The Second Amendment’s Reason for Being – Quote of the Day

“Armed civilians have the power to resist a bad government, and the collective force of millions of armed Americans absolutely acts as a deterrent to increased authoritarianism from its own leaders.

“Legislators and pundits who claim the United States would be safer without guns are extremely short-sighted. The country may see a slight downtick in deaths per year, but the cost is much larger than the payoff. Self-determination through civilians’ ability to fight authoritarian regimes is much more vital to preserving rights and freedom than is the illusion of safety.” – Dylan Moore in How Gun Ownership Protects Citizens From An Abusive Government [via thefederalist.com]

comments

  1. avatar strych9 says:

    Hammer, meet nail.

  2. avatar Gman says:

    We hear the original intent argument all the time. It is absolutely irrelevant. The pre-existing right to keep and bear arms, of any kind, for any reason, is simply protected (in theory) from government infringement by the Bill of Rights. The BoR neither grants nor limits these rights of the People in any way nor does it grant the Government any authority to restrict their free exercise in any way.

    One could say that the prefatory statement provides “A” reason the founders felt it was important to protect these rights, but certainly not the only reason. Nor does the prefatory statement restrict or require anything of the People to exercise those rights. There are NO restrictions upon the free exercise of any right. None, nada, zip, zilch. It is only the free exercise of the 2nd which is under attack and being unconstitutionally restricted. And the only reason these unconstitutional laws stand is because we the People have failed to stop it.

      1. avatar ChewyCz says:

        Agreed.

        I also believe that the right to self-defense, from any threat, is inherent in the right. In my experience this is often better understood and more personal for some “students”.

    1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      This is why we’re losing.

      I get it, for liberals, “common sense gum reform” and the like are just euphemisms for confiscation. Still, such code words resonate with most people because their superficial meaning is entirely plausible. People intuitively understand that people in contact eventuates in rights in conflict.

      Being a 2A, or any other right, absolutist sounds fine in theory, at first. Serious thinking and practicality puts the lie to the feasibility of that stance, however.

      For example, your eight year old wanders into my gun shop. Is he free to purchase whatever he can afford? Hopefully he didn’t swipe your money clip (not magazine) on his way out of the house. Hopefully he doesn’t shoot his eye out…..of the back of his head.

      You’re stopped for a routine traffic offense, late at night in a bad part of town, are you free to pop open the center console and grab your gun? Not pointing at anyone, just suddenly and without explanation grabbing it and presenting it. By free, I mean you can do it and anyone who acts against you in response is automatically in the wrong. According to you, the cop who blows you away is a murderer, despite legitimately fearing for his life.

      An ex-con is released from prison after serving felony time for having shot a man dead during a road rage incident. You’re cool with restoration of his gun rights? Served his time and all? Paid his debt to society? Awesome! His cellmate, a convicted pedophile, wants his old job back, teaching at your kid’s school. Cool with that, too? You know, paid his debt and all. (Although, your kid may be able to defend himself with the gun I sold him.)

      Absolutism is unworkable in reality and unproductive politically. 2A absolutists sound like crazy people. That’s why it’s so hard to move the needle.

      1. avatar burley says:

        your logical fallacies are(including but not limited to):
        false comparison
        Inconsistent comparison
        appeal to purity
        straw man
        2A absolutists do not necessarily support the notions above,
        and some of those are behaviors unrelated to RKBA that are regulated under other applicable laws, constitutionally.

        1. avatar Gman says:

          There is no Constitutionally permitted regulation of the free exercise of our rights whatsoever. None, nada, zip. I think, as do our loony liberal progressives, you are conflating the regulation of a right with the punishment of exercising that right in a manner which causes harm to others. Yes Virginia, you CAN yell fire is a crowded theatre. There are no laws which have banned the word fire. Should you be punished for having caused harm in the doing? Yep. But as ridiculous it is to say, let’s ban words which are the tools of free speech, it is equally as ridiculous to say let’s ban the tools of the 2nd. My M1A1 Abrahms tank, fully locked and loaded for (Russian) Bear, parked in my driveway, harms no one. And until I rotate the turret and let loose a round into my neighbors house for letting his dog crap on my front porch, there is no Constitutionally permitted reason I can’t have that tank. If that think makes me a fuckingabsolutistgunnut then I wear that moniker with American pride.

        2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Exactly, it’s the harmful use that’s subject to regulation, not the tool.

          Not that that’s stopped the government at every level from violating basically every civil right or is a good (effective) political or legal argument.

      2. avatar Gman says:

        For example, your eight year old wanders into my gun shop. Is he free to purchase whatever he can afford? Hopefully he didn’t swipe your money clip (not magazine) on his way out of the house. Hopefully he doesn’t shoot his eye out…..of the back of his head.

        Well for 220 years there were no age restrictions upon the purchase and ownership of firearms. Dads took their responsibility seriously. But generally I accept that 18 is a reasonable age of coming should be the age for full citizenship. That doesn’t mean those less than 18 should have any restrictions upon the ownership of firearms. Which, by the way, they currently don’t in most states.

      3. avatar Gman says:

        First off I really hate all these hypotheticals, but I’ll bite.

        You’re stopped for a routine traffic offense, late at night in a bad part of town, are you free to pop open the center console and grab your gun? Not pointing at anyone, just suddenly and without explanation grabbing it and presenting it. By free, I mean you can do it and anyone who acts against you in response is automatically in the wrong. According to you, the cop who blows you away is a murderer, despite legitimately fearing for his life.

        What you are talking about is brandishing. It is considered a threat to others. And your hypothetical is absolutely ridiculous.

      4. avatar Gman says:

        An ex-con is released from prison after serving felony time for having shot a man dead during a road rage incident. You’re cool with restoration of his gun rights?

        First off I believe that since we cannot stop a felon from getting a gun if he wants one that instead of taking rights away we should be asking a simple question. Do we trust this person with a gun? If the answer is no then they shouldn’t be among us in the first place. If the answer is yes then if you have served your time and paid your debt to society all rights should be restored. Folks like you like to pick and choose who gets rights and who doesn’t. That’s bullshit.

      5. avatar Gman says:

        OK, now you’ve got my blood boiling.
        Absolutism is unworkable in reality and unproductive politically. 2A absolutists sound like crazy people. That’s why it’s so hard to move the needle.
        I will never apologize for standing up for that which I and my brothers throughout our history have bled and died for. Our Constitution is not something which needs to be "interpreted". It is that mentality which has gotten us to this point in the first place. I'm sorry, but exactly what part of shall not be infringed don’t you freaking get. The Bill of Rights neither grants nor limits the rights of the People in any way. It PROHIBITS Government infringement. Period. End. Stop. The very first time we ALLOW Government to infringe upon our rights the flood gates are open. You want to call me a absolutist? Whatev. I prefer American. And I KNOW what that means. Do you? I have no time for people like you who do nothing but turbo whine and power snivel.

        1. avatar Stereodude says:

          He isn’t wrong. Absolutism or “Absolutism” is not a politically viable position in 2018 America. You couldn’t get a majority of people to support it. If you gave people only 2 options and they were either moving to 2A “Absolutism” or repealing the 2A, you can kiss the 2A goodbye. It won’t even be close.

          You can sit and post about how that’s a travesty and how it’s your God given right, but that’s not the reality your neighbors or countryman live in.

        2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Yeah. There is no way we will ever see any rights be held absolute. Speech and religion are a lot more restricted than most would guess.

        3. avatar Craig in IA says:

          “Our Constitution is not something which needs to be “interpreted”.”

          And yet, the same founders that created it also provided for court system- Article III. And since Marbury v Madison, Article III, Section 2 has been “interpreted” as the Court’s (SCOTUS) duty to settle disputes in what was actually written. Such cases may be determined in lower courts but ultimately end in SCOTUS, until a legislature changes the provisions.

          Not saying I agree with this, but Marbury took place in 1803 and still remains.

      6. avatar Gman says:

        And finally. This is why we’re losing.

        No it is not. We are losing because we CHOOSE to lose. We are not as committed as the other side and we don’t have the LSM cheering us on. WE are the only reason WE have allowed the Government to take what is rightfully ours. WE and WE alone are responsible to fix this. Resting on our laurels and hoping the SAF, NRA, or any other organization will do it for us is nothing short of giving in. It is stupid to think our representatives will do anything, they won’t. Until WE get serious and put 15 million CCW holders, 5 million NRA members, and X number of more supporters on the National Mall, all carrying at the same time in violation of all the D.C. unconstitutional laws then WE ARE NOT YET SERIOUS and why would the rest of the nation take us seriously?

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Amen! Preach it, brother, preach! 🙂

        2. avatar Craig in IA says:

          We are not losing. If the democrats end up sweeping both houses and impeach Trump in 2018-19, then we’re losing.

          None of that needs to happen. Again, I’m not necessarily advocating one party over the other as being either pure or evil but there are only 2 of them that’ll mean anything in 2018, and one would certainly take away everything if they could. When a third party with any substance and the support of a large, electable mass of citizens can evolve, I’ll seriously consider them. There’s no one else at present that could possibly win, if you beleive otherwise, you are delusional.

      7. avatar John in Ohio says:

        “Absolutism is unworkable in reality and unproductive politically. 2A absolutists sound like crazy people. That’s why it’s so hard to move the needle.”

        Besides the absurd and fallacious examples, it only sounds crazy to slaves and people such as yourself. Instead of looking at us, why not take a look in the mirror and ask why you are so terrified of liberty?

      8. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        Never could figure how a liberal was qualified to discuss anything regarding common sense.

        1. avatar Jeff Hunt says:

          For your information, it’s Republicans and the NRA that’s pushing these reforms.
          -Pro 2A liberal.

      9. avatar Jay Williams says:

        Anyone who would knowingly hire a pedophile at a school is pretty fvcked up.

      10. avatar Garrison Hall says:

        “I get it, for liberals, “common sense gum reform” and the like are just euphemisms for confiscation. . .”

        Recent public admissions by various members of the gun-control movement have pretty much discredited the “common sense . . .” argument. Gun controllers want gun confiscation, pure and simple.

    2. avatar drunkEODguy says:

      The original intent argument literally does not stand up to examination. The whole reason the Bill of Rights was put into the Constitution was because the Anti-Federalists wouldn’t ratify the Constitution without one, so the Federalists compromised and included it. Anti-Federalists WHOLE PLATFORM was that they feared an over reaching Fed and wanted protections against it for the rights of States and Individuals. This is why we (used to) teach real damn history in our schools.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalism

      take note of those four bullet points. They were right on 3/4 (arguably 4/4 considering on how EO’s have been abused these past few regimes)

    3. avatar Joel says:

      I have to disagree with the statement that no other amendments are being attacked. The truth is, almost all of them are being infringed upon in one form or another. The 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, and 10th ammendments have all been degraded of the years.

      The 3rd amendment, was extreamly important to the founders, and has been generally a non issue since our countries inception.

      The 9th ammendment was very ambiguous and has been abused instead of degraded.

      1. avatar Jon in CO says:

        The problem with the 3rd, is that once the 2nd is gone, the 4th will follow. Then, the 3rd will be relevant again. When there are no longer checks on warrantless entry, and no more armed people to prevent warrantless entry, then, these boots will take over completely what is yours.

  3. avatar Craig in IA says:

    Yes, difficult for intelligent people to argue with this one! Great posting!

    And, of course, the “original intent” of the entire document was that these rights were given by God to all people. That’s the foundation and where we should not waver in the long battle.

  4. avatar rt66paul says:

    When does it stop being assassination and it start being a patriot’s legal duty?

    1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      That is a judgement call, unfortunately I fear we will reach that all too soon. As to exactly when, a few years, maybe a couple of decades, tops. So many of the politicians just don’t seem to understand the danger that they would place themselves, and the rest of us in.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        I’m concerned that it won’t be soon enough or has been delayed too long.

      2. avatar burley says:

        Oh, they understand it. That’s why they’ve decided to re-educate the children. IN one generation they may have a people with little to no will to retain Liberty. If only folks would look up from their programming devices…

    2. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      I suppose that it will likely stay both.

      1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        Meaning that it will always be a heavy sacrifice for the actor.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          WWTHB

          WINNER WRITES THE HISTORY, B1TCHES

        2. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

          Joe R. – Yeah, that’s what I wrote first but it is was a bit too Machiavellian, however true, for me this morning.

    3. avatar blunt truth says:

      “When does it stop being assassination and it start being a patriot’s legal duty?”
      ——————————————————-
      When a National Hurricane Katrina/Martial Law style confiscation Happens.
      OR when Judges start handing out ERPO’s like candy, Without justification.

    4. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      An assassination that isn’t necessary to stop a more harmful act will never be more than an assassination though. I don’t think you can restore justice just by killing the corrupt.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Sure you can. It’s called a deterrent. It’s how reprisals work. It kept the Roman Empire in line for hundreds of years.

        1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

          Simply assassinating Bloomberg for instance would almost certainly not have a desirable effect on the state of affairs for instance, and assassinating 100 or even 1000 others like would be even worse. It didn’t work for the NAZIs, Khmer Rough, Sendero Luminoso, etc. They all ended up in ruins and almost universally despised. I know that it did however work for Stalin and Saddam Hussein, but they hardly built desirable governments.
          I doubt assassinations had the desired effects in the Revolutionary war or the 1960’s civil rights movement. Do you think they did?

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          To be fair the Roman Republic and subsequent Empire were never really “in line”. The systems set up to prevent one person or group from gaining too much power at best kept “uneasy peace” for a few decades at a time but consistently broke down because it was way, way too complicated.

          Rome was constantly beset by internal struggle that killed a lot of people, most of them innocent, and kept the government from doing basic shit it should have easily handled. Those failures often led to what amounted to unnecessary internal wars that killed tens of thousands of innocent people over political squabbles that honorable men would have settled with keeping their word or a duel instead of clashing armies.

        3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Vic Nighthorse,

          You are definitely asking the right questions.

          Here is my take:
          (1) The Nazis were not able to stop uprisings because the oppressed were facing severe tribulations or outright death anyway. Thus the oppressed had pretty much nothing to lose and everything to gain.
          (2) Tyrannical oppressors fail to stop uprisings because the oppressed are fighting for righteous ideals.
          (3) Tyrannical oppressors are fighting to grab as much wealth/power as possible. Because they are not fighting for their very existence or for righteous ideals, they may be more likely to stop when facing existential opposition.

          My point number three above could be utterly inaccurate if tyrannical oppressors have depraved minds (quite likely) and bloodlust drives them to respond to resistance with, well, bloodlust.

        4. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “(2) Tyrannical oppressors fail to stop uprisings because the oppressed are fighting for righteous ideals.”

          Yeah, tell that to the North Korean people.

          Make your tyranny draconian enough, and the uprisings are stamped out *fast*…

      2. avatar blunt truth says:

        Unfortunatly(sic) the police are on the front lines; You can’t stop blackberry brambles by hacking at the vines, you must get to the extensive root system aka the financial and political ROOT of our problem ( bloom-turd, sorros, and company(s))

      3. avatar burley says:

        It worked in Athens, TN. It would work nationwide if we’d do more than just kill a few. If we would truly prosecute and convict every politician that is currently breaking the law, then execute them immediately, it would only take a few days for a bunch of them to “resign”.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Burley,

          I believe that your analysis is accurate.

    5. avatar Unrepentant Libertarian says:

      While the thought of shooting politicians and others that would deprive us of our liberties would feel nice – they would then become martyrs for the left! At this point it would be counter productive and would give the media an excuse to further dump on POG.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        “and would give the media an excuse to further dump on POG.”

        I don’t necessarily disagree with you but since when did the media need an excuse?

    6. avatar Jay Williams says:

      When does it stop being assassination and it start being a patriot’s legal duty?

      Although I don’t know how well I did, I took a stab at writing about it.

      https://www.amazon.com/Insurgency-Refreshing-Jay-Philip-Williams-ebook/dp/B06X3ZNPJY

      Sequel well under way.

      1. avatar Matt in SC says:

        OK, I spent the 3 bucks to see if it’s worth reading. Follow up is not guaranteed, but happy to support a new writer.
        Edit: Grammatical errors in the synopsis don’t help at all.

  5. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    The slight down tick in murders per year would be offset by increased assaults, just look at the UK.

  6. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    I think Dylan Moore makes the mistake of not stating all levels of government. It was local government that denied gun civil rights to black people. And the Deacons for Defense and Justice did an outstanding job of using machine guns and semi-automatic rifles to defend themselves against Bad government. Returning world war two veterans in Athens Tennessee used machine guns semi-automatic weapons including explosives to stop a corrupt government election.

    The Bundy Ranch resisted the government at the federal level.

    So yes the Second Amendment is for protecting the citizens against any level of corrupt government.

    1. avatar Helms Deep says:

      FEAR. —- The Gun Ban push we now see in the states , ( Fast Movers ) and at federal level ( slower ) is because the progressive-socialists ( UNI-Party dems + Rinos ) know their time is short due to our Great Awakening.
      With Blitzkreig tactics pre-planned , they used raw emotion to take a bite out of Vermont and Florida Gun Rights……. On April 9 , Pennsylvania may be next with Gun and Magazine CONFISCATION bill S – 17. Other states are doing the same, flush with Bloomberg cash….. ( We should see this organization on OUR side )

      Enemy is organized and fanning out across the flanks , as link below shows.
      The progressive led , Town Hall Project … ( please take our rights ) is boots on the ground in YOUR STATE !

      CALL + Visit your State Reps. …. Or become New Jersey

      http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/04/04/steyer-backed-anti-trump-anti-gun-leftists-organize-teens-for-town-hall-for-our-lives-across-america/

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Los Angeles County still only gives permits to white men, denying just about everyone else. Out “of 135 people: 4 Hispanics (3%), 7 blacks (5.2%), 15 Asians (11.1%), and 109 whites. Only 16 were females (11.9%).” Hispanics account for about half the county. Women probably do as well.

      1. avatar Chris T from KY says:

        Thanks for the reminder. I almost forgot about that Story coming out about a year or so ago. I will add that to my college paper on the Second Amendment,thanks again.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          No problem. The crime prevention research center is a great source for the disparite impact of gun control on minorities and the poor.

  7. avatar Gman says:

    civilians have the power to resist a bad government

    Let me fix that for you:
    citizens have a duty to resist bad government

    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.

    1. avatar YARB0892 says:

      Correction/addendum if I may:

      Power, duty, and authority to restore justice by resisting a corrupt governing body up to and including the usr of violence as a last resort.

      Soap box, ballot box, then cartridge box.

  8. avatar Bob says:

    I have a dream, I dream that one day the people will wake up and realize that any firearm restriction is considered infringement and that it be abolished.

    One day the people of places like New Jersey may be able to enjoy being able to protect themselves while out in public in any means they see fit instead of having to ask permission and be consistently denied.

    Carry permits are an infringement, no matter how you look at it.

    Restricting full auto weapons is infringement, its ok for the police to have but not you? What makes them better than you?
    Our DA just went to jail for counts of bribery and manipulation of the system. But somehow we hold law enforcement to a higher trust level than our own neighbors.
    That’s a shame, because most LE are your neighbors…..

    You know, that old bean.

    A marine is good enough to protect our country but once he becomes a teacher he isn’t good enough to protect our kids…..?!?!

    Stop giving people of power the ability to regulate you to your death.

    1. avatar Jon in CO says:

      Cops are no different than any civilian. Anyone not subject to UCMJ is a civilian. Therefore, all full autos and other NFA regulated items in the hands of these people without registration and tax paid, are violating federal law. Especially, all autos manufactured after 5 May, 1986.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        That’s not at all how the NFA works. The word civilian is not in it.

  9. avatar DaveR says:

    “Self-determination through civilians’ ability to fight authoritarian regimes is much more vital to preserving rights and freedom than is the illusion of safety.”

    Sounds great in theory. However I have zero faith in the ability of most Americans to recognize an authoritarian regime when it appears, let alone agree on a strategy to oppose it.

    And anyway, the days of Lexington and Concord are long gone and a power grab by the government will not involve arms, nor could it be opposed by arms. The weapons of the 21st century will be computers and cyber security.

  10. avatar DaveL says:

    Mr. Moore doesn’t understand. The legislators and other members of the ruling class aren’t shortsighted. Their aim is not to preserve rights, but to preserve the authoritarian regimes.

  11. avatar former water walker says:

    I fear great violence is at hand. Glad I don’t live in Deerfield…but I still live in Illinois! I just deleted a boatload of FB gun groups I’m in. Amazing the # of dim bulbs who broadcast their arsenal…

  12. avatar Joe R. says:

    Government cannot even protect itself at the individual level. It should be wrongful, not just wrong for it to claim that it can protect any of its citizenry on an individual level. If it cannot protect you, it is bullsh_t to pre-empt your rights to protect yourself as a means for it to protect you. Further, if it IS NOT protecting you, then its actions are merely to protect itself. And It would only have such a need, if it was doing, or intending to do, something that was unsanctioned. Meaning, that your ahole neighbors who needed a job, (your government) and asked to “serve” you, are using their authority to do tyranny. AND THAT IS, ABSOLUTELY, WHAT IS MEANT TO BE PREEMPTED BY THE 2ND AMENDMENT, AND THE 2ND PARAGRAPH OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

  13. avatar TroutsBane says:

    It turns out that many of the most anti-gun pundits I have run across are not even Citizens. They are from England, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, etc. They are working very hard to change the constitution of our country.
    What does a foreigner have to gain is my main question?
    In one breath they decry the United States as the bully of the world, and when you say we don’t want to be overseas anymore they rant and rave and demand we increase our involvement in Syria, etc. If we don’t wise up we will become Boxer the horse in Animal Farm. They will use us to support their rotten systems, and then sell us for glue. They obviously don’t care if we lose citizen in war or terrorism, so the only logical explanation is that they want us disarmed so we cannot resist the fall of Rome.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      If “Rome” is to fall there is no resisting it. It’s too big to resist if it starts going that way.

      There is only protecting yourself/family/group and trying to pick up the pieces and reestablish a Republic. That’s what they don’t want.

  14. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    The architects involved in all these Anti- 2nd Amendment gun control measures on local and state levels…All need to be rounded and imprisoned!

  15. avatar Ro says:

    We have the natural right of self protection (against anyone and any government), which is not wholly protected by the 2d but by the combination of the 2d amendment and the 9th amendment.

  16. avatar Ralph says:

    “Armed civilians have the power to resist a bad government”

    Well, we already have the “bad government” part of the equation. When does the “resist” part begin?

  17. avatar Blkojo says:

    Saturday, April 14, pro-Second Amendment rallies at all state capitols and D.C. Starting at 11:00 a.m. Pacific time, noon Mountain time, etc. Organized by NCCPA. Check out their Facebook page for updates.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      No thank you.

      The Ohio event page…

      https://www.facebook.com/events/225283361383591/

      “****EVERYONE will be subject to a search and all carry ins such as purses, bags, backpacks and such! If you don’t submit to the search you will NOT be permitted to attend!”

      1. avatar Stereodude says:

        I’m sure your strategy of sitting on the sidelines for victory will be much more effective.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Nope. I have other events to attend. I don’t need to go to one with such an anti-liberty action right out of the gate.

          I checked it out after I saw they had Facebook event pages, with the intent of attending and sharing the information. Then, I read that horseshit.

          Funny, we never have to violate people’s rights when we hold events.

      2. avatar Craig in IA says:

        You ought to come to Iowa, we carry concealed right into Statehouse. Can’t tell you how many times I have been speaking face to face with our Governor and packing. Ditto my other elected state officials. No one even thinks about it.

  18. avatar GS650G says:

    If Pa S17 goes to Gov. Wolf’s desk he’ll gleefully sign it. Imagine PA turning into N.Y. overnight.

  19. avatar Gman says:

    The Second Amendment’s Reason for Being
    In theosophy and anthroposophy, the Akashic records are a compendium of all human events, thoughts, words, emotions, and intent ever to have occurred in the past, present, or future. They are believed by theosophists to be encoded in a non-physical plane of existence known as the etheric plane. There are anecdotal accounts but no scientific evidence for existence of the Akashic records.[1][2][3]

    My thoughts? One or more of our founding fathers had access to the Akashic field and foresaw our current problems. Then one of his lesser evolved compatriots put that stupid militia thingy in there and screwed us forever. Like I always say, no good deed ever goes unpunished.

    Call it my esoteric philosophical bullshit of the day.

  20. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    I can walk around with a fire extinguisher or a hammer (aka tools) and it should be no different with a firearm if I’m so inclined and observing the 4 safety rules.

    The only change that has occurred in the few decades are a breed of royals (bored rich people that want to control other people) and their ignorant plebs that are being allowed to create and push tyrannical and treasonous laws into existence.

    These royals, politicians, and their plebs should’ve been ousted from office, fined, jailed, or barred from any political forum long ago. Or better, they can debate and complain all they want (1st amendment) but it baffles me how any of the ridiculous laws were passed and how there are no checks or balances.

  21. avatar Gman says:

    The Second Amendment’s Reason for Being

    I’m sick and tired and old. I’m retiring on a 50′ catamaran I just bought and sailing the world with my bride of 36 years. I’m a late comer to this whole 2A thing; was apolitical for way too long. I was lazy. I did not take my citizenship seriously. That is easy to do in this country where we are relatively safe and our government generally doesn’t want to kill us and stop us from leaving. But I digress. I’ll tell you all what disgusts me the most. It’s many of you here. The left I get, they are mentally defective so, well that’s an excuse. But most of you here are educated on the topic. You understand the complexities of say, universal background checks, or bans on bump stocks and how that can be interpreted to include drop in triggers. So I suggest you all rethink your position on this whole topic. YOU (and I) are the problem. With citizenship comes responsibility. With Freedom and Liberty comes hardship. Stop using their language. The Bill of Rights exists solely to tell Government KEEP YOUR FN HANDS OFF. It is and never was a limit upon the freedom and liberty of the People. Absolutism? You bet your FN life it is. Are you a FN American or not? So the only way YOU can fix this is to get off your keister and get active. If all you do is blog on sites like this turbo wining and power sniveling about how unfair life is then YOU are the problem. It’s been nice, it’s been real, not sure if it’s been real nice.

    Fair Winds and Following Seas y’all
    Gman, out.

    1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      Enjoy your trip.

  22. avatar Aaron says:

    at the current US murder rate, it would take over 1,000 years to equal the body count Stalin racked up murdering his mostly disarmed populace.

  23. avatar Kyle in Upstate NY says:

    The Second’s reason for being is that the anti-Federalists didn’t trust having a Constitution without one. The Federalists thought it redundant. In Federalist #84 for example, Hamilton outlines why he thinks Bills of Rights are dangerous, because they claim the government cannot do things that it never was granted the authority to do in the first place. To paraphrase, “For why say that things shall not be done for which there is no power to do?”

    The right to self-defense and the right to keep and bear arms is mentioned by Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, Algernon Sydney, Charles Montesquieu, Justice Blackstone, Thomas Hobbes I believe, and others. What is truly amazing is how forgotten this right is. In colleges, they will teach the origins of various rights, but never the right to self-defense and how fundamental it was, yet, it is mentioned by all these important political thinkers that the Founders read and studied.

    The main difference between Plato’s “Republic” and Aristotle’s “Politics” was in Plato’s view, the ideal society is one ruled by “philosopher-kings” with the people disarmed, whereas for Aristotle, the ideal society was a constitutional democracy where the people possess arms and rule themselves.

    1. avatar Aaron says:

      thanks for that info. based on your post, then it appears that Hamilton turned out to be naive about the prime imperative of governments and any other body with power: to seek more power.

      the constitution is a brilliant document, but not good enough in constraining the power of government.

    2. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      Hamilton was a leading member of the Federalist Party and wanted to expand the powers of the central government beyond what the Constitution stated. Why do you think the leftists of New York created a Broadway play about him that has been running for years. He set the stage for the expansion of the powers of the federal government that have been expanded until even in prosperous times we run horrible deficits.

      You can thank Hamilton for the demise of the 10th Amendment. I suspect as a Federalist he would have been happy without the Bill of Rights, but those pesky Anti-Federalists wouldn’t have supported it without the addition.

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