The single greatest threat to firearm ownership

Legal & Second Amendment
21

I’m not intending to discuss the pros and cons of obeying the law. Of course you should obey the law.

I am simply intending to share my opinion, with articulation as to how I formed it, that permit to carry and required training laws are a unconstitutional infringement sthat I am happy to see states doing away with.

Furthermore, from a practical perspective, they do literally nothing to improve safety or security. If anything, they hamper safety and security while also infringing on Rights and Liberties.

Words like “reasonable” and “common sense” and “compromise” are used to describe all gun control laws, even those in Australia and NYC. These are the same words being used, and the “good common sense” test is being passed, by the current bills the House has passed. These subjective terms kind of mean whatever the person using them wants.

Shall not be infringed is my stand.

2 Likes
22

So, sidebar topic that was introduced: Convicted felons

First up, that is a very different topic because of the word Convicted. A convicted felon is a person who was found guilty in a court of law following due process. This changes things, considerably. After all, we put people in jail and prison with this process, talk about a loss of Liberty! So that is pretty much irrelevant to those not convicted appropriately in a court of law.

BUT, that said, I disagree with convicted felons be denied the RKBA. It makes no sense, on a practical matter, for a number of reasons.

First all off, far too many crimes are felonies. I have witnessed a huge number of felonies first hand. Years ago I was a security employee at a college in Georgia, at a time when carrying a knife with a blade longer than 2" on campus was a felony. Yet tons of people did it, all the time. Do you really believe they should be denied their Right to keep and bear arms for life over that? Because they could have been.

What about the person who is flying between their homes, and their plane is diverted to NY, but they have a legally possessed handgun and four valid carry permits from 4 different states in that bag, and now they are felon. Lifetime loss of RKBA? Does that make sense?

Additionally, what is the purpose of denying them their Right to a firearm? We are saying we distrust them so much, through actions in their past, that we are afraid if they get a gun they are going to go out and commit heinous/violent crimes? But if we just make it illegal for them to have the gun, they won’t do it? The laws against those laws won’t stop them, but the laws against having a gun will? That just doesn’t make sense.

But, that’s pretty far off target compared to the much more vanilla discussion of carry permits vs Constitutional aka permitless carry. :wink:

2 Likes
23

I am very curious to know your take on the “well regulated militia” part of 2A, which I would think you support with equal fervor, and how does it relate to you as a firearm owner?

24

According to US code, I am a part of the militia. Unorganized militia, but militia nonetheless.

As such, the Second Amendment seems to indicate that me and other members of the organized or unorganized militia are supposed to have well kept, functional arms that we are capable of using effectively. After all, the purpose of these arms is the security of a free state.

Perhaps the government should therefore be providing me with the same arms a typical 11B would have along with some training in their operation? Or at the very least not in any way be infringing on my Right to have such arms.

What is your take on “the Right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” and how does it relate to all of us as firearms owners?

Do you think being a part of that well regulated militia means the government should be providing me with a Javelin?

Edit: To be clear, I fundamentally believe in the inalienable Right to effective self defense and as an extension of that, an inalienable Right to keep and bear arms. This is true regardless of whether or not a government document agrees. Fortunately, as it happens, the Constitution does explicitly and specifically recognize (not grant, recognize) this Right and (based on what it says) prevent government infringement on this Right. So, that’s a nice touch.

5 Likes
25

I completely agree that you are a member of the militia of your State. All legally armed citizens in America are members of their State’s militia. A significant part of the classic definition of a militia is “self armed”. Armed with weapons (not just firearms) of their own choice, familiarity and supply.

The question of how “well regulated” your State militia may or may not be is another matter entirely. But it is critical to fulfilling the Founders intent for the Ammendment.

The 2nd Ammendment - our right to arms - is one coherent statement, not 2 statements expressed together. There is no fulfillment of the first clause without the second clause, but the first clause is also the qualifier for the second.

Thus, no, the government has no obligation to arm us. Being armed is our duty to the Republic. (Unfortunately, Duty is a concept that has long since become meaningless in America.) This is why the government is forbidden to infringe on our right to be armed - to do so would prevent our fulfilling our duty. As well, being well regulated is no less our duty to the Republic.

The Founders intent was for Americans to govern themselves, both collectively and individually. They understood that to do so effectively we collectively would need representatives to establish law that we individually could, and ideally would follow.

We the People have for the most part failed to maintain discipline over our servant government. Instead, we have become the servants of our government. The Founders would be greatly disappointed in We the People, and for very good reasons.

Our duty to be a well regulated militia is enabled and fulfilled by law, and our obedience to it. Our law should be our represented will codified. Where it is not, the blame is ours, not government’s.

26

Correction:

Governor DeSantis has expressed his support for Constitutional Carry. Whether or not this would include Open Carry depends on the proposed legislation. No current update available on the status of any impending legislation.

27

The far left absolutely MUST disarm this nation before it can have complete rule…this is the aim and has been for a long time. Look up the Genocide Chart put out by “Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership.” 9 nations going back to Ottoman Turkey disarmed in similar ways as the anti-Constitution left is doing. Remember the slaughter of almost 86 men, women and children at Waco under the questionable “rule” of Clinton. What the “media” carefully omitted was that supposedly they had “thousands of guns and millions of rounds of ammo”. After 51 days of terrifying torture and threats most were burned to death, including children and their moms, and not ONE word about the supposed weapons and ammo after the “fact”.
Janet “Butch” Reno also made a threat that did make it to the public; “We’ll show those Christians who’s boss”. What was Clinton impeached for? Not a total violation of our Constitution against using military (ATF, FBI, Law enforcement and the military!) against American citizens but…ready? Messing with an intern in the oval office! He should have been impeached and put in federal prison (at the least!) for life.
After the carnage not ONE word about guns and ammo and then adding insult to injury persecuted the few who survived the intentional slaughter.

4 Likes
28

It will be educational for American handgun owners to watch what happens in Canada since their dictator Trudeau announced that “Canadians have no need for handguns”. Will he attempt to confiscate handguns already possessed legally? If so, what mechanism will he use? I anticipate the RCMP will be receiving lots of reports of “stolen” handguns.

2 Likes
29

Comrade Trudeau (has already confiscated multiple and expensive semi rigs from a peaceful (in fact the community rallied around the truckers and it was like a celebration for them) protest. Heir Trudeau decided that it was enough and took rigs, and literally had his henchmen run down women and kids with his gestapo on big horses…I watched this on Newsmax and online…to see this kind of blatant and ugly evil from this monster was sickening. The men not only were treated like hardened criminals, handcuffed and arrested but Comrade T confiscated their trucks and threatened to euthanize the pets that road with them!
Then this budding Hitler threatened to take away their children as well!
I couldn’t believe what I was seeing happening in Canada on our border.
I have been reminding folks for the last few weeks of George Bush Sr.'s presidential acceptance speech when he said; “We must usher in the New World Order.” We are facing an ugly future unless there’s a massive change in congress and we get an America first president in office. Democrats will stop at nothing, to get their one party rule…nothing.
If this monster would do this to the men who move the country you can bet he’ll have no problem taking firearms away by force. Every nation now a dictatorship first had to be disarmed. Hitler force the Jews to register their firearms … before rounding them up and murdering over 6 million.

"In the beginning God…

“Despots may plan and armies may march, and the congresses of the nation may seem to think they are adjusting all the affairs of the world, but the mighty men of the earth are only the dust of the chariot wheels of God’s providence.”

2 Likes
30

https://community.usconcealedcarry.com/t/our-democracy-no-longer-represents-the-people/84331

The youTube cited addressed the first steps We The People need to organize, plan group action, snd see it done in every stste of the Union. Once success is achived locally, and in a number of State Assemblies, Congress should be easier as we shall have demonstrated to ourselves and our fellow Americans We Are Our Government, and our will shall be done.

Watch it all the way through and discuss the merits - and inadequacies to be over come. We The People can do this. Together we can stand; devided we shall surely continue to fall.

31

So then, I assume that you believe that: 1) anyone exercising their God-given right to carry a knife should be required to first have formal training in knives before carrying so that they don’t wrongly cut themselves or others; 2) anyone exercising their God-given right to speak their opinion, including without limitation speaking it on this forum, should be required to first get formal training in speaking so as to protect others from their senseless opinions; 3) anyone exercising their God-given right to gather with other people should be required to first get formal training in diversity and inclusion or whatever so as to protect others from being left out of the gathering or getting their feelings hurt; 4) … on and on.

3 Likes
32

Now you are just being facetious. Seriously? If this is the best you can do, you may want to reconsider participation in adult public discourse. You are not doing anything to present yourself as someone to be taken seriously. On the contrary. I certainly don’t.

33

The well regulated militia part of the 2A is clearly a prefatory clause that announces one of the many important reasons for the following active clause. The active clause is the only part that applies to the right being affirmed. The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

At the time of its writing most people would have considered the militia to mean all able bodied men. The old and infirm would not be expected to answer the call. But it does not matter who the founding fathers felt were or were not members of the militia. The active clause clearly states it is the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, not the right of the militia. At that time “people” mostly meant white males but that has since been properly expanded through constitutional amendments to include all US citizens regardless of race or sex.

I find it depressing to regularly hear supposed 2A supporters falling for one of the anti self defense crowd’s many attempts to limit the number of people who can exercise their natural right to defend themselves and families. By falsely stating the right only belongs to well regulated militia members they are attempting to open the argument up to the fact that state and federal governments can regulate the militia. One of those regulations could easily be to narrowly define who is in the militia since the constitution does not define that.

Fortunately it is clear to most people outside of the anti self defense and pro authoritarian government control crowds that it is the right of ALL the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. Since it is the only right that specifically states it shall not be infringed it should be incredibly difficult for the government to take that right away from anyone who is not actively violating the rights of other citizens.

3 Likes
34

There is an assumption that a well regulated militia referred to a desire by the founders to ensure that militias possessed firearms as militias were the predominant means of military defense at the time the 2nd Amendment was penned.

But, consider an alternative interpretation. Organizations like the KKK were militias formed after the Civil War to do what government agencies – e.g., the police – would not or could not do. Ensuring that “the people” had the right to keep and bear arms provides a means of “regulating” such terror militias.

1 Like
35

I always felt that the militia preamble was put in there simply to mollify the minority of ratifiers who might fear that an armed population would threaten their plans for controlling the new government. By explaining how an armed citizenry was vital to the defense of the nation it showed one of the reasons the 2A was necessary that most everyone could agree on at the time. But I believe it is very clear that the underlying intent was to ensure that citizens have the means to defend themselves from tyrants and other violent people in all their shapes and sizes.

2 Likes
36
  1. I am not a “supposed 2A supporter”; I wholeheartedly support the 2nd Ammendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. Full stop.
37
  1. I do not support “attempts to limit the number of people who can exercise their natural right to defend themselves and families.” Full stop.
38

I disagree. I believe that James Madison in his letters about the 2A was quite clear in the intent for the amendment.

The original draft:
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person,” - James Madison

Notice how the right is enumerated first, and foremost. Then the reasoning for a militia, but with the exception that no one could be compelled to military service.

However, I’m glad with the final version of the constitution that was ratified, as James Madison wanted to put the We The People into another place that would have been less prominent.

2 Likes
39

It’s interesting that the religious exemption did not make the final draft.
Do you have a good (unbiased) history on the 2nd Amendment? I haven’t had much luck finding one. Most books that claim to be a history on the 2nd Amendment seem to be written by people who are trying to justify their own opinions. And if I read about the Bill of Rights more broadly, the writers tend to gloss over the 2nd Amendment. It’s a topic I’ve been trying to learn more about, but my search has been frustrating.

1 Like
40

If we are going to maintain our “right of the people to keep and bear arms” we have to engage in mature, intelligent, and well-reasoned discussion of the entire Ammendment as written - not just the operative clause. We need to study the history of our Republic before, during, and after the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If we are not familiar with the arguments coming from the other side of the debate space, we can not properly counter them.

My previous comments in regards to the prefatory clause set the stage for such discussions. Try to not be so quick to judgement; there is much that can be said, and not everyone who presents an argument differently than others is necessarily an adversary.

Someone much wiser than myself said, “Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.” Sparks necessarily fly. But the most effective way for me to persuade is to present arguments that can be engaged with a view toward sharpening the arguments which confront them.

Be sharpened. Dull blades lose battles.