Is it true?

[A.J. Holst]

Apparently Satan is against the 2A as well.

From The Screwtape Letters

2:28:45 to 2:29:50

After I listened, I reflected on dialogue attacking our right.

It's a great question; does this amendment have truth to it?

Well regulated militia, necessary for a free state, I  think so.

Right to keep and bear, shall not be infringed. That seems a statement of fact and a truth for the militia bit.

Well regulated? We're all pointing in the same direction at the same BGs? (And you get your democratic say if you show up to help)

[Garufa]

Satan is against everything. 

I listened to the indicated time frame of your post and simply cannot see any relation to the 2A.

[A.J. Holst]

10 hours ago, Garufa said:

listened to the indicated time frame of your post and simply cannot see any relation to the 2A.

Fair statement.

I thought it interesting how everything about the 2A today is discussed in context, what the drafters really meant, how it is now attacked with the historical point of view.

Thought I saw some correlation.

 

[owejia]

Thought this was about Hillary, saw the word satan and that is what popped into my head.

[A.J. Holst]

On 5/24/2019 at 6:34 AM, A.J. Holst said:

Fair statement.

I thought it interesting how everything about the 2A today is discussed in context, what the drafters really meant, how it is now attacked with the historical point of view.

Thought I saw some correlation.

 

Gave it some more thought.

Here are a few arguments I've heard which have nothing to do with the truth of the statements made in the 2A.

1. The founders were in a state of evolution, creating their version of a right based on their "now" They just won and had a national interest, the new citizens pushing west had to evict the indigenous, and the police were days or decades away.

2.The founders could have never imagined the ingenuity of man to create the most lethal, effective killing small arms on the planet

3. References to what other learned, people have said, written, exposed upon regarding the 2A with the certainty these modern opinions are valid.

4. Charts and graphs showing the US is leading the world in killing civilians with small arms. If the founders saw this info the amendment would be different.

5. Public opinion polls show the amendment should be changed.

6. And the unspoken one, the influence of money through grants, donations, and lobbying.

Divert and deflect the argument with hand selected facts, you can eliminate truth from any narrative.

[bersaguy]

3 hours ago, A.J. Holst said:

Gave it some more thought.

Here are a few arguments I've heard which have nothing to do with the truth of the statements made in the 2A.

1. The founders were in a state of evolution, creating their version of a right based on their "now" They just won and had a national interest, the new citizens pushing west had to evict the indigenous, and the police were days or decades away.

2.The founders could have never imagined the ingenuity of man to create the most lethal, effective killing small arms on the planet

3. References to what other learned, people have said, written, exposed upon regarding the 2A with the certainty these modern opinions are valid.

4. Charts and graphs showing the US is leading the world in killing civilians with small arms. If the founders saw this info the amendment would be different.

5. Public opinion polls show the amendment should be changed.

6. And the unspoken one, the influence of money through grants, donations, and lobbying.

Divert and deflect the argument with hand selected facts, you can eliminate truth from any narrative.

I can see many good points you raised but 1 in particular raises many questions. # 5 is the one in question. With all of the politics being the way they are, can the Amendment be re written with the honesty and integrity it was written with the first time? I think not. There are to many people with billions of dollars that could have far to much influence to get it rewritten to benefit all Americans and not just the elite among us. In my opinion it is better to leave it as it is written. The writers of the Constitution were the scholars of that period and I am quite sure they were putting all future advances they could see at that time. If we allow our elected officials to re write one amendment what is to stop them from rewriting another and then another and on and on till we no longer have a Constitution any longer but just a bunch of new laws to suit the elite few amongst us.............JMHO 

[A.J. Holst]

The fallacy of argument #5 is the ease to influence integrity and survey sample

4 out of 5 dentists surveyed type of affair

[A.J. Holst]

Efforts from Bloomberg's money to skew the truth.

Dr. Webster and Dr. Crifasi offer a final wrap-up discussion of the week two material. They reiterate the major points their colleagues made in this module

I think this illustrates the example of using opinions and studies of comptempory learned men and women to provide facts and create truth.

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/05/bloomberg-gun-ignorance-course-continues-bloomberging-rights-away/#axzz5p8RIquQZ

 

[DaveTN]

Well if you think your right to protect your life and your family comes from the Constitution; there are plenty of arguments about it. I can argue either side. But I do not tie my right to protect myself to a dog like the 2nd amendment that is both poorly written, and poorly interpreted, and is emotionally argued, and can be gone with a vote.

But my right to protect myself comes from a natural right, or unalienable right; as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. There is no gray area of a well regulated Militia, effectiveness of the military, reasonable restriction, and does not require interpretation by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Unfortunately neither protect my right to carry a gun under the laws.

Our Founding Fathers were not a bunch of arrogant azzhats that thought they were creating a document that would bind all future generations to it. Quite the opposite; it was written as a foundation for going forward. It can be changed and amended as needed. It is our duty to do so as our country changes. They knew that.

So, will the 2nd amendment be gone? Possibly some day. But I don’t think most of us will see it. Thankfully it takes a lot to change the Constitution. A more likely scenario is interpretation by the SCOTUS. The 2nd amendment (or any others) can get changed by the interpretation of the SCOTUS. They have already ruled that you have the right to keep arms. They have neutered the “Bear Arms” by saying states can impose reasonable restrictions. As you have seen some states think banning the AR is a reasonable restriction. Another case could cause them to rule you have the right to keep and bear arms with no restrictions, or that a well regulated Militia is our Military and Law Enforcement agency’s and you have to 2nd amendment rights at all.

But one thing is for sure; the 1st and 2nd amendments will continue to be debated and twisted daily to fit the needs of whoever is making an argument.

[Omega]

22 hours ago, DaveTN said:

Well if you think your right to protect your life and your family comes from the Constitution; there are plenty of arguments about it. I can argue either side. But I do not tie my right to protect myself to a dog like the 2nd amendment that is both poorly written, and poorly interpreted, and is emotionally argued, and can be gone with a vote.

But my right to protect myself comes from a natural right, or unalienable right; as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. There is no gray area of a well regulated Militia, effectiveness of the military, reasonable restriction, and does not require interpretation by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Unfortunately neither protect my right to carry a gun under the laws.

Our Founding Fathers were not a bunch of arrogant azzhats that thought they were creating a document that would bind all future generations to it. Quite the opposite; it was written as a foundation for going forward. It can be changed and amended as needed. It is our duty to do so as our country changes. They knew that.

So, will the 2nd amendment be gone? Possibly some day. But I don’t think most of us will see it. Thankfully it takes a lot to change the Constitution. A more likely scenario is interpretation by the SCOTUS. The 2nd amendment (or any others) can get changed by the interpretation of the SCOTUS. They have already ruled that you have the right to keep arms. They have neutered the “Bear Arms” by saying states can impose reasonable restrictions. As you have seen some states think banning the AR is a reasonable restriction. Another case could cause them to rule you have the right to keep and bear arms with no restrictions, or that a well regulated Militia is our Military and Law Enforcement agency’s and you have to 2nd amendment rights at all.

But one thing is for sure; the 1st and 2nd amendments will continue to be debated and twisted daily to fit the needs of whoever is making an argument.

The 2nd Amendment is just fine as is, but self defense has nothing to do with the 2A.  As you said, the right to self defense is inalienable, and applies no matter what, or who.  The 2nd Amendment is there to protect us against the Government if it should become tyrannical, so the Government should have no say so on how it applies, whether State or Federal.

[DaveTN]

1 hour ago, Omega said:

The 2nd Amendment is just fine as is, but self defense has nothing to do with the 2A.  As you said, the right to self defense is inalienable, and applies no matter what, or who.  The 2nd Amendment is there to protect us against the Government if it should become tyrannical, so the Government should have no say so on how it applies, whether State or Federal.

So, if you believe that is its only purpose; it has failed miserably. If you believe it is in place to overthrow our tyrannical government; so be it. But guns would only be part of that issue. The biggest part of that issue would be getting Americans to fight for a tyrannical government; it wouldn’t happen. More than likely it would be a case of a group of nut cases  (could be small or large)  that have decided our government is tyrannical now and it is their job to overthrow it. They would die wherever they make their stand. They wouldn’t have the manpower, and they certainly wouldn’t have the weapons to take on our military and the private citizens that are Patriots.

However, If you believe its only purpose it to overthrow a tyrannical government, more specifically ours; that would certainly make it easy for the SCOTUS to rule that states control where when and what you carry off your property.

It also lets the wind out of the sails of those that think the 2nd amendment allows them to carry a gun off their property.

Unfortunately, inalienable rights have no teeth. There are no laws that recognize that our Police Departments are reactive; not proactive and can only respond after the damage is done. Too many people believe that cops being pro-active might violate someone rights. Our right to be armed with deadly weapons because criminals that live in our area are armed with deadly weapons is not recognized. At some point I suspect that will change. But it will have to get much worse, and the group of victims will have to get much larger before people understand that LE and armed Citizens can take out criminals without violating their Constitutional Rights.

[Omega]

28 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

So, if you believe that is its only purpose; it has failed miserably. If you believe it is in place to overthrow our tyrannical government; so be it. But guns would only be part of that issue. The biggest part of that issue would be getting Americans to fight for a tyrannical government; it wouldn’t happen. More than likely it would be a case of a group of nut cases  (could be small or large)  that have decided our government is tyrannical now and it is their job to overthrow it. They would die wherever they make their stand. They wouldn’t have the manpower, and they certainly wouldn’t have the weapons to take on our military and the private citizens that are Patriots.

However, If you believe its only purpose it to overthrow a tyrannical government, more specifically ours; that would certainly make it easy for the SCOTUS to rule that states control where when and what you carry off your property.

It also lets the wind out of the sails of those that think the 2nd amendment allows them to carry a gun off their property.

Unfortunately, inalienable rights have no teeth. There are no laws that recognize that our Police Departments are reactive; not proactive and can only respond after the damage is done. Too many people believe that cops being pro-active might violate someone rights. Our right to be armed with deadly weapons because criminals that live in our area are armed with deadly weapons is not recognized. At some point I suspect that will change. But it will have to get much worse, and the group of victims will have to get much larger before people understand that LE and armed Citizens can take out criminals without violating their Constitutional Rights.

It is failing, no doubt about it, but combating a tyrannical government is it's purpose.  As to who decides what is tyrannical, well, that there is a sticky question.  As to LE, SCOTUS has already ruled that they have no duty to risk their lives for us, so that definitely puts them in the reactive column.