, the conservative used a racial slur for Palestinians, and lost all ground he had gained about fiscal responsibility. Apparently they were somehow related, in his mind, and the progressive family members were able to equate fiscal conservatism with racism.
Point taken. When we’re talking about 2A, we need to focus on the issue. Obviously there are political considerations, as there are with any issue, but the moment we introduce political parties or religion or anything else, people will go into defense mode and they won’t hear a thing we’re saying about the right to keep and bear arms.
The 2A is about weapons, all about weapons, “arms,” the God-given, natural right of every person to acquire, keep, bear and use “arms,” weapons, to save, protect and defend themselves from anyone, especially tyrants in government, who would try to infringe upon not only that God-given, natural right, but all of our other rights, as well. The 2A is not about hunting or recreational activities.
Oh, I haven’t lost any ground, at least not with any thinking person who has read what I’ve written. Also, although I could add here that I “stand by” what I’ve written, there’s no need for me to do that, because if I didn’t “stand by” it, I wouldn’t have written it in the first place.
Also, the 2A is very much about politics and religion. It acknowledges our God-given, natural right to keep and bear arms (weapons) as tools to protect and enforce all of our other God-given, natural rights, including without limitation our right to assemble and discuss politics and our right to practice our faith. The reason the Left, which has taken over the Democrat Party (and whose Satanic spirit has possessed that yellow dog (pronounced yow-ler) that great grandpa and granny used to vote for), wants to steal away our right to keep and bear arms (weapons) is so that we will have no tools to fight with when they come to steal away our other rights. It’s all ultimately a total control thing.
By the way, speaking of religion and use of the phrase “Ha ha ha ha” in what would otherwise be considered intelligent discussion, there is something in the Proverbs that mentions persons who laugh during debate.
Slow down, brother. I wasn’t responding to you. I was sharing a story from my own family. If it resembles your own family, that’s coincidental. If you’re just looking for someone to throw shade at, that’s fine, but don’t come throwing your proverbs at me if you think I was looking your direction.
Not sure who you’re talking to. I assume me, but doesn’t matter either way. I don’t really care one way or the other. But as I say, the 2A is very much about politics and religion.
Also, I found that Proverb. It’s 29:9. Best read in the NASB.
If anyone wants to respond, fine with me. But I’m out of here and doubt that I’ll read or follow any of this any further.
Sorry but politics are very much involved, the Democrats are trying their best to take away your God given and constitutionally protected rights to free speech, guns, a fair election, and etc. If you don’t realize that we are sorry, but it’s a fact, and we are battling to keep the rights and freedoms.
I can see how the actual 2A can be viewed from a religious and political perspective. And that is ok, because it’s a natural human response which we cannot control and should not want to, IMHO.
But I can see how anything can be viewed from a religious or political stance, as it’s so common. When I take a step back, I must respect it, even if I don’t agree with it. I see that as “opinion”. Still, I also admire the writers of the Constitution, supporting freedom of religion, for to not allow such freedom to me would be oppression.
Being interested in educating those to appreciate the value of firearms, I’m interested in including those who are not religious, non political, or who are even from a political party one might not associate with firearm freedoms.
To defend firearm rights, I tend to believe that our best supportive evidence is its value for self-defense (not the actual 2A), because the opposition’s fuel is the gun-violence and mass shootings of today.
I worry about invoking religion or politics with firearm freedoms, because we may alienate or isolate those who are not religious, not from our own religion, or if they are from a different political party per se.
And I want to appeal to the opposition and more of those in the general public or who are “on the fence” with this hot-button issue/emotionally laden but important subject of our time. Stay safe friends.
While I see both political parties as being more evil than good. The truth is I don’t keep and bear arms because of the bill of rights or the constitution. I do it to keep my family safe. Once I became disabled, my own mortality became extremely clear. There are many who would ruin our rights and others who would abuse the right. Neither is a factor in my decision-making process nor would I consider god as giving me this right. Self-defense is a choice, either you will defend your family at any cost or there is a limit to how far your willing to go. That is not to say it’s not great that there is something there to cover us legally. But the legality of taking a life vs the legality of protecting a life only comes into play after you have made the decision to do it.
The truth is, we follow the laws because that is who we are. We defend our families because that is who we are. We will or will not stop at anything to defend our families because that is who we are. Owning a firearm does not mean we will defend our families at all costs only some will actually do that. Just like there are many that don’t own a firearm who will stop at nothing to keep their families safe. What god gave us was the determination to do that. What man gave us was the weapons to assist with it. What our founders gave us was a law saying we don’t have to be imprisoned after the fact. We should all pray that day never comes but if it does, let’s hope we all have the courage to do what we have trained for.
It is only political due to the fact that we have politicians doing everything they can to criminalize legal firearm ownership. It is spiritual/religious, due to the fact that self-defense is not a government law, it is innate in all of nature, hence it being a Natural Law, not granted or given by Man or government. Those that are religious take that to mean it is endowed by our Creator, which is the language used by our Founding Fathers in speaking about Natural Law and inalienable rights. The Founding Fathers were well-read and the idea of Natural Law came from Thomas Hobbes and furthered by John Locke.
I would ask you Sir re your approach to the “old” Constitution, written so long ago, that today’s views by necessity must be interrupted differently than in late 1700. That is the classic approach by liberals who argue that the “Living Constitution” needs to be updated (changed) to match today’s society.
What exactly has changed from 1700s to 2021?
I posit the answer is technology.
Has human need changed? We need substance (food/water), we need love, we need health, and safety (among other natural needs) from those who would cause us harm.
History (and current) evidences provide there will always exist in government those who either are unwise, or toxic to our natural rights. Technology changes nothing.
It is to these realities the wisdom of our fathers sought to protect the people of this union from despots.
I appreciate and respect that Derrell1. Personally, I wouldn’t want to change the wording of The 2nd Amendment. To me, its meaning at the time is too important, in particular the rising up of a people toward oppression as was the case then. What an incredible lesson and story, which I think many other countries also learned from since then. When I was studying, I learned some amazing things about George Washington of which I’m still astonished by today.
My apologies for referring to the Constitution as old; I take that back. What I meant was that so much time has passed since the 2A was first written, that today I think many people do not see the words of The 2A the way others do, it does not resonate with many of them, today they have other beliefs and values, and they may even argue that their own “human needs” are in jeopardy by “our gun-rights” human needs.
Though I think I respect the actual 2A, just IMHO, I think when we try to educate those who want to restrict our firearm rights, that I might prefer to appeal to their sense of self-defense and safety, and I fear that focusing on the 27 words from The 2A might not resonate with them (as they interpret it) at this day and age per se (as it does to us my friend).
I liked your point about “needs”; It reminded me of Psychologist Abraham Maslow’s theory on human’s hierarchy of needs. I’d be interested to read more about your take or experience on technology’s impact on how we view topics like The 2A and/or Bill of Rights.
To clarify if I may. Many assume the right is only given to a militia even though there is no definition of a militia. An individual can form a militia unto himself.
Many also assume we do not have the right to own particular weapons, sort of only those that benefit hunting. Military weapons are taboo in some eyes yet those patriots at Lexington and Concord had better weapon than did the British soldiers coming to confiscate weapons. The founders surely were aware that the people needed weapons equal or better than any tyrant that would attempt to undermine our Republic so they placed no prohibition on them as to type or means of the weapons,