Shall not be infringed?

The problem with your statement was, our civilian population were our military. Before the founding fathers the Brits were our military.


Hyperbole aside, and if I understand the question correctly, you would like to know: If you were born into a society that by law did not allow the private ownership of firearms, would you fight in order to be able to legally own firearms?
Implicit to this question we should assume that criminals and gun crime still exist, law enforcement is not omnipresent, and none of us have taken our happy pills?

Or are you simply asking if we would hold the constitution sacred if we did not agree with what it said?


Yes…This is the question in a nut shell


The way I see it the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are supporting documents for the Declaration of Independance.
The Declaration establishes all men as equal and with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The Constitution essentially establishes the framework of the federal government, its maintenance, and the relationship of the states with the underlying intent being to ensure our unalienable rights are preserved.
The Bill of Rights refines and further limits the government’s ability to infringe upon legal rights deemed necessary to ensure our unalienable human rights (which it also acknowledges can be denied under certain circumstances, but only after due process)
So now to the question…in my simple mind the equality of men and our unalienable rights are to be held sacred. The supporting documents and framework are sacred for so long as they fulfill their purpose.
Consider that the Constitution includes provision for a slave tax and requires the return of runaway slaves to their ‘owners’. The bill of rights adds an amendment to free slaves and assert their equal and inalienable rights. What is held sacred?
Now consider how do you preserve and guarantee any citizens right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness without recognizing his right to self defense in a world where crime exists and law enforcement is far from omnipresent?


@Ben_Blanc - You stated " The people shall have the right to a safe, gun free country, without the immediate threat and danger of a gun toting society, and furthermore, this right shall not be infringed"

My question would be, - How well did that work for the American Indians, back when this country was writing the 2nd amendment??


Maybe an off topic, would you consider countries where there is no equivalent to our 2A written into their constitutions, but for practical purposes, significant fraction of the population is armed, military automatic weapons are commonplace in homes, or being carried in public. Is this arrangement more comforting than what we do in this country? I am talking about Switzerland and Israel.

This liberal anti-Swiss-gun article attests that they do at least something right, LOL.


It doesn’t work. The revised second amendment grants nothing to the people. You have no right to something that the government cannot grant. The founding fathers knew it was the government that could or would be a great danger to the citizens future freedoms. They wouldn’t even contend that taking the right of self defense was a right. The 2nd amendment as written grants a right people already had and used to gain their freedoms in the first place. Face it a gun free America in 1812 would be a reclaimed English country by 1813. Most of the army went home after the revolution so there was hardly any standing army by 1812. And the government would lack the power and force to honor a right to gun toting population if that population came to the shores uninvited.

The rewritten 2nd amendment has “nothing” to grant. anymore than > The right to an adequate standard of living is a fundamental human right. It is part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that was accepted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948.[1]

The right to firearms wasn’t granted it was realized. People had it and the government couldn’t take it away. People never had a society free of weapons when the founding fathers were framing the constitution. Every one of the signers realized this. Replacing the security of a King with the security of an all powerful government wasn’t even a blip on their horizon.

@Craig6 has a valid point, the revised 2second amendment is not based on reality for any of us living today. There is no other side for the USA. Like it was said we wouldn’t be here as a nation without it. If the populace in the north didn’t have the 2nd amendment the South would have beat the north in the first battle and we would be the CSA. No reason to believe the south would have followed the “rules”. Ridiculous some might say? No more fanciful than the founding fathers being anti gun rights. Both are as fanciful as they are thought provoking. Why,? Because it didn’t happen.

As the April Concealed Carry magazine states on pages 44-45 we have to be ready to fight the “other” side on every point. We are fighting people that are trying to take from us what they simply don’t like and their methods are insidious. (Italics are mine) As the article says: We are fighting for freedom. They are trying to restrict that freedom. I recommend looking at the article if you can. The final take away was, Notice they always cite “gun violence” never total violence. It is not a debate, it is manipulation. How I took the article anyway. I thank USCCA for publishing such an informative magazine.


This. Precisely this.


“‘A well-crafted pepperoni pizza, being necessary to the preservation of a diverse menu, the right of the people to keep and cook tomatoes, shall not be infringed.’ I would ask you to try to argue that this statement says that only pepperoni pizzas can keep and cook tomatoes, and only well-crafted ones at that. This is basically what the so-called states rights people argue with respect to the well-regulated militia, vs. the right to keep and bear arms.” ~ Bruce Tiemann


:laughing: :rofl: :joy:

Thats the most unique approach I’ve seen