I got nothing.

134 Responses to Finish This Sentence: I Believe in the Second Amendment, But –

    • Yep, it really doesn’t matter.

      I believe in the second amendment, but it does not *grant* me anything. All rights are an inherent part of humanity, and can never be granted by government. Government can protect our rights, but it can never grant them. Government can infringe or rights, but never remove them.

      A government is nothing more or less than a system created by man to exercise force. Once the people cede the power of force to the government, however, no document can limit that power’s application. The only check on the application of the power the people have granted to a government are those who are governed.

      Any right can be imposed upon by government. It is the duty of the people to protect their rights with their voices, their votes, or through reactive force. As the government springs from the governed, the governed are the only real check on a governments use of force.

      I believe in the bill of rights, but its only true purpose is to teach us of our own sovereignty, less we forget.

  1. …but, since my obtuse and corrupt government does not, I disobey it’s so-called ‘laws’ by following the example it set. If they don’t have to obey the law, neither do I.

  2. I don’t “believe” in the Second Amendment because it’s not a matter of belief; I recognize it for the objective reality that it is. The 2nd isn’t an article of faith to be accepted or rejected; it’s an explicit Constitutional limitation of governmental powers, written to protect my inalienable right to defend myself from any individuals, entities or institutions who would do me harm.

  3. … I also believe I’ll have another beer. And watch muslims on TV bitterly cling to their barbaric belief system.

  4. I believe in the second amendment but I think that anyone who doesn’t should move to another country so they can imagine that they are safe, like Mexico forr instance.

  5. I believe in the 2nd Amendment, but Private sales need to be regulated more often. How do you know you are selling to some one who is a convicted Felon?

    • I believe that if a society deems a former criminal to be sufficiently rehabilitated for him be allowed to walk the streets as a free man that he should not be denied his civil rights, including the right to self defense.

      • Your post suggests that you believe that because someone has completed a prison sentence, that person is perforce rehabilitated. I, on the other hand, suspect that the fact that a person has been sent to prison bepeaks a relatively permanent cast of character that makes me feel quite comfortable with that person’s being denied the right to own a firearm ever again. Recidivism rates for convicted felons more support my position than they do yours.

        • So you feel a need to be armed in this world but would deny that right to another free man? You also feel that nobody can learn from their mistakes? Sounds like you are cruel and have a mental deficiency that should preclude you being able to be armed.

        • As I suggested, not everyone who is formally “free” is devoid of character flaws that might make that person’s owning a firearm problematic. Adam Lanza (Newtown, CT) was “free” and so were John Holmes (Aurora, CO), Eric Harris, and Dylan Klebold (Columbine, CO), and so are many who have in fact paid their “debt to society” but are by no means rehabbed, though walking around “free.” I will refrain from speculating about what deficiencies in logical thinking or mental acuity, or what events in your own personal history, might impel you to dispute my conclusion or to suggest that I myself am either cruel or somehow mentally lacking.

        • None of those persons were prior felons, were they? None had served time?
          Your race to the lowest common denominator says much.
          No need for you to speculate, my law-abiding nature is not in question, nor my mental state.
          I just prefer that we abide by the Constitution. Freedom is “problematic”. “No free man shall be debarred the use of arms”
          Perhaps you will personally pay for the security detail of those former prisoners that you wish to deny the right of defense? If the state wishes to deny that, they are culpable, no?
          It is cruel to free a man and not allow him to defend himself.

        • That none of the people I named were prior felons or had served time, or indeed, had any significant involvement with law enforcement at all, makes an even stronger argument for denying access to firearms to those who have on at least one occasion demonstrated themselves to be felonious. Or so it seems to me.

        • Wow, maybe we should just put you in charge of who is given the privilege of any rights at all?
          You seem afraid of a lot of things. BOO!

        • You’re conflating issues. I don’t believe that people who have committed crimes, particularly violent crimes should be released until and unless they are fully rehabilitated. If unrehabilitated felons are allowed to walk the streets the government has proven itself to be powerless to keep them from acquiring firearms. So if you allow rehabilitated felons to possess firearms you’ll be able to easily spot which felons are rehabilitated and which ones aren’t, the rehabilitated ones would be the ones not using the firearms to commit crimes. As it is, only the unrehabilitated felons have guns. Gun control doesn’t work any different with felons than it does with non felons, the bad guys have guns either way.

        • Rehabbed felons will legally acquire and use their guns. Non-rehabbed ones will get and use theirs illegally. They already do.

        • Michael, your skepticism is well-founded, considering the data on the recidivism of convicted felons.

        • And the bad ones will get guns anyway, regardless of your security theater to make you feel safer. You only seek to punish the ones you can trust.

        • That’s the way it would work in an ideal world, but is not the way it works in the real world. If it did, the recidivism rates wouldn’t be as high as they are, and that those rates are high suggests that not very much rehab is going on in the prisons.

        • My point precisely, Paul. This is the real world, in which some people who probably shouldn’t, by any reasonable standards, have access to firearms, nonetheless do. All I’m trying to do is point out that the idea that every “free” person should be allowed to keep and bear arms may need to be rethought. At the same time, I’m not sure what the ultimate solution ought to be, I will say only that I would be very unhappy with, and would resist, any solution that entailed removing weapons from the hands of non-criminals, in order to keep those weapons out of the hands of criminals, an approach that hasn’t worked so far, and that seems unlikely to work any time in the future.

        • You have it exactly backwards. In utopia, banning bad guys from having guns will stop them. In reality, nope. But those former bad guys that have changed, you seek to revoke their rights, to endanger their lives.. Kinda makes you the true evil-doer. I doubt you can change, so how about we just revoke your gun rights and call it even?

        • The trick lies in determining which of the bad guys have changed and which are simply pulling the wool over our eyes. In my many years of working as a clinical psychologist, I have met many more of the latter than of the former. Once again, simply look at the recidivism numbers, Paul. As for revoking my gun rights, revoke away. if you can. I welcome any efforts you care to put forth to accomplish that aim, but suspect you are simply talking through your hat.
          .

        • No trick to it, if they are able to be free men, they can be trusted with their rights. If that scares you, arm yourself.
          Of course, with your “revoke them if you can quip” you have proven you are of the unsavory mindset, the type you would be seeking to disarm.
          Neat how that works.

        • I’m not sure how you infer any unsavory mindset of mine from my having challenging you to revoke my guns rights if you can, This is simply a variant of the μολὼν λαβέ meme that appears on this site from time to time. All in all, Paul, you seem to be taking my posts so personally that I am tempted to infer that you yourself have had some involvement with the law enforcement, the outcome of which has been less than pleasant for you, and maybe has compromised to some degree your own ability to keep and bear arms legally, Just a thought. In any event, I won’t be responding any further to your provocations. Carry on.

        • Plus it’s not like anyone ever went to prison for a crime they didn’t commit….. Right?

        • True enough. Indeed, in my career as a clinical psychologist, I have rarely spoken to an inmate who didn’t make that claim, but, while I am aware that there are people in prison who may not have committed the offense that, under the law, got them there, I remain more than a little bit skeptical.

    • How about you sell only to people whom you can personally vouch for?

      How about you voluntarily go through an FFL who will conduct a background check for you?

      How about you lobby the Democrats to grant public access to the NICS system over the Internet? (This has been proposed and repeatedly rejected by the Dems since the 1990s because they don’t really care about felons getting guns, only about making it more difficult and expensive for regular people to get guns.)

      How about denoting “Firearms Legal” on people’s drivers licenses, so you know they’re legal and there’s no need to create a government record of the sale? We already do this for alcohol sales by way of the birthdate. We already skip the NICS check like this for concealed carry licensees.

      These are just off the top of my head, several ideas that address the supposed problem without imposing more regulations and further infringing people’s freedom.

    • Show us the evidence. So far surveys of convicted felons indicate they are getting guns from friends / family, stealing them, or getting them on the black market. If we are going to change the law and increase the burden on the law abiding, there needs to be compelling evidence that the change will actually hinder criminals. Otherwise it’s just more security theater and we’ll be back to “We have to do something about guns!” the next time some nut job goes on a shooting spree.

  6. I believe in the 2nd amendment, but I think it really deserves to have been the 1st amendment, since it is what gives vitality, value and surety to every other amendment.

  7. I believe the second amendment applies to all human beings, not legally incarcerated.Even felons.

    But I don’t don’t believe that bears should bear arms. or bare arms, either.

    • Typical Progressive. You don’t want bears to have bare arms but you sure as hell aren’t going to be the one out there making them decent.

  8. i believe in the second amendment too, but my government doesn’t believe the United States Constitution applies to me, because I am a U.S. citizen. If I were a Mexican cartel soldier or a Muslim radical in the middle East, then im sure the U.S. gubment would hook me up with all the cool goodies, like full auto, silencers, tanks, stingers all that goodness at cost, because, you know, we gotta fight tyranny and prop up democracy.

    • Correct. Hastings was a Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida from 1979 until he was impeached and convicted in 1989. He’s a peach of a guy, isn’t he.

  9. I believe in the Second Amendment, but I do not believe that people in prison or lockdown mental facilities should be permitted to keep and bear arms until they’ve been discharged.

  10. I believe in the Second Amendment but…

    My rights to bear arms and to self-defense are not tied to a piece of paper.

  11. I believe in the second amendment but, all my constituents keep shooting each other and it’s costing me votes.

  12. I believe in the second amendment, but although it plainly reads “shall not be infringed” it really means “may be infringed on whim of any government bureaucrat.”

  13. I believe in the 2nd Amendment but, I am getting tired of the progressive ninnies that want to restrict ALL my rights, for the children (LOOK AT THIS BABY!) and for the flowers and unicorns and bunny rabbits.

  14. I believe in the second amendment, but I do not trust our politicians to respect and defend it, or any other part of the Bill of Rights and Constitution that they find inconvenient.

  15. OK, I’ll be brave and actually talk of limitations to your right to keep and bear arms.

    I believe in the Second Amendment but as with all rights they don’t come without limitations. Namely that your rights don’t trump the rights of others. You do not have the right to use a weapon except in the defense of yourself, your family, your neighbors and your property. You have the right to prepare for such defense as you see fit with any weapon that is practical for such circumstance. Since the purpose of the Second Amendment was primarily to defend the country from both external threats and the threat of a tyrannical government, it thus recognizes the right of private citizens to possess military grade weaponry.

    Flame away.

    • None of the things you bring up are limitations on the 2a or the natural right it derives from.
      The right to bear arms does not confer or imply any right to rob, murder, harass, threaten, etc….
      Remember, there are those who think there is a right to feel safe, your 2a seems to create a conundrum with that.

      • The innate right to self defense is recognized by the Bill of Rights, the highest law of the land. The Bill of Rights does not recognize any right to ‘feel safe’, only to take the measures appropriate to secure your own safety. The ultimate responsibility to secure your safety is yours and yours alone, not the government’s. If you’re doing your job you should feel safe, relatively speaking anyway.

        As far as the obvious limits of your rights, that’s about all the wiggle room I can find in ‘shall not be infringed’. There should be no such thing as a weapons charge in America, although I would concede the need for ‘attempted murder’ or ‘conspiracy to commit murder’. If you’re caught driving a rental truck with a diesel fuel and fertilizer bomb you should not be punished for the possession of the bomb, but trying to convince a jury of your peers that you didn’t intend to misuse the weapon will be a pretty hard sell, especially after they find out about all the emails you’ve been exchanging with people in Pakistan.

  16. Your words: “How do you know you are selling to someone who is a a convicted felon”
    You will know he is a convicted felon when he robs you, right after the sale!

    • “You will know he is a convicted felon when law enforcement congratulates you for your excellent aim when you shot his sorry ass after he tries to rob you, right after the sale!”

      FIFY

      🙂

  17. Also, I believe in the Second Amendment, but that won’t get you out of jail in New Jersey.

  18. I believe in the second amendment, but…

    …the second amendment doesn’t grant me the right to keep and bear arms; that right is natural, inherent, and unalienable.

    • That’s pretty much what I was going for above. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what laws are passed, amendments are written or modified, rules and regulations are imposed.
      I’m carrying a gun.

    • “…then i got high”

      I was going to be polite to an anti,

      then i got high,

      He got in my face, So I got on his case, and then i got high..

      He was running his mouth, ’bout something he knew nothing about…

      (*Strictly* hypothetical lyrics to Afroman’s ‘And then I got I high’)

      *cough*

  19. But I want to know what give .gov the right to say I can’t have a newly manufactured machine gun. I’ll “compromise” and go with a background check to see if I’m a felon but that’s about it. Now don’t worry about me using because I couldn’t afford to feed it but that’s my problem.

  20. I believe in the 2nd Amendment, but if you think repealing it removes the right of the people to keep and bear arms then you are as ignorant as a new born babe, as dumb as a stump, or both.

  21. Mr. Hastings believes in the 2A, but thinks you should have to wade through a morass of bureaucracy to exercise that right. I think someone once said something about a right delayed is a right denied. I wonder if Mr. Hastings recalls who that might have been?

  22. I believe in the Second Amendment, but it’s been infringed for decades and we need to reverse that damage.

  23. I Believe in the Second Amendment, But – shouldn’t have to as the right to self defense, both collectively and individually is self-evident.

  24. I believe in the Second Amendment, but liberals do not, and in doing so expose their disdain for the rights of U.S. citizens.

  25. No “but” for me. Generally speaking, when the word but is used, everything after the “but” partially or completely contradicts that which preceded the “but.”

  26. Maybe the title of this article is wrong. At no point during his speach did the gentleman say he believed in the Second Amendment, he said he believed “…in our right to own a gun”. That is very different, sirs.

    I, on the other hand, who live in a country where the constitution explicitly prohibits civilian ownership of weapons, unless expressly authorised by the law, believe very much in the Second Amendment, but can’t have it.

    I live the reality that is warned against so often on this site. I live the reality of a population defenseless against crime that is growing and is becoming progressively more violent, a reality of criminals rarely being caught, and more rarely still being convicted. A reality where convicted violent criminals are arrested time and time again for violent crime, where government has not honored its constitutional obligation (in this country) to guarrantee (that is the wording in our Constitution) the safety of its people, where the police are not supported by their government and have their hands tied when dealing with criminals, where those same police are dismissed or publicly reprimanded by their government when they apply force not necessarily lethal to defend themselves or others from violence. I live in a country where government on both sides of the political spectrum is more concerned with controlling its people and perpetuating themselves in power, than in providing conditions in which their people can exploit their talents in the pursuit of happiness for themselves, their families and society.

    Never believe those who say “government wants the best for you” or “it couldn’t happen here”. The first is not necessarily true and the second happens all over the world. Civilization has always been a fragile reality, and over the course of history, civilizations fail when somebody stronger comes along and it’s not able to defend itself through force of arms.

  27. …but Robert Farago has no idea what either “passive voice” or “entrapment” means.

    Sorry, couldn’t help it.

  28. I believe in the 2nd amendment but “fork you & die”-Steven Seagal. From the greatest bad revenge movie ever made”Hard to Kill”…

  29. I Believe in the Second Amendment, But –
    our federal government choses not obey the paper it is written on.

    Therefore, it is up to me to make the government obey it or I will be forced
    to alter and abolish it.

  30. Alcee Hastings is an impeached crooked judge. That the man can still hold office in Congress is an insult to all US citizens. It is an abomination.

  31. Don’t ya jus’ love the way he uses shorthand to described the 2nd A of the constitution?

    We don’t just have “…a right to own a gun..” we have the right to keep and bear that gun.
    Owning does not = bearing.

  32. I believe in the Second Amendment, but it should have been two Amendments:

    1. Effective means of self-defense being necessary to the rights to life and liberty, the right to choose and keep arms shall not be infringed.

    2. A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the duty of every citizen to be armed shall not be neglected, and those scrupulous of bearing arms shall contribute to the common defense by material support of those armed.

  33. I believe in the Second Amendment, but I fear that eventually we will be forced to defend it from domestic enemies in the form of our own government. If Hillary Clinton is elected lhat day will move closer, and may occur while I am on this side of the grass.

  34. my disgustingly-wealthy benefactors do not believe plebeian scum-suckers like yourselves have any “rights,” and only the “privileges” that we allow you.

  35. But….its just words on a piece of paper….I carry guns because its a fundamental human right that exits with or without some words on paper.

  36. I believe in the 2nd Amendment, but it only applies to the National Guard and the US Military, I believe in the 1st Amendment, but it only applies to government approved speech and state sponsored religion.

  37. I’m assuming that we’re meant to guess what the anti / Fudd is saying? “I believe in the Second Amendment, but anyone who’s poorer / a different religion / a different skin color / has different political views than me should not be allowed to own a gun.” That about sums up 99% of the anti’s position.

  38. There are 2 “ratified” versions of the 2A:

    As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives, with the rest of the original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights prepared by scribe William Lambert:

    “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.”

    As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:

    “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.”

    You see here a difference in punctuation. However, both ratified versions identify “the right” and “shall not be infringed.” I won’t go into all the different Supreme Court rulings that have occurred over the years, but suffice it to say that the court has ruled that the restriction of the 2A is on the Federal Government:

    “In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment’s impact to a restriction on the federal government,…”

    I could go on. The point is; there is no “but”. Look at the 2A, look at The Bill of Rights. There is no “but”. There is, however, one ruling that can cause us (pro types) an issue:

    “In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a ‘reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia’.”

    So therein lies our battle. Not so much that we have the right to bear arms, but that the government has the ability to determine the “types” of weapons we have a right to. We have seen this in other free countries such as Australia and England. They have pretty much limited their citizens to purely “hunting” guns like shotguns. And even then the people are limited to the number, usually no more than 1 or maybe 2, and the permit process is very long and difficult and expensive. And there is no guarantee you will get the permit. I believe this is the direction the USA will take eventually. It will not be the outright gun grabbers that will win. It will be the behind the scenes slow but sure hidden legislation that will creep through.

  39. I believe your picture needs this caption:

    Alcee L. Hastings, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
    Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, August 3, 1988, on charges of perjury and conspiring to solicit a bribe; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, October 20, 1989.

  40. But…..

    In my mind it should only allow government officials, and my personal security (including me if I want one) to bear arms.

  41. “I believe in the second amendment, but… an amendment to the US constitution is insufficient to benefit the nation by itself.”

    We also need to ‘believe’ that the law is to be followed, or having this law has no effect.

    We also need to hold subordinate laws, regulations, policies and individual acts ‘within’ that law, or the amendment is irrelevant. (*)

    We also need to evaluate that amendment, and its implementations for their effect on the people – not the government, not agencies, not agents of either.

    And most of all, we need to act as if that amendment codifies the charter we have given to agents – the government – to act on our behalf to our benefit. “The nation” above is the people, here and now, neither a set of borders, nor the government, nor some idealized future body which someone claims would want this thing here, if they only existed.

    (*) One-third of what the US Constitution does is set this kind of scope. The other two are describe mechanisms for operations within that scope, and delegate authority to that government to operate that way, within that scope. You don’t have to like it, or agree that it is binding. Regardless, that’s what it says – read the thing, it’s not that long.

  42. But if I don’t stand up and bray like a jackass, I won’t be able to get my hands on the cash Bloomberg is handing out to minor politicians who suck up to his disarmament program. For the kids. My kids.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *