# Sec. Amendment, Scary black guns and hunting?



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

“Life, Liberty and Property were never intended to be subjected to a majority vote."
Ezra Taft Benson

The Second Amendment to our constitution was voted on by a 2/3’s majority congressional vote and ratified by the States. The Second Amendment was put in place to protect individual rights of life, liberty and property and a safeguard of individual sovereignty and changes to such amendment were never envisioned to be a changed by a congressional simple majority vote, presidential executive order or judicial review. To do so only contradicts the premise of God given rights, the basis of the United States Constitution, of which the first amendment seeks to elaborate and protect those rights. The last defense against any violation of Life, liberty and property are the right of the individual to own, poses and bear arms in protection of these God give rights and against all who might offend including a tyrannical government who may usurp their authority by violating the sovereignty of the rights of the individual. Let me now give historical evidence to make it perfectly clear as to what level of protection was required and who posed the greatest threat:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness, Prudence, indeed, will dictate that it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security-“ Declaration of Independence

Any argument that does not reference the reason for the foundation of our individual freedoms and hence the second amendment serve only to lead us away from the point and serve to exacerbate societal problems which leads to systemic dysfunctional solutions which erodes at the fundamental heart of freedom and human rights.

Freedom has been paid for with BLOOD, even the blood of the innocent. Maintaining this Idea of liberty requires constant sacrifice and that is the price that we accept to remain free men. May those of us left alive be worthy to uphold the banner of such blessings? 
Merry Christmas, Big


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

Here here Bigbr. 

It is really sad that our President took the opportunity to choke up some tears and politicize the event before anyone was buried. The media should have reprimanded him. No surprise there though. 

Although the second amendment resonates with hunting forums, it has little to do with hunting. It is about having the right to defend ourselves and our families from terror and tyranny when the government cannot or will not. Parents are expected by God to defend their families. It is good to know hunters are at the front of this fight.


----------



## archerben (Sep 14, 2007)

Amen!

The events of last week are indeed an enormous tragedy to the families directly affected, the town of Newtown, and the entire nation. I find it sad, appalling, and an even greater tragedy, that our President and the anti-gun liberals are using this tragedy and the emotions that come with it as a launching platform for their their political agenda. In addition, I am suprised and saddened to see the support for gun control coming from some on this very forum. 

The anti-gunners always claim that they don't want to take our deer rifles, only military weapons of war. However, the second ammendment is not, and never has been about hunting. It is simply about the right to keep and bear arms, even the very same arms that the military possesses. When the constitution was written, any individual could and likely did own the exact same firearms that the military/militia issued. While the weapons have changed over time, the concept has not.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

archerben said:


> When the constitution was written, any individual could and likely did own the exact same firearms that the military/militia issued. While the weapons have changed over time, the concept has not.





k2muskie said:


> What would the Framers of our Constitution and the Second Amendment if alive today think about the Second Amendment and its meaning?
> 
> Would they see the Second Amendment as it is currently written and it is what it is no changes need be made? Would they see a need for qualifications/changes to this Amendment if they envisioned back then the recent times of today with the mass murders in CN, OR, CO, WI, AZ. Would these Framers believe qualifications need to be made to the Second Amendment?  I would like to believe yes they would.
> 
> Now as I recall from my history classes...the most powerful weapon a citizen owned back then was a single shot musket. Yep slavery was legal and women couldn't vote back then also but times changed those...so I do believe these men who framed our Constitution would also agree and support needed changes and would also work to look at the Second Amendment and qualifications/control...need to be enacted. Again I believe YES THEY WOULD!!!!


I gotta disagree with K2, and agree with archerben. I believe that the Founding Fathers of this country, and the Framers of the Constitution would protect our right to keep and bear arms that would give us equal footing against a tyrannical regime, anarchy, or any other form of lawlessness.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

k2muskie said:


> What would the Framers of our Constitution and the Second Amendment if alive today think about the Second Amendment and its meaning?
> 
> Would they see the Second Amendment as it is currently written and it is what it is no changes need be made? Would they see a need for qualifications/changes to this Amendment if they envisioned back then the recent times of today with the mass murders in CN, OR, CO, WI, AZ. Would these Framers believe qualifications need to be made to the Second Amendment?  I would like to believe yes they would.
> 
> Now as I recall from my history classes...the most powerful weapon a citizen owned back then was a single shot musket. Yep slavery was legal and women couldn't vote back then also but times changed those...so I do believe these men who framed our Constitution would also agree and support needed changes and would also work to look at the Second Amendment and qualifications/control...need to be enacted. Again I believe YES THEY WOULD!!!!


The single shot musket was the "assault" weapon of the day. Individuals/families owned cannons.

And the shot heard round the world was fired when the British tried to seize the arms of the people in Lexington and Concord. Effectively, the British were trying to disarm the public of their only means of defense against the British military and their "assualt" weapons. That's when the fighting started.

The founders instituted principles that all people are equal and have the same rights. They did not have the political power to enshrine those rights in law. They cobbled together agreements where the political bridges could be spanned. That included continuing slavery and not allowing women to vote. For the Founders, time righted those acknowledged wrongs. Those principles are as good today as they were 225 years ago. Why would the principle of self defense be any different?

Times change, K2. Principles do not.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Not to get overly political here - but do remember when invoking the "unchanging principles" of the founders. In their lifetimes, the founders, many of which were political and military leaders under England, threw out two completely different forms of government when they realized they didn't work right, even dismissing their own first attempt just 10 years after implementing it.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

provider said:


> Although the second amendment resonates with hunting forums, it has little to do with hunting. It is about having the right to defend ourselves and our families from terror and tyranny when the government cannot or will not.


How did you arrive at your interpretation of the Second Amendment? As written, it mentions nothing about self-defense, tyranny or governmental inaction. Instead, it only says that people have a right right to keep and bear arms since they might be needed for use in "well-regulated militias."

It states quite clearly that people have the right to bear arms and that those rights "shall not be infringed," but the reasoning, as written, is solely about state militias and state security. For those of us who support the Second Amendment, I think it's important to support the actual amendment and not an imagined version of it.

[blockquote:a4sutrol]_*Second Amendment:* "A well regulated militia being necessary
to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed."_[/blockquote:a4sutrol]


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

HunterGeek said:


> How did you arrive at your interpretation of the Second Amendment? As written, it mentions nothing about self-defense, tyranny or governmental inaction. Instead, it only says that people have a right right to keep and bear arms since they might be needed for use in "well-regulated militias."
> 
> It states quite clearly that people have the right to bear arms and that those rights "shall not be infringed," but the reasoning, as written, is solely about state militias and state security. For those of us who support the Second Amendment, I think it's important to support the actual amendment and not an imagined version of it.
> 
> ...


Amazing how history has been distorted and interpreted by this generation. 
Forty-Four States in the union have "Right to bear arms by the individual" verbiage in their constitutions. Four of the Original Colonies where quite detailed in their fear of the Federal Government that in their Right to Bear Arms declaration they charged that federal armies should be disband or greatly reduced in time of peace. They also went on to point out, as I have, the danger of tyranny in the federal and all governments as the substantial reason for an individual to have on his person a weapon to defend one's life, liberty and property. Congressional record and writings from the founding framers of our country are clear, along with common law, that the Individual had not only a right, but a responsibility to be and armed citizen. Any fourth grade educated person soon realizes the proper interpretation of the second amendment and it's intended purpose with just a few minutes of study. Many of the founders and scribes of the Constitution were self taught men and would have cherished a fourth grade education.

Technology of today has not increased our security, lessoned our chance of a tyrannical government nor guarantied our life, liberty or property. In fact I would argue that we are in far greater danger today of losing these rights than at any time in American history.

I would love to hear your thoughts on what the "Actual Second Amendment" is?


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

An amendment is an addition usually to a document. In this case as mentioned before, our founders realized this after the initial laws of the land were established and then the need for additions or amendments were done to protect rights they were inspired to pen for all. Notice the order of importance and what each ammendment relates to and why. The Second Ammendment clearly states early on ' A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State...'. At that time in history, a militia made up a large portion of a military, often times as conscripts, during wartime. A militia is not regular army and its intent is to directly protect the homefront in time the regular military is either compromised or spread abroad. The Second Ammendment's sole purpose is to ensure that the citizens of this country can turn out in a time of crisis to defend Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness from enimies of the state, both foreign AND domestic. The founders also knew the importance of the people to assemble to address a list of grievances if their system of government steps out of line. The Second Ammendment was put in place immediately after to "enforce" this right, and basically, keep the government in check, not threaten, but remind them that the people who wanted freedom from an oppresive and tyrannical government is not something to be taken lightly. 

I would suggest people read the First Ammendment, then see how the Second Ammendment defends it. Also see how it defends the Third and Fourth as well. Then go and read the books 1984 and Agenda 21, and discover for yourself what the Second Ammendment really means and why it is imperitive to have. And yes, to be armed well enough to fight back a threatening military...

HDE


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

GaryFish said:


> Not to get overly political here - but do remember when invoking the "unchanging principles" of the founders. In their lifetimes, the founders, many of which were political and military leaders under England, threw out two completely different forms of government when they realized they didn't work right, even dismissing their own first attempt just 10 years after implementing it.


I don't see how that is in conflict GF? If you have a form of government that doesn't properly protect the rights of the individual, it is the right of the people to abolish it. If that form of government doesn't protect the rights of the individual then it fails to meet the principles of protecting the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It therefore fails to embody the principle that every man is created equal.

No one is saying the founders even got the 1791 Constitution right. All I'm saying is that it is the best embodiment of those principles the face of the Earth has ever known.

It's not changing principles to throw out a government that doesn't protect your rights. It's finding a way to better implement those principles. The same things that the Founders separated from England for were explicitly and specifically protected in the Constitution of 1791.

Government is not a principle.


----------



## longbow (Mar 31, 2009)

Si vis pacem, para bellum "If you wish for peace, prepare for war" 
I got to go home to my wife and kids and hug them, take care of them and watch them grow up. Why? Because I was quicker than those guys were, and the others didn't have the mag capacity I had. I don't own a lot of ARs or many high-cap mags but the ones I have will always be mine.

Let's look at Sweden's gun laws and their crime rate. Huuuumm.


----------



## huntingbuddy (Sep 10, 2007)

I have always been interested in the argument that the UK has less gun deaths because of their wonderful gun control laws. But if you average guns with deaths they are roughly equal. the UK sits at 3.39% deaths and the US sits at about 3.8% so less guns doesn't mean less murder per gun.


----------

