Question of the Day: What Are the Five Tenets of Firearms Freedom?

(courtesy zazzle.com)

“The antigun organizations, and many lower courts amenable to their views, resist Heller and McDonald, and continue to advance strategies altogether inconsistent with the High Court’s holdings,” Attorney Roger J. Katz writes at ammoland.com. “The arguments – actually rationalizations – for more and more restrictive gun measures may be distilled to the following . . .

1. No one needs a gun because the police will protect you

2. Curtailing civilian gun ownership precludes gun violence and gun accidents.

3. Civilized people don’t want guns and are repulsed by them

4. Since no one can know who, among the population, will go off “half-cocked” – presenting a danger to self or others – it is best to curtail civilian gun ownership and possession

5. The Second Amendment is obsolete; no other Country has anything like it, and the U.S. shouldn’t either.

These five arguments are a ragbag of elements gleaned from utilitarian ethics, psychology, sociology, politics, economics, and even aesthetics. But they all embrace one central tenet: governmental control of the American public.

So, what’s the flip side of these rationalizations? What are the five pillars of firearms freedom, and what’s the central tenet?

comments

  1. avatar IdahoPete says:

    The central tenet of firearms freedom is contained in the Declaration of Independence:
    “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 Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their DUTY, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    The Second Amendment is the enabling clause for the only DUTY mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. it ain’t about hunting, pilgrim.

    1. avatar 2Asux says:

      Excellent, excellent….except for one thing: the people who want to rule you do not believe government can ever be a threat to right-minded people, like themselves. Thus, even the preamble is irrelevant in today’s world… the US is the only country with a document like the Declaration of Independence, it is outdated, unnecessary, and we should get rid of it.

      And besides, when was the last time an advanced, modern, democratic nation had a revolution, huh?

      You get my drift?

      1. avatar california richard says:

        We’re a constitutional republic, not a democracy…. Since we’ve been living in the pax americana for the last 70 years, representative government has had a foot up in the world…… America is in decline right now, so give it a few more decades and you’ll see what happens when “modern democracies” descend in to chaos…. not to be confused with revolution, because youre right, revolts dont really happen any more.

        1. avatar Big E says:

          “so give it a few more decades and you’ll see what happens when “modern democracies” descend in to chaos…. ”

          A few decades? I’d call you a raging optimist.

  2. avatar Patrick says:

    1. You need a gun because the police won’t always be there to protect you.
    2. Curtailing civilian gun ownership proportionately leads to an increase in violent crime.
    3. Civilized people have a healthy respect for firearms and are aware of their place in everyday life.
    4. Since no one can know who in the population can go off “half cocked”, it is important that civilians be armed and carry every day.
    5. The United States is unique in that it recognizes the God given right to bear arms in self defense and other countries are advised to follow in our footsteps.

    1. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

      Well done. It demonstrates how the anti’s are just looking at it wrong.

    2. avatar Wesley says:

      I’ll play devil’s advocate and play the role of the protectionist…So that said I don’t actually believe what I’m about to say…

      1. You need a gun because the police won’t always be there to protect you.
      -But do you need a gun to protect yourself? Can’t you use something non lethal?
      2. Curtailing civilian gun ownership proportionately leads to an increase in violent crime.
      -But Australia gun deaths went down!
      3. Civilized people have a healthy respect for firearms and are aware of their place in everyday life.
      -Why would you respect something whose only purpose is to kill? The people have a right to be repulsed by such a dangerous weapon.
      4. Since no one can know who in the population can go off “half cocked”, it is important that civilians be armed and carry every day.
      -But if we disarm the people there will be no guns for criminals, We can gradually disarm the criminals too over time.
      5. The United States is unique in that it recognizes the God given right to bear arms in self defense and other countries are advised to follow in our footsteps.
      -But God doesn’t exist, He is a fairly tale and why would he tell us to own a weapon that could kill someone with ease? Other countries are more civilized and do not need weapons, They settle things with words, Give them what they want or run from a bad situation and then call the police who is trained to handle these situation.

  3. avatar Kapeltam says:

    1. Police have no obligation to protect. When seconds count, police are never around.

    2. Promoting civilian ownership of firearms empowers the people to help reduce all crime as they can defend themselves.

    3. Civilized people are arming up to defend against the uncivilized thugs.

    4. We are a nation that supposedly believes in innocent until proven guilty. Stop projecting your insecurities upon the entire population.

    5. The 2nd amendment is an evolution of a independence. No other nation empowers its population to take responsibility for those own safety.

  4. avatar Clark45 says:

    #1: The police can’t protect you so everyone needs a gun
    #2: civilian gun ownership reduces gun violence and gun accidents
    #3: Civilized people understand the need for guns and embrace them
    #4: Since no one can know who, among the population, will go off “half-cocked” – presenting a danger to self or others – it is best to encourage civilian gun ownership and possession for self preservation
    #5: The Second Amendment is unique; no other Country has anything like it, and the U.S. should be proud of the protection the 2nd Amendment provides for its citizens

    That’s all I can do on short notice – I need to run. I can’t wait to see what everyone else offers up!

  5. avatar Stu in AZ says:

    Central tenet is freedom.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      A man with a gun is a citizen, a man without a gun is a subject.

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        Go tell it on the mountain ! Let it ring.

    2. avatar MontieR says:

      No the central tenet is liberty.

      1. Key tenet is Responsibility for personal defense and safeguarding liberty.

  6. avatar Mike says:

    Here is a recent news report that refutes the first rationale listed above…

    http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/01/28/only-on-2-lapd-officers-say-more-patrol-needed-in-times-of-emergency/

    …not that anybody reading this site doesn’t already know this.

  7. avatar David Thompson says:

    There need be only one: “shall not be infringed.”

    1. avatar Mr. 308 says:

      This is the one right here. Once you admit to arguing points for and against, the implicit admission is that there is a valid argument against ownership and bearing of arms.

      There isn’t.

      The right exists, and is written in our founding document.

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        Accurate, important, but not persuasive.

        1. avatar Kevin says:

          Agreed. But the problem I see is that the progressives, liberals, LIVs, sheep – whatever you want to call them – believe that rights come from government. To them, “shall not be infringed” is meaningless because the entire Constitution is obsolete. They don’t ever even hear Rand Paul or Ted Cruz explain Constitutionalism. We need to find a way to change their mindset entirely.

        2. avatar 2Asux says:

          The people you identified (and you can add Gov. Cuomo’s son) believe rights come from government legislation.

          Changing minds is less a matter of listing facts and priciples…it is an emotional proposition. Someone on the blog noted, “It is not the height of your logic that persuades, it is the depth of your emotion.”

          We need emotional arguments that resonate with so-called “fence sitters” (of which there are probably very few).

        3. avatar DerryM says:

          Do you have any suggestions? Just asking because I have thought about this, too, and nothing I can think of resonates very well. Emotional arguments generally play on fear(s) or pride. While many of the unarmed certainly have discernible fears about owning guns, they seem too irrationally insulated against fears about not owning a gun(s). Insofar as pride-based arguments, they would generally involve “shaming”. The ones I can think of seem not to offset the greater fears cultivated against gun ownership very effectively.

          It does seem clear that you have spotlighted a very valid point. A “fight fire with fire”tactic that may be the best way to change minds. We have certainly seen that logic, facts and reason don’t work very well. There does seem to be a causal effect whenever a major bad event happens and the politicos start harping about “we need more gun control laws” and gun sales skyrocket and that may be connected to a fear of losing rights, but may just be that it motivates procrastinators to finally do what they wanted to do in the first place, but doesn’t change the minds of the more hoplophobic.

          Here are a few I thought of. All are somewhat unsatisfactory IMO:

          “Do you love your children enough to be prepared to defend them? When your child is murdered by a home invader it will be too late to wish you had a gun. Can you live with that the rest of your life?”

          “Rapists don’t care if their sexual gratification ruins your life. Use your Second Amendment to ruin theirs instead.”

          “You have the right to choose to own a gun or not own a gun. I respect your choice, please respect mine.”

          “Millions have given their lives to defend America and your rights. Honor their sacrifice and support our Second Amendment right to keep and bear Arms.”

        4. avatar 2Asux says:

          You may regret asking….

          1. Serious POTG should abandon all the squabbling and infighting over personalities, choices of firearms, political candidates.

          2. Allow rational debate over whether any construct of rights can be absolute, and can an absolute be defended.

          3. Every commenter pledge to financially support one gun rights organization, indefinitely.

          4. Understand right does not make right, might makes right (politically strong, control the legislation and ordinances).

          5. Honestly ponder the question of how much and what kind of effort should go into “persuading” the hopelessly simple-minded, those who live totally in the 15-second moment.

          6. Honestly discourse on the effort needed to “persuade” the so-called “fence-sitters”, or those of uninformed opinion (question: are there enough of these people that winning them over will change the game?)

          7. Pressure the pro-gun organizations to rapidly respond to every nationally reported criminal event (via traditional and social media) with: an emotional declaration that: negligent gun use is unacceptable, and bad actors are not welcomed among POTG; an emotional response to the lost lives, destroyed families, hopelessly damaged victims of crime who may have been able to defend themselves but were denied the possibility (not just blasting out – “a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun); decry every event where police failed to prevent crime, or were too late to be useful…with emphasis on the court decisions that ensure the police are not assigned any responsibility for public safety; post names and pictures of innocents harmed or killed in criminal attacks, where time and circumstance would have allowed for armed defense (whether legal in the jurisdiction or not)

          8. Insist to every pro-gun organization with financial ability to defend POTG that those organizations adopt Rules for Radicals as an operating theory. Demand those organizations attack, attack, attack, all along the line, everyday. Do not wait to be oppressed.

          9. Encourage the major (however defined) gun rights organizations to conclave and establish a list of weaknesses of the anti-gun cabal. From that list create a strategy and implementing tactics to pressure the anti-gun cabal at every weak point. (Sun Tsu).

          10. Participate in such a manner that TTAG becomes the “go to” blog source for any media representative looking for reliable and accurate commentary on bad actions/activities related to gun handling (only workable if recommendation #1 is realized.)

          11. This one is highly controversial, but also highly emotional: assure every anti-gun friend, acquaintance, family member that you respect their death wish and will do nothing to defend them with your firearm, but…..you will make every attempt, through every means available to call for the coroner.

        5. avatar DerryM says:

          I am glad I asked! You have an excellent plan. Thanks for the reply and I hope you are considering sending this to gun rights organizations and your State and Federal Representatives. I am guessing you have thought this all over for awhile. It is very thorough.

        6. avatar 2Asux says:

          If those ideas get a positive reading on the blog, that will be a happy success. Don’t have street creds to influence all the pro-gun organizations, nor the money to support them all (as I would like to do). Maybe some others will find the recommedations useful enough to also trigger action, as well.

        7. avatar DerryM says:

          I was impressed and took a copy to re-read and peruse/think about further. Hope you don’t mind. I think you could send them to gun rights organizations and they might gain traction, or at least enlighten them to some new approaches.

          I support a few organizations as best I can afford, including NRA, California Rifle and Pistol Association and Firearms Policy Coalition (Calif based), but they sure can be relentless in their pleas for money.

          Maybe you should send them directly to TTAG as an independent Article/Commentary on the post they made we are talking about and could get more feedback. Sometimes good ideas get missed when they remain as subposts in a thread.

          Anyway, they ARE very worthwhile and workable. They deserve more attention than just my lowly praise.

        8. avatar 2Asux says:

          Very kind words; thank you.

          But it is time to put the beer away.

          I respond to several blogs (not always the same comments), and support who I can. Whatever ideas I add to the commentary are not original thoughts, but maybe a fusion of many others who are better suited to state the case (admittedly, on this blog slogans all too often substitute for thought). There are people commenting here who are known (some personally) by RF and other leaders of TTAG. It would validate my musings if one of them weighed in and took the ideas to the top.

          Cheers,

        9. avatar DerryM says:

          I get it. Nonetheless, a good compilation of ideas no matter their origin. Hope RF takes notice.
          Cheers back at ya!

        10. avatar 2Asux says:

          The notes are yours to claim as your own. Run with them if useful.

        11. avatar DerryM says:

          OK< Thanks!

        12. avatar 2Asux says:

          Somebody already ahead of me:
          https://armedcitizensunited.com/about/

        13. avatar DerryM says:

          Wow! I can agree with those people in principle on first look. Will definitely delve deeper into them, “It’s not hat I am not a trusting person…Well, yes, it is.”, “Trust, but Verify.”

          Look at it this way… they’re only ahead of you by organization, otherwise they’re in sync with you…and may have saved you a lot of trouble if you find them acceptable to support. Looks like they need a Web based Forum or Blog site, though,

          Thanks a lot for the link, 2A! I will probably Join for the annual fee to see if that unlocks any further web content.

        14. avatar 2Asux says:

          Cheers !

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      Well done to all of the other comments, but this one and the first that quoted the Declaration of Independence pretty much sum it all up.

      I don’t know you guys, but I’m glad I know you guys are there.

    3. avatar 2Asux says:

      Ineffective, but a nice thought.

  8. avatar ThatGuyYouKnow says:

    A criminal with a gun is not a gun owner. They are a CRIMINAL or if you prefer a FELON. The difference is rather important, but you guys already know that. The anti folks don’t make that distinction.

    1. avatar NoSheep says:

      They make the distinction, they just call the VOTER or CONSTITUENT.

  9. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    The Second Amendment to the US Constitution is the only reason we don’t look like Canada or Australia from the standpoint of gun ownership. The anti-freedom Left is constantly preaching that more guns = more crime, yet if you show them clear evidence that the rate of gun ownership has gone way up while crime has continued to fall, they will do close their eyes put their fingers in their ears and yell LA, LA, LA, LA. You can’t educate the willfully ignorant.

  10. avatar Mk10108 says:

    1. Criminals have no empathy with their victims.

    2. Criminals fear citizens with a gun more than police.

    3. Every citizen has the right of lawful self defense.

    4. A gun is the most cost effective means to protect oneself and others.

    5. Stopping a criminal with a gun lowers cost of enforcement & prosecution.

    1. avatar 80 D says:

      …and, often, incarceration.

  11. avatar kevin says:

    1. You need a gun because it is not the police’s job to protect you. They aren’t obligated to do it, and they can’t do it.
    2. Curtailing civilian gun ownership has no more relationship to preventing gun violence than curtailing car ownership has to drunk driving, or food ownership to obesity.
    3. Civilized people are repulsed by violence perpetrated by the strong and criminal against the weak and innocent, and will defend themselves and others using whatever means are reasonable and available. This is the very best that humans can offer to each other.
    4. The idea that a normal, peaceful and law abiding gun owner may suddenly “snap” is a myth perpetrated by those who over-project their own insecurities onto others. If this idea had any basis in reality, it would support disarming the police, the military and outlawing everything that could possibly be used as a weapon.
    5. The second amendment is no more or less obsolete than the first, but the freedom embraced by both is more valuable than anything else. Unless and until it is repealed, every elected official, judge and attorney is bound by their oath and by law to defend the second amendment along with the rest of the constitution. Abolish the constitution (or try to) if you must, but don’t subvert it.

    1. avatar 2Asux says:

      The second amendment, like all other enumerated and non-enumerated rights born of the constitution should require professional training, licensing, common sense controls and background checks.

      1. avatar Rick the Bear says:

        Like for people who want to publish a newspaper or vote or assemble. Oh yes, a class in “assemblage” would have really helped the Occupy Oakland” folks.

        BTW, I feel that there is some underlying meaning to your screen name but I can’t quite figure it out. Perhaps you would be so kind as to illuminate me and the rest of the bumpkins reading this post. Thanks.

        1. avatar 2Asux says:

          2Asux, for those who hate it.

  12. avatar donny77 says:

    Here’s my take:
    1) A gun is a tool. Like all tools it can be used for good or evil. Predominantly, guns are used for good.
    2) Guns are an equalizer. Before guns, the strong preyed on the weak. If guns are banned, the strong will once again impose their will on the weak.
    3) Denying a person the best means of preserving their life is immoral.
    4) We are all innocent until proven guilty. The fear of what others may do is irrational and contrary to the burden of proof imposed by our justice system.
    5) The second amendment is as necessary today as it was 200 years ago. To compare the U.S. to other nations, ignores the fact that the U.S. was designed to be like no other nation. While no other nation does X today, neither did any other nation 200 years ago.

  13. avatar GusMac says:

    1) Don’t tread on me.

    For numbers 2-5 please refer to 1.

  14. avatar Defens says:

    The central tenet is that unless government has an overwhelming set of evidence that a right should be curtailed, they are obligated to leave us the hell alone. Evidence has never been presented, ergo, shall not be infringed.

  15. avatar Bob says:

    1) At no point the entire history of our species has there been an absence of the threat of physical violence.
    2) Every known animal species to have ever existed on Earth has evolved a means of defense and a strategy for survival specifically tailored to the predators it has encountered during its evolution.
    3) In the recent history of our species government has emerged as the apex predator.
    4) It is illogical to expect an apex predator, in this case government, to protect its’ prey from itself.
    5) The individual must retain an ability and a strategy to survive.

  16. avatar Mark N. says:

    “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
    -Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776, Jefferson Papers 344

    I can’t top that.

    1. avatar 2Asux says:

      Here, Here !!

      Good ol’ Tommy. Seldom equaled, never surpassed. JFK was right.

  17. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    He who has the GUNS has the freedom…times 5.

  18. avatar John S says:

    The right to life necessarily includes the right to defend that life, and to the tools needed to accomplish that.

    And New Hampshire has the other reason in its constitution:
    “[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.”

    1. avatar 2Asux says:

      Bravo !!

      But what has happened to their progeny?

  19. avatar Cadeyrn says:

    1) I have a gun which is my natural and Constitutional right. You have no legal, equitable or moral right to take my gun from me.

    2) The only way you can take my gun from me is using other people with guns, therefore you are obviously in favor of guns and logically would have no need to take my gun from me, so you should stop behaving so illogically.

    3) If you are contending that one group of people with guns can be absolutely trusted while other groups of people with guns cannot and must be disarmed, then you are no student of history and should go read about what happens in those situations then reconsider your position.

    4) If you are still trying to take my gun from me, despite 1) , 2), and 3) above, then you are dishonest, disingenuous, and are behaving that way because you have an agenda which first requires me to be disarmed or you are blindly following someone who has such an agenda. Think for yourself, don’t be a blind follower.

    5) There is no lawful, ethical, or moral agenda which requires law-abiding citizens to be disarmed before it is effectuated. None. Ergo, any effort to disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens is for an unlawful, unethical or immoral agenda.

  20. avatar Ralph says:

    The five tenets are 5.56×45, .38Spl, 9mm, .40S&W and .45ACP. Throw in 7.62×51 and .45LC and we have seven tenets that are hard to beat.

    Oh, and there’s also that “right of the people to keep and bear arms.” You know, the thing that Democrats have grown nose-blind to.

  21. avatar the ruester says:

    Thinking of it like tenets of a religion, if I were “gundoctrinating” a disciple, here are the 5 points I would want to make clear;

    1.) Armed self defense is a human right, and may be employed in concert against a tyrannical government, or individually against a lone assailant.

    2.) Limiting which arms may legally be owned ignores the potential criminal’s and tyrant’s own abandonment of legality and morality.

    3.) Limiting the circumstances in which one may defend themselves places them in increasingly unacceptable legal peril.

    4.) Law abiding citizens do not share in the guilt of violent criminals, despite what property they happen to own, and should not be made to.

    5.) Any attempt to restrict this right must be treated with skepticism, since it’s opponents throughout history have almost universally acted in bad faith.

    1. avatar 2Asux says:

      Put this in stone somewhere. Very, very good.

  22. avatar MyPrettyAr15 says:

    1). Citizen gun ownership acts as a deterrent to a would be invader. The apocryphal but nonetheless important quote attributed to Admiral Yamamoto in WW2 “There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass” is what makes a tyrant think twice. Europe has been conquered many times, and probably will be again in the future. Armies can be defeated but a well armed population is impossible to defeat.

    2). Being able to defend one’s life from another human, animal or threat is a fundamental law of human nature. Every human being has the right to continue to exist and to prepare for that in whatever way they choose, whether armed or unarmed. Human beings are still a dangerous predatory animal. As much as we like to think of ourselves as civilized, we are only civil because we are well fed and happy (fat, dumb and happy). In a scenario where the veneer of civilization is removed, even the most civilized and non violent person can quickly adjust to living like an animal in order to survive. Technology gives us the illusion of evolution, but we are still evolutionarily immature.

    3). There is no future guarantee of the perpetuation of liberty. It must be earned and cherished. Indeed history has shown that people with evil intentions are often times found where there is great power even if such power is beneficent in nature, and to remove such evil from power comes with a great loss of life. Citizens who are easily capable of defeating a tyrant are also impossible to dominate.

    4). The second amendment is no more nor less obsolete than any other part of our constitution. The future will bring great change and with it the same right to keep and bear arms will shift along with the new paradigms in much the same way that the first still applies to the internet, a cell phone or even a machine capable of reading minds. If we resolve physical altercations in 200 years with robots, then the right to keep and bear arms, whether robots or semi automatic rifles is the same.

    5). A balance of power must always exist between those who govern and the consent of the governed. It must be spear for spear, rifle for rifle. It serves as the block against the tyranny of the majority. If one were met at a polling place and had a gun placed to the head and told they could not vote, then they could call for help. But what happens when the ones who are called upon to help are the ones who are holding the guns? Then there is no remedy and therefore no rights.

  23. avatar Priest of the center mass says:

    A gun behind every blade of grass.

  24. avatar Kendahl says:

    People have an absolute, unconditional right to live their lives free from robbery and assault. The only thing special about the firearm is that it is the most efficient tool so far invented to defend this right.

  25. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    1. Everyone needs a gun, because the police are powerless to protect you. You must defend yourself.

    2. Curtailing civilian gun ownership guarantees state sponsored genocide.

    3. Civilized, intelligent people want guns. Criminals, rapefugees and liberals are repulsed by them.

    4. Since no one can know when a criminal, illegal or rapefugee will attack, it is best to encourage civilian gun ownership and possession.

    5. The Second Amendment is absolute; no other Country has anything like it, and the U.S. is the best country on the planet because of it.

  26. avatar Chris Morton says:

    Let’s address #1, first and foremost:

    1. Police have no legal duty to protect individuals.
    2. Police have no legal liability when they fail to protect individuals.
    3. Police have virtually no physical ability to protect individuals to whom they are not assigned as bodyguards.

    Police don’t protect individuals. They draw chalk outlines around individuals who don’t protect THEMSELVES.

    If you’re not willing and able to protect YOURSELF, you’re just not going to get protected AT ALL. Anybody who tells you different is a LIAR.

  27. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    What are the five pillars of firearms freedom, and what’s the central tenet?
    The central tenet is the privilege to go hunting.
    You have the privilege to own a double barrel shot gun with light shot.
    You have the privilege to own a bolt action rifle with a 3 round magazine and under .270 Win.
    You have the privilege to own a single shot .22LR pistol.
    You have the privilege of mandatory storage of your guns at the gun club or shooting range.
    You have the privilege of asking the government to approve you of all gun purchases after you write a 500 work essay as to your needs for one.

  28. avatar Stinkeye says:

    The central tenet of firearms freedom is the same as the central tenet of freedom in general: “If you leave me the f**k alone, I’ll leave you the f**k alone.”

  29. avatar JohnnyDerp says:

    You are on your own, and responsible for your own safety. In a country founded on self reliance and individual responsibility, your unalienable right to life is protected by your 2nd amendment right to self defense

    In a city of 3.8 million people, it is unusual for the LAPD to have more than 600 officers on the streets during a normal shift. A significant number of those officers will not be answering calls for emergency service. See the story from the local CBS affiliate

    http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/01/28/only-on-2-lapd-officers-say-more-patrol-needed-in-times-of-emergency/

  30. avatar Cliff H says:

    WOW! Just Wow.

  31. avatar Kyle says:

    The gun control courts and folk adhere to the “reasonable restrictions” clause and the statement that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right to keep any weapon for any reason. Because of this, the Second Amendment and the Heller decision becomes like the protection of arms in the English Bill of Rights, i.e. something the government can twist to run roughshod right over as they please.

    “Reasonable restrictions” becomes “any gun control legislation we define as reasonable so long as we don’t completely ban everything.”

    The “any weapon” clause is confused with meaning the government has a right to ban certain so-called “dangerous firearms” when really it just means certain classes of weapons period—to use an extreme example, nuclear weapons for example. People don’t have a right to those. But it does not mean the government has any right to ban any kind of firearms currently legal.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      While a did take a paralegal class many years ago, I have not been to law school. Even so I can state categorically that the phrase or even the concept of “reasonable restrictions” does not occur anywhere in the Second Amendment to The Constitution of the United States of America.

  32. avatar 505markf says:

    1. Firearms ownership is an individual right.
    2. Firearms are designed to kill, which is why they are useful.
    3. Firearms ownership demonstrates an individual’s acceptance they are responsible for their own safety.
    4. Firearms in an individual’s hands enables an individual’s defense of self.
    5. Firearms in the hands of 100 million people enables defense against tyranny.

  33. avatar explainist says:

    1. No one needs a gun because the police will protect you.

    Guns are for those times when the criminals look around to verify there are no cops around before they commit crimes.

    5. The Second Amendment is obsolete; no other Country has anything like it, and the U.S. shouldn’t either.

    No other country formed itself by ejecting a tyrant, and the need to do it again appears imminent.

  34. avatar Pat Yates says:

    I am astonished at these replies – all are at best secondary benefits. The sole purpose of the Second Amendment is to enable the people to take back their government when required and revise it to their preference. Period, full stop. It was put in the Bill of Rights by people who has just successfully freed themselves from an abusive and tyrannical government through the use in the early days of their privately owned arms. Also, please note that it addresses “arms”, not firearms, not guns, but arms. At the time of Lexington and Concord, every arm in the possession of British government forces was also owned by private citizens in America, including armed ships and cannon. Can you really honestly contend that it was intended to permit hunting or even just self defense?

    Pat

  35. avatar nynemillameetuh says:

    1. The police have never lifted a finger to defend me or even pursue criminals that preyed upon my family.
    2. Plenty of non-civilians inflict gun violence upon civilians. Why don’t we disarm them?
    3. False. Civilized people are curious; they are fascinated by the mechanics of firearms.
    4. We actually do know which groups are mostly likely to engage in random violence. Hint: you’re pretty safe in East Asian or European neighborhoods.
    5. Nope. Armed citizens actually maintain order and free up the state’s resources for other functions.

  36. avatar DerryM says:

    Although many of the comments made here so far are well thought-out refutations to the five points the anti gun rights people commonly use to lobby for civilian/private ownership disarmament, I object to making refutations of these five wrong-minded and spurious points on the premise that they are invalid propaganda in the first place. The only valid tenet for the right to keep and bear Arms is that every person on the Planet has an unalienable right to defend their person in order to preserve their unalienable rights to life, liberty, self-determination, freedom of thought, belief, self-expression and to live in a society free from Government Tyranny, to name a few. The only valid tenet for the Second Amendment is that it protects and guarantees that natural right to defend oneself via the Constitution. The right exists before, despite and in the absence of any formal Constitution and is as unalienable to Humankind as any other right.

  37. avatar Haiku Guy says:

    1. Society is governed by force. If the force is held by a small group, the result is tyranny, as sure as the sun shall rise. If the force is spread amongst the entire population, the result is freedom, because no government is strong enough to govern an armed population against their will.

  38. avatar Haiku Guy says:

    The individual has the right to self defense. But having the right without having the tool is meaningless.

  39. avatar tsbhoA.P.jr says:

    law enforcement is going to need some help.

    maintain a diverse weapon and caliber selection.

    you may have to defend some folks that you don’t particularly care for.

    remain vigilant. there are snakes in the grass.

    this whole thing may get terribly bloody.

    centrally: mind your own business. the time will be self evident.

    central tenet of commenting: don’t feed the troll.
    nice restraint, y’all.

  40. avatar Blindman says:

    Central Tenet:

    A man seeks to protect his own family.

  41. avatar Joe R. says:

    1) you don’t need a gun, unless gun means “arms”. Don’t let your Fing a-hole neighbors needing jobs (a/k/a: your gov’t) trick you into clamoring for “guns” when their “arms” mean satellites, drones, and nuclear weapons.
    2) the RTKABA will outlive every iteration and incarnation of “government” humans can produce.
    3) “guns” are for destroying things. “Sporting Purposes” means destroying things can be found to be very enjoyable.
    4) anyone attempting to take your arms, is looking to destroy you and needs to preempt your means of preempting them. If we don’t need guns, we don’t need America. We can do the land, property, and people of anything goes according to Joe R. If you beg to differ, then be armed.

  42. avatar Kevin says:

    1) Self defense is an inherent part of a sentient being.
    2) Educating the public on gun safety decreases the chances of negligence causing injury or death.
    3) Don’t like guns? Don’t have one.
    4) You seem to be projecting. Would you like to explain further?
    5) Why should we be like “everyone else?” But if you’d like to change the Constitution, there is a procedure in place for that. Careful, though – you may regret having grossly overestimated the number of people who agree with you.

    1. avatar DerryM says:

      You make a good point about the choice to own a gun or not. In our zeal to protect the right to keep and bear Arms, we often forget to mention the right involves a freedom to choose to own guns or not. Unfortunately, most of our conflict is about retaining the choice to own guns and we often forget to point out the other alternative is equally viable (perhaps stupid, but nonetheless equally viable).

    2. avatar PeterK says:

      It’s not just for sentient beings. I’ve had this conversation before to illustrate why humans MUST have the basic right to self-defense.

      If someone was killing a dog, literally beating it to death, we would not fault the dog for killing that man. So why should I be any different?

  43. avatar PeterK says:

    My 5 gun-related central tenets would be:

    1. It is my duty to protect the lives of my family with the best means available.
    2. Guns, like all tools, are not inherently evil, they do good or evil based on the actions of the operator.
    3. Guns are a net positive for society. The democratization of violence ended the reign of fear of the strong preying on the weak.
    4. Gun safety is an all the time thing, and it’s purpose is to prevent complacency from killing you and others.

    The central one being number one. It’s not just a right to defend yourself. It’s your duty, though many walk a path of non-violence, and that is also good. Just don’t force others to do the same.

  44. You don’t need five. That just muddies the waters. There is only one point necessary:

    1. Since it’s my life that’s on the line, I get to choose how much risk to accept. You do not get to dictate that quantity nor do you get to dictate anything about my responses to such perceived risks.

    1. avatar 2Asux says:

      Your personal decision puts my life on the line, without my consent. You may think you are superior, but you are a flawed individual who just may somehow manage to make a mistake about your ability and fire-off a round that breaches my house and kills my child, or me. The risk escalates orders of magnitude when you are in a crowed, public venue. The fact that such accidents are rare means nothing’ for those killed by accident the argument is pointless. If you can guarantee (with voluntary forfeit of your own life if you are wrong) that you can never injure another person unintentionally, then I am all for your right to bring a dangerous weapon into the public square. Same for any other gun totin’ macho man (or woman).

  45. avatar Wesley says:

    1. No one needs a gun because the police will protect you
    -The Police has no duty to protect the citizens, They only respond to crimes already committed most of the time since they can’t respond in time.

    2. Curtailing civilian gun ownership precludes gun violence and gun accidents.
    -Gun violence may very well still happen since firearms can still be obtained by illicit means and can even be manufactured, A black powder firearm can be constructed without ammo being available or parts, Gun accidents can be mitigated by proper training and is part of being a responsible gun owner, As long as the 4 cardinal rules of gun safety are followed gun accidents can be avoided…

    3. Civilized people don’t want guns and are repulsed by them
    -Part of being a civilized people is owning a firearm, You will enjoy the means to protect yourself from violent people who do not have a moral compass who will harm or kill you for their own purposes, As long as there is people willing to do harm to get what they want.

    4. Since no one can know who, among the population, will go off “half-cocked” – presenting a danger to self or others – it is best to curtail civilian gun ownership and possession
    -Even if guns are banned bad people will find ways to harm others, The only reliable way to stop a person willing to do harm on you is to do harm on the person who would harm you, Armed citizens would have effectively stopped many mass shooting from happening or escalating like they did in Sandy Hook for example.
    5. The Second Amendment is obsolete; no other Country has anything like it, and the U.S. shouldn’t either.
    -While the Second Amendment was written in different times it is just as relevant today as it was when it was established, It provides us protection from enemies foreign and domestic, No foreign nation has ever invaded mainland United States because there would be too much resistance from the people…The second also protects us from a tyrannical government like NAZI Germany for example…

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email