Greatest threat to 2nd amendment?

chipd said:

Any children prescribed crazy pills should be in the NICS system until they can file an appeal. That is a practical solution.

Click to expand...

A practical solution is to STOP DRUGGING THE DAMN KIDS because they're being kids.

JohnnyE said:

It IS living and breathing to the extent that technologies grow and expand, it lives and breathes to take that into account.

Click to expand...

Wrong.

Rights are based on principles. They are independent of technology. The Constitution says nothing about technology because it doesn't need to -- that which is within the Constitution is independent of it. It outlines the powers of government, the limitations thereof, and enumerates the protection of specific rights.

While the proper scope of the protection of a right is that which was originally understood at the time of the ratification of the protecting Constitutional amendment, that scope is based on principles, not specifics. "Speech", for instance, is communication. Communication is something that is independent of the technology used to accomplish it. "Arms" are tools that one can wield in combat, an extension of one's own fists. That, too, is independent of technology.

The arms that the 2nd Amendment was understood to protect were at their time the deadliest available, in an environment in which modern medicine simply didn't exist. Those who ratified the 2nd Amendment clearly understood that they were protecting weapons that were capable of inflicting unspeakable harm, for the purpose of protecting life and liberty against any and all who would take those away. And since the context of all that was in the immediate aftermath of a shooting war in which the necessary victory that made said ratification possible in the first place happened only because of the fact that individuals possessed all manner of weaponry (up to and including cannon, gunboats, etc.), it should be clear that the covered weaponry was understood to be no more limited than that which the 2nd Amendment directly states: arms. No limits. And that is logical, for nothing less suffices if the people are to retain their liberty in the face of a tyrannical government that, itself, is clearly not subject to any such limitations on what arms it will have.


So no, it is not because the Constitution is a "living Constitution" that the rights we have today protect the use of technology to exercise the rights that are called out as protected. That protection happens because the rights themselves have no technological limits built into them, because their nature is independent of technology.

I wholeheartedly agree that drugging children is wrong, and should stop. But, did you notice how the first thing proposed after the shooting was that ALL kids be sent to a drug dealer called a psychiatrist to be "screened" to see if they need drugs when they are 12? Drugging kids isn't going away. People that drug their kids do so because they say parenting is too hard. These people raise the kids that turn out to be felons. If they want to drug their kids, these kids need to be watched closely. When 100% of the kids that shoot up schools are on these drugs, there needs to be more scrutiny.

Which means the more viable solution is to put the drugs under further scrutiny/restrictions, not the poor kids that are being force-fed this shit.

Hell, in the 80's Ritalin was given out like candy, even recommended it to me because I was high-energy and easily bored in class. Never took it once, didn't need it, once I was put on an accelerated curriculum - that was the end of my acting up in class.

This problem is multi-faceted, taking just one approach isn't going to solve the issue. But I do honestly believe that re-evaluating just how heavily parents medicate their children, is a step in the right direction.

Putting them into a database until they come of age is a gross violation of due process, medical record privacy, and general decency.

The biggest threat to the 2nd Amendment? NOT utilizing it the way it was intended. Was it not written in part so that citizens could prevent the take over a tyrannical govt? Tyrannical govt took over quite sometime ago...especially in Maryland. I know everyone here, including myself, wants to resolve the attack on the 2nd Amendment peacefully through voting and the courts, but it's not working. Folks, just get out of dream land and admit the fact that nobody will ever utilize the 2nd Amendment beyond empty threats. Lie to yourselves all you want, but it's the truth. Look around...look at Maryland, California, New York, and other states who are constantly being infringed. The 2nd Amendment hasn't been utilized and it never will be. Why? Because those of us who care about the 2nd love it so much that we won't do anything on our part to lose it. We'll just continue to let it be taken away from us. The empty threat of its use bothers nobody in the slightest.

Jim12 said:

This is a huge point that needs to be drilled into lawmakers and the citizens who elect them, alike.

There is no such thing as a gun-free zone, except in their own mind's eyes, desires and dreams. That's what they want the entire world to be, and they're willing to sacrifice some in the endless stride toward their utopian dream. And so long as people "disrespect" those "gun free zones", they have fodder to argue for more restrictions.

How are drug free zones working?

Why don't we simply have crime free zones?

Click to expand...

The euphemism of gun-free zone should be corrected to reflect their true nature, protection-free zone (good guy disarmament zone is too clunky).

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Doobie said:

The biggest threat to the 2nd Amendment? NOT utilizing it the way it was intended. Was it not written in part so that citizens could prevent the take over a tyrannical govt? Tyrannical govt took over quite sometime ago...especially in Maryland. I know everyone here, including myself, wants to resolve the attack on the 2nd Amendment peacefully through voting and the courts, but it's not working. Folks, just get out of dream land and admit the fact that nobody will ever utilize the 2nd Amendment beyond empty threats. Lie to yourselves all you want, but it's the truth. Look around...look at Maryland, California, New York, and other states who are constantly being infringed. The 2nd Amendment hasn't been utilized and it never will be. Why? Because those of us who care about the 2nd love it so much that we won't do anything on our part to lose it. We'll just continue to let it be taken away from us. The empty threat of its use bothers nobody in the slightest.

Click to expand...

Thank you, the right answer as far as I'm concerned.

Doco Overboard said:

Thank you, the right answer as far as I'm concerned.

Click to expand...

You're welcome.

boundlessdyad said:

Currently the greatest threat to the second amendment is the guy in the oval office who told us he supported and then didn't. As he caves, he makes it very easy for everyone else in politics to cave.

Click to expand...

5.56blaster said:

Anymore I'm thinking Trump is the problem.

Click to expand...

But this can't be. I mean all those militant Trump primary voters told us that 'ol lyin' Ted Cruz (who was the most qualified and Constitutionally-sound person to EVER run for the office and could have easily pounded the Hildebeast into dust) wasn't good enough for the office. We needed an outsider; somebody from outside DC that could drain the swamp. Somebody touting his new-found conservative values. I mean, who really needs solid core values? That's so yesterday. Despite being a lifelong liberal, this new pillar was just who we needed. Yes, we had to dump 'ol lyin' Ted and make way for the new savior of the country. And if you were to utter one syllable of challenge to this new found savior, you were summarily beat down and ridiculed. No, don't listen to the warnings he could return to his old liberal roots. This is the new look of conservatism. No way he'd fail on 2A. Trust us, he's the man. PERFECT!! Thank you Trump primary voters. You done good.

And don't give us the same old dumba$$ line "We had no choice, it was Trump or Hillary." or "Would you rather have had Hillary?". No, the 2nd Amendment lost when the primary was over. It never had a chance with either.

Doobie said:

The biggest threat to the 2nd Amendment? NOT utilizing it the way it was intended. Was it not written in part so that citizens could prevent the take over a tyrannical govt? Tyrannical govt took over quite sometime ago...especially in Maryland. I know everyone here, including myself, wants to resolve the attack on the 2nd Amendment peacefully through voting and the courts, but it's not working. Folks, just get out of dream land and admit the fact that nobody will ever utilize the 2nd Amendment beyond empty threats. Lie to yourselves all you want, but it's the truth. Look around...look at Maryland, California, New York, and other states who are constantly being infringed. The 2nd Amendment hasn't been utilized and it never will be. Why? Because those of us who care about the 2nd love it so much that we won't do anything on our part to lose it. We'll just continue to let it be taken away from us. The empty threat of its use bothers nobody in the slightest.

Click to expand...

All I can say is YEP.

fidelity said:

The euphemism of gun-free zone should be corrected to reflect their true nature, protection-free zone (good guy disarmament zone is too clunky).

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

How about "Defenseless zone"? Or "Blind trust zone"? Or, "Please don't hurt us here zone"?

kcbrown said:

The arms that the 2nd Amendment was understood to protect were at their time the deadliest available, in an environment in which modern medicine simply didn't exist. Those who ratified the 2nd Amendment clearly understood that they were protecting weapons that were capable of inflicting unspeakable harm, for the purpose of protecting life and liberty against any and all who would take those away. And since the context of all that was in the immediate aftermath of a shooting war in which the necessary victory that made said ratification possible in the first place happened only because of the fact that individuals possessed all manner of weaponry (up to and including cannon, gunboats, etc.), it should be clear that the covered weaponry was understood to be no more limited than that which the 2nd Amendment directly states: arms. No limits. And that is logical, for nothing less suffices if the people are to retain their liberty in the face of a tyrannical government that, itself, is clearly not subject to any such limitations on what arms it will have.


So no, it is not because the Constitution is a "living Constitution" that the rights we have today protect the use of technology to exercise the rights that are called out as protected. That protection happens because the rights themselves have no technological limits built into them, because their nature is independent of technology.

Click to expand...

I agree with what you write, but I hasten to point out that cannon and gunboats are not inexpensive. We were aided by France to a great degree to provide the hi-tech and high-priced weaponry of the day.

To successfully challenge the usurpers of our Federal and State governments would seem to require the assistance of a foreign state (or sufficient super-wealthy individuals, willing to sacrifice their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor) who both favors liberty and opposes the oppressors in our deep state.

France is out. Britain is gelded. Canada is too nice. Hard to figure who can stand up and be counted. Most of our billionaires are tied into the govt, or are actively trying to control it for their own benefit.

Could be a tough fight. From here, it looks like the only supporters of freedom and human liberty are standing here alone, in the Land of the Diminishing Free.

.

Bob A said:

I agree with what you write, but I hasten to point out that cannon and gunboats are not inexpensive. We were aided by France to a great degree to provide the hi-tech and high-priced weaponry of the day.

Click to expand...

That's true. I didn't say that the weaponry held by the founders was necessarily sufficient unto itself, only that it was necessary -- the American Revolution wouldn't have succeeded without it, because it couldn't have even gotten off the ground.

To successfully challenge the usurpers of our Federal and State governments would seem to require the assistance of a foreign state (or sufficient super-wealthy individuals, willing to sacrifice their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor) who both favors liberty and opposes the oppressors in our deep state.

France is out. Britain is gelded. Canada is too nice. Hard to figure who can stand up and be counted. Most of our billionaires are tied into the govt, or are actively trying to control it for their own benefit.

Could be a tough fight. From here, it looks like the only supporters of freedom and human liberty are standing here alone, in the Land of the Diminishing Free.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with this at all. Nonetheless, it should be clear to all that a disarmed population wouldn't even have the option of resisting a tyrannical government. The greater the capability of the arms in the hands of the citizenry, the greater the citizenry's chances of retaining control over its own destiny.

Obviously things have diverged massively from the original intent behind the 2nd Amendment. My argument isn't so much about that as it is about what that original intent was in the first place. Any "interpretation" that diverges from that original intent is mistaken at least, but when it comes from a court, it is not merely mistaken, it is an intentional act on the part of the court to impose its own will onto the law and, thus, onto the citizenry -- an intentional exercise of illegitimate power. For a more in-depth substantiation of that, see https://calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=21316683&postcount=78.

garber38 said:

Warren v. District of Columbia. ... Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine.

The police do not have to protect anyone and the supreme court says they are not to be held liable.

Click to expand...

Not meaning to be an internet dick, but if you think there is no duty to protect, I suggest that you go read the ruling, or PM Blaster for some schooling. Ruling is in regards to liability only.

Jim12 said:

How about "Defenseless zone"? Or "Blind trust zone"? Or, "Please don't hurt us here zone"?

Click to expand...

"Unsafe space"?

The greatest threat to 2A and everything else is complacent people who think it's safer to disarm the public and heavily arm the government. History says otherwise.

Bob A said:

I agree with what you write, but I hasten to point out that cannon and gunboats are not inexpensive. We were aided by France to a great degree to provide the hi-tech and high-priced weaponry of the day.

To successfully challenge the usurpers of our Federal and State governments would seem to require the assistance of a foreign state (or sufficient super-wealthy individuals, willing to sacrifice their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor) who both favors liberty and opposes the oppressors in our deep state.

France is out. Britain is gelded. Canada is too nice. Hard to figure who can stand up and be counted. Most of our billionaires are tied into the govt, or are actively trying to control it for their own benefit.

Could be a tough fight. From here, it looks like the only supporters of freedom and human liberty are standing here alone, in the Land of the Diminishing Free.

.

Click to expand...

Use the Liberator Pistol principle....use the arms you have to get the arms you need.

Adolph Oliver Bush said:

Not meaning to be an internet dick, but if you think there is no duty to protect, I suggest that you go read the ruling, or PM Blaster for some schooling. Ruling is in regards to liability only.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the ruling is in regards to liability only.

If there is some "duty to protect", exactly how do you think that duty can possibly be imposed upon the government by the citizenry, if not through liability? Harsh language?

The Founding Fathers knew the people would eventually take it for granted and they be Liberty's greatest threat.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 A lady asked Dr. Franklin "Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy". "A republic" replied the Doctor "if you can keep it."

The single greatest threat to the 2A is complacency. People think oh we can restrict this, outlaw that because those truly evil things that happen in places like Germany (WWII), Russia, Cambodia, etc. can never happen here because this is America. That's ********.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

rbird7282 said:

The single greatest threat to the 2A is complacency. People think oh we can restrict this, outlaw that because those truly evil things that happen in places like Germany (WWII), Russia, Cambodia, etc. can never happen here because this is America. That's ********.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

... especially given the fact that some very bad people work very hard to destroy that "this is America" difference. And they're succeeding.