The question was recently posed, “Does the Second Amendment Protect the Rest?” It’s a great question, and increasingly timely. My answer: of course not . . .
The 2A is a great thing, part of the Constitution of the United States, a wonderful document that is the flower of political writing. In it, those “certain inalienable rights” were expressed as never before in history.
The Declaration of Independence [above] was signed in 1776, and the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Between those two dates we had the Revolutionary War. Fighting began in 1775 at Concord, MA, and ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1783.
For seven years, We The People waged war “to dissolve the political bands” which connected us with England “and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them” People killed and were killed and fortunes were lost. Homes were destroyed and innocents died, as they always do in war.
In the end, We The People prevailed. We didn’t prevail because of the words on the paper. We won because the men and women that fought to give those words meaning were victorious. It wasn’t enough to simply fight for the cause…they had to win.
I love the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. But the words contained therein have no power on their own. Then, as now, the system of government that was created, and the rights that were recognized, depend on the willingness of We The People to back them up with our deeds.
Whether or not we will continue to enjoy that freedom is up to us. Right now, what Yamamoto called “the sleeping giant” continues to slumber. Most of us don’t act to protect our freedoms. If a few less freedom lovers had stayed home the last couple of elections, things would look a little different today.
Will we survive as a free people? Nations come and go, history is awash with them. Perhaps it’s our turn to go down. I don’t know what will happen. I’m a doctor, not a fortune teller. But mark my words: If we depend on words on paper to secure our liberties, our liberty will soon be nothing but a memory.
“If we depend on words on paper to secure our liberties, our liberty will soon be nothing but a memory.”
Indeed. Especially when those words seem to mean whatever activist judges want them to mean.
Agreed. And whether you like them or not NRA is the biggest voice we have until it comes to taking up arms to defend “We the People”. Join NRA, join GOA, join your state association. They all do some sort of good.
I always post this. Hopefully people take advantage. It’s a link I received with my last Ruger. Memberships are discounted.. http://www.nra.org/ruger
Agreed. There are indeed a lot of NRA bashers out there, even among the POTG, but they have done more for preserving gun rights than anyone else. Membership is cheap, really. The Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, the National Association for Gun Rights, and others are all worth the small memberships fees. Join as many as you can afford, contact your senators & state representatives, and walk the walk.
Ugh, not all of them. RMGO here in CO didn’t lift a finger until after the new laws were passed here — Dudley, who runs it, knew that it would mean more money for him that way.. Contributions from angry gun owners after the fact.
Since then RMGO and Dudley haven’t done Jack sh!, Except to say that the recalls shouldn’t happen, and then after they were successful, to claim credit for their success.
For the longest he’d fight any new pro gun orgs in the state too.
Now we have the CO 2A association, but the point is, be careful when supporting some of these organizations. Some do more harm than good, and some have even partnered with antis, (to borrow credibility in some spheres), and some are full of fudds ready to sell anyone but goose gun hunters down the river.
Yeah you are correct…notice I did not include NAGR!
Ya know, I’ve gone back & forth with Dudley Brown over e-mails received from, & posts made by him on behalf of the National Association For Gun Rights.
They continually to denounce the growing waves of support for an Article V Convention of the States. I would almost be OK with their opposition to an Article V Convention if they would be honest about it. However, they continue to refer to it a as a “Con Con” despite having been told numerous times by myself and others that it IS NOT a Constitutional Convention. They simply refuse to acknowledge that an Article V Convention does not open the door to the possibility of completely re-writing the Constitution, and that the possibility of a runaway Convention is zero.
Liberty surrendered by politicians, legislators and judges. No nation can preserve liberty only the people can, if they have the will.
The second amendment protects the uniquely American Human right Self Defense which allows all natural Americans to defend self from rape and murder.
Fix it please.
Although the Second Amendment might or might not protect only citizens from our government infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms, the basic right is universal, knowing no national boundaries. The right to keep and bear arms is inalienable to all human beings. As such, I am of the camp that believes that the Second Amendment ought to protect everyone present on US soil from government infringement, citizen or not. I freely admit that the citizen or not 2A position is debatable. What is clear is it that the actual RKBA belongs to all individuals everywhere.
Additionally, that ability to protect one’s self from rape and murder is also to protect them from tyranny.
Very well said. Thank you, doctor.
I’ve always considered the power of the 2nd Amendment to lie in the fact that it serves as a reminder to ambitious politicians that they serve at the consent of the governed. Unfortunately, as we’ve seen lately (Freedom Act?), the governed don’t seem to be paying a whole lot of attention to the man behind the curtain.
This! That is why so many of the wanna be despot types hate and fear it.
Well put. Actions always speak louder than words. Ongoing action is the only way the Bill of Rights stay alive.
Your reference to the phrase “certain inalienable rights” is incorrect on its face. The correct phrase is “certain unalienable rights”. The difference between inalienable and unalienable is critical. For example, when a law enforcement tells you “You have the right to remain silent”, that is an inalienable right, one where the individual can CHOOSE to give up. Our unalienable rights CANNOT be given up by the individual or take away from by anyone else.
The two are synonymous and can be used interchangeably. If you have proof of your assertion then I’m all
Legal semantics. In general English usage, the prefixes “in” and “un” confer the same meaning.
“In” and “un” can be highly contextual. They inherently confer the same meaning only to those with a limited command of the language.
Perhaps we should fill a room with inflammable gas and see what happens when we introduce a spark….
Actually, you are getting into two different things there with inflammable. Besides, this debate was already waged between John Adams and T. Jefferson.
@16V: True but for some other words it makes no difference. The full article linked below gives an explanation based upon the origin (Latin or Germanic) of the root word.
“Still, the two prefixes are not equivalent.
John in Ohio, If you reread my post, I believe you will see that I allowed for the possibility that they are the same in some words, but are inherently different in others. And are not equal.
Your cite says the same thing, just a bit differently.
@16V: Yes, I was aware of it when I posted. I saw your post as an answer to Ing‘s more absolute statement about “in” and “un”. I didn’t want OP or others to get the wrong impression about inalienable and unalienable. Also, I wanted to cite a more complete discussion of the prefixes’ usage. It was apparent when it was written that I wasn’t clarifying that very well but either got busy or lazy. I figured you would also catch the line in the cite that stated as you did and might assume that I was aware. 🙂
@John, It did appear that way. Teh Interwebz are an imprecise medium and all that. No offense intended.
@16V: My comment was poorly written and reflected my scattered mind at that moment. 😀 It’s all good, friend. Carry on.
The two are equivalent and their difference is purely stylistic, not substantive. You’ll find “inalienable” in the versions of the Declaration written in Jefferson’s own hand.
John Adams hand wrote a copy and used “unalienable”, however, as it may have been the more customary form in that era. Adams was on the committee supervising the printing of the Declaration and may have unilaterally changed the word, as there is nothing to indicate that the Second Contintental Congress addressed the issue or approved a change.
The wonderful movie 1776 has an exchange between the two on this very issue. We’ll worth watching if you have never seen it.
Sleeping giant indeed, “Voting with your feet” is what really protects all of them, but frogs are getting slowly boiled so that no one thing is pushing too many over that edge.
Consent of the governed rules, and when its gone, its gone.
Agreed. We secure our freedom through the actions of good men. The 2nd Amendment is a written promise by our forefathers that a just government will not take away the tools good men need to secure their freedoms. As our government turns corrupt and tyrannical, like we have seen over the last 6 or so years, the 2nd amendment loses meaning, and as the 2nd amendment loses meaning, it is a clear signal to good men to take action….at the ballot box, in the courts, and as a last resort, through force of arms.
Wow. Now that has to be one of the best, most profound, and most succinct commentaries on the Second Amendment that I have ever read or heard. I am going to shamelessly use that … a LOT!
“As our government turns corrupt and tyrannical, like we have seen over the last 6 or so years…”
I think you dropped a zero. That should read “60 or so”.
I think it can be walked back further. Try 1913 as a start of the downhill cycle.
WilsonIan social democracy.
1913, that’s exactly right, with the exclamation mark in 1963.
The U.S. stopped representing The States in 1913 and slowly became super representatives. True statesmen are rare in the U.S. Senate these days.
“If we depend on words on paper to secure our liberties, our liberty will soon be nothing but a memory.”
Truer words have never been spoken.
I’ll repeat this and if it upsets some I really dont care, what good is the right to bear arms if the government can force medical procedures on the public?
When it gets to the point where the public wakes up and realizes it’s unnacceptable we have some means to fight back…
Start your own country and spread disease to your heart’s content. “Smallpox Republic” has a nice ring to it.
There’s a bunch of people in America that would tell you something similar about wanting to have guns. “Murder States of “America” sound right.
I know, you just want to eradicate certain rights, for the public good. LOL.
The hypocrisy/duplicity with some people is amazing. If the state can force medical procedures against a persons will, I don’t see what meaningful rights we have left.
Foggy, I don’t feed trolls.
If you, yourself, are immunized against what ever disease, why do you worry about contracting that disease, from me? Do I not have freedom over my own body to accept or reject the vaccine?
Either we have control of our bodies or not. I’m not an anti vaccine guy nor am I pro abortion. But we either have that freedom of our bodies or no other freedoms matter.
>> If you, yourself, are immunized against what ever disease, why do you worry about contracting that disease, from me?
Some people cannot be vaccinated for health reasons. And for some people who are vaccinated, vaccine provides little or no immunity. Long story short, vaccination is not not foolproof on individual level. It only works reliably if everyone around is vaccinated, too, or at least enough people that, should one unvaccinated or vaccinated-but-not-immune individual introduce the disease, it is statistically highly unlikely that there will be another such person in the vicinity to transmit it (specific numbers as to what the minimum vaccination rate should be can be computed with the application of some basic statistics – it varies from disease to disease).
So take care of yourself. That is all you can do.
Int, it seems you are referencing vaccine induced herd immunity without naming it, and probably for good reason, as there is no scientific evidence or proof that vaccine induced herd immunity exists. It was literally made up, without an ounce of science to back it. The argument is so spurious that just an ounce of common sense debunks it….what other drug requires other people to take for it to be effective? And for the people who immune compromised and cannot tolerate vaccines, they should be kept in safe environments as there are many other infectious threats out there that we don’t vaccinate for, and as you said, vaccines are not 100% anyway.
Yes, this is herd immunity. And sorry, but I’ll take the word of qualified scientists over yours about it. I also fail to see how it “makes sense” – quite the opposite, in fact. Vaccines are not a drug, and the mechanics of how they work (by stimulating your own immune system) make it obvious as to why the protection they provide is only statistically meaningful. Because people are different, and their immune systems are different, it would be very strange indeed if the results were consistently the same.
What more, we have already seen how exactly things break down if herd immunity is not maintained, as in e.g. that recent measles outbreak in a church that had a large number of unvaccinated people in the congregation. In fact, this is why the present anti-vax campaign is more dangerous than simply looking at vaccination rates would suggest – it’s not just that anti-vaxxers push the rates down (we’re not close to herd immunity threshold yet, so it’s not an immediate worry – but it will be if the trend continues). It’s that they also tend to stick together, thus creating localized hotspots where herd immunity is non-existent already.
Vaccines are drugs. Sorry, you fail.
I’m having serious difficulty with posting on this site, and have lost my response more than once. I’ll abbreviate it with my summation, it is hard to imagine any rational person, especially a person who understands the value of liberty, to forfeit their right to make their own medical/health care decisions and give that legal authority to the Government and/or pharmaceutical companies.
I don’t really wish to debate the moral angle of mandatory vaccinations. My point is solely about the efficacy of vaccines, the way they work, and the consequences of choosing / being allowed to not vaccinate yourself. If you believe in absolute ownership of one’s body, the answer is a given, but then you have to acknowledge where this will lead, as well, if everyone (or even a large enough minority) adopts this view – i.e. regular epidemics of diseases that before widespread vaccination had literally millions of cases every year in US, and tens of thousands of fatalities.
Smallpox, for example, was the single biggest cause of death in Europe prior to the widespread introduction of the corresponding vaccine. Vaccination not only prevented the immediate deaths, but it also literally starved the disease out, wiping it out completely – to the extent that we no longer vaccinate people against it (and haven’t been doing so for almost 40 years now), because there’s no point to. We’ve almost got measles to the same point, but not quite, and with the vaccination levels dropping due to the anti-vax being a trendy thing, we might never get there.
A war might not be an inappropriate metaphor here (because we actually have a well-defined and reachable goal). We can either fight it in perpetually individually, with no possibility of victory; or we can declare martial law and band together to fight it to victory. In the former case, everyone will have to keep armed and alert (i.e. vaccinate), with the associated risks that this entails (side effects of vaccines); and those who are not will either be slaughtered, or will luck out by free-riding on the security provided by the armed people around them without risking anything – in effect, deserters, refusing to fight, but willingly sharing in the benefits won by those who bear the risk. And this will continue with our kids, and their kids, and so on, making this choice ever-present. But if we win, we can all go home and live in peace, and our children won’t need to be armed (vaccinated) against that disease anymore – the choice between individual freedom and collective security (at least in this particular case) will not even be required of them.
Personally, I consider the threat sufficiently grave, and the gains sufficiently significant, to justify the temporary loss of individual freedom in this case for the sake of greater freedom of the same in the future, even if this requires several generation to fully kick in. But I know that many here would disagree.
pg2, I’m sorry but the logic and proof of “herd immunity” are rather unassailable from a statistical analysis and scientific standpoint.
(That plus dozens of other actual scientific studies. Lemme guess, you’re getting your “facts” from someone who has been thoroughly discredited and lost their license….)
Established science has shown that not all are effectively immunized, and that many vaccine will lose effectiveness at 2-10 years out. Were the herd immunity theory not the reality, we would see all those people infected with smallpox, pertussis, whatever. We’re already seeing this issue driven by these f-wit inbred morons who aren’t having their kids vaccinated because of an Irish Sweepstakes chance of ‘something bad’ happening.
The fact that polio has made a resurgence in the primitive Muslim countries is yet more concrete evidence. All the Jenny McCarthy pseudoscience means jack-squat-nothing to anyone with critical thinking skills.
@16V, int19h, I’ve read your link, as it offers no scientific proof of anything, let alone vaccine induced herd immunity. I suspect you haven’t thread your own link and you were thinking It would be enough to scare me off. If you are really gun owners and understand and respect the tenets of personal freedom under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, yet support the legal shifting of private ownership of your own physical body to the government, then you are either idiots or liars.
Your post requires a more thorough response, mainly because it is filled with half truths, and some outright false statements. By not replying, others may think your post is legitimate. First off, I understand why you don’t want to “debate the moral angle of mandatory vaccinations”, because morally you have no leg to stand on. Mandatory medical procedures, even if beyond a reasonable doubt were safe and effective, have no place in a fee society. To date, there is no conclusive proof of vaccines safety or effectiveness. Please don’t troll out and reference some industry sponsored junk science that would have made the tobacco industry researchers ‘proving’ tobaccos’ safety blush with envy. To date, there is no independent study proving the long term safety of these products, in fact there is no study comparing vaccinated populations to unvaccinated populations, so in effect, no valid safety study exists. Your metaphor of comparing this to a military engagement is so far from appropriate and scientifically validity, it borders outright fiction. A+ for creativity though.
If you care to really investigate the history and numbers behind vaccinations, you will find out what many other previously pro-vaccine people have discovered, closer inspection of the data does not support the current thesis that the pharmaceutical companies and Government are trying to force on the public. Many of the impartial truths, and outright false statements you made ring very similar to the online atsroturfers and to people whose income and/or financial ties depend on the vaccine agenda. The vast majority of people who vaccinate don’t give a shit what other parents do, they assume that when they vaccinate they are covered.
I don’t want you to feel left out, and your post was so comical I wanted to say thanks for the laugh. It’s always a hoot when someone pretends to engage in legitimate debate on this issue, and in your case actually mention critical thinking, and at same time invoke the meaningless Jenny McCarthy straw-man. Aside from that, your first sentence “I’m sorry but the logic and proof of “herd immunity” are rather unassailable from a statistical analysis and scientific standpoint” is outright fabrication and/or opinion. The link you provided had no such proof or evidence contained. I suspect you haven’t even read it. Vaccine induced herd immunity is literally a made up concept, with the numbers required vaccinated always changing, and this despite records of fully and near fully vaccinated communities worldwide sustaining outbreaks of the diseases anyway. And again, instead of sticking with facts, you attempt to reference Wakefield, another straw-man argument. Your post strongly resembles much of the other online troll material, with lots of emotion, supposition, ad-hominem, and straw-man tactics. Like much of the trolling out there, you conveniently leave out the CDC’s main researcher whose research who they say disputes the vaccine-autism link is himself on the OIG’s most wanted list for FRAUD. Do yourself a favor, if you’re going to troll on a subject, do it well.
I researched “inalienable” and “unalienable”, and both words mean the same thing – something that cannot be given up or taken away. In reality, such a precondition cannot exist. Both men and governments do it all the time.
Spot on, Bones!
I’m a doctor, Jim, not a fortune teller.
“I’m a doctor, not a fortune teller!”
This is why I thought it was funny (and sad at the same time) that after the terrorist attacks in Paris, people held rallies where they symbolically waved giant pencils. Meanwhile, elsewhere in the world, their enemies were waving AK-47s.
The pen is only mightier than the sword if you can use you pen to enlist the services of someone with a sword. Or, a rifle. Otherwise, it’s just a pen.
It amazes me that our rights were so obvious that most delegates at the 1789 Continental Congress thought it was ridiculous to even have to include a bill of rights. Thanks to NY, MA, and VA’s insistance they were necessary for ratification. Ironic then that MA and NY are now fighting to remove the 2nd.
Well true the second amendment in it’s wording does not protect the rest. It is what it actually protects that protect the rest. If we has a country were not so heavily armed, then nothing would stop those intent on destroying our nation and getting rid of a lot of our rights. They do not do it now because the public can forceably stop them if need be.
Frank, what’s left of our rights is being destroyed as we speak, without a whimper.
Here is where I run into a brick wall:
What do we all do to change things? The article talked about full on revolutionary war back in 1788. Seems like every article like this tap dances around but none actually promote the idea of change through force. I have to be honest, it is not the direction I would want to pursue but the voting process never seems to get anywhere. Take this as mumbling ala internet. Seems everyone talks about change but the mechanics of it are never really set in stone.
Voting is a joke, the entire political process is a controlled theater, very much like professional wrestling. We get to ‘pick’ from a nearly identical small pool of people already selected for us…..please.
All freedoms listed in the Bill of Rights are freedom from Government (Government is We the People [not We Whoever – yeah that means no illegal immigrants for illegal immigration]). Thereby protected by each individual for themselves, by whatever means. 2A assumes “arms.”
ahh ok, I can dig it. A bit philosophical for me, but yeah… it’s not the words on the paper, it’s the truth that underlies it – and our willingness to stand up for and defend those truths (which we hold to be self evident, so that this nation shall not perish from the earth).
That’s pretty good doc. I commend you sir
A GUN IN HAND IS MORE POWERFUL THAN A ‘PEN’……..As many will soon realize, also as I have learned the past 70 years….NOTHING is ‘FREE’….even us in the USA…..imho…..Semper Fi
In order for “we the people” to secure our rights we must be armed, yes, for sure. But we must be united. “We the people” is without worth if it’s just a handful of angry men that disparage different peoples and sexes and alienate all that have served their country either in civil or military service.
Until you win over vets and active military and cops and all those millions of .gov rank and file members and the soccer moms…….. well, the list goes on. “We the people” needs unity and numbers or the rights will go away.
What kind of doctor?
Witch kind of doctor?
In other terms…it’s a useless outaded “right” that needs to be abolished. 2nd amendment supporters are nothing but domestic terrorists that revel in the needless chaos and death of innocents.
It’s Tubesteak the Troll.
It’s cleatus the tiny penis NRA gun-stroking sheeple whose not really “free” if he’s allowed to own and instrument of death that is more likely to injure or kill him than protect him from windmills or in your terms “duh evul gubermint”.
Why are you anti civil rights types always fixated on the penis, tubesteak?
Liberal lunchmeat equals penis fixation? Willy eat it?
Funny how the anti gun trolls use the small penis analogy, what’s the fixation with penises?
Perhaps as you contemplate which of the many protections afforded by the Constitution you’d keep, you’ll consider a famous quote:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
I appreciate your comments here. Seeing evil and stupidity such as yours reminds us why the Second Amendment is so important. Please, keep posting whenever you possible can. Your “opinions” do more to further our cause than any of us could.
You’re wrong. Words have meaning and give people inspiration. People are the ultimate protectors, but the words give us inspiration and legitimacy.
“How do democracies get turned into dictatorships? The democracies aren’t overthrown; they’re given away…”
Attributed to George Lucas.
I don’t under your gunfooker logic. Does that mean your outdated right trumps the safety and lives of innocent people?
Why yes, it certainly does. Nobody has a “right” to feel or be safe, it doesn’t exist. The bootlicker’s utopia progressives like yourself have tried to create for the past century has only ever put millions of innocent people in mass graves, so stop fvcking trying. Grow up, accept that the world is a brutal and scary place, and take responsibility for your own security instead of relying on the mommy and daddy state to do it for you.
Pay attention to the trolls language, it is laterally identical to the language being used online by industry astroturfers to give the appearance of a grassroots movement to mandate vaccines. Anyone who doesn’t think this is the same fight is asleep at the wheel.
I thought that hammers and bare hands were more popular for killing innocent people? More prevalent, too, and not subject to any amendment.
Maybe you should start with those items first.
Bloomer? Is that you Bloomer?
The U.S. Bill of Rights
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States
“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:…”
Further declaratory and restrictive clause added in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers as follows:
“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.”
I agree that it might be hyperbole to say, “The Second protects the rest,” but political discourse is rife with hyperbole and there is SOME truth to it. I also agree that a right we can’t enforce is not really a right, and 2A has been so infringed that what while what is on the paper is still a wonderful ideal, it is an ideal that is no longer realized and will likely never be realized again.
I reject the notion that 2A allows the citizenry to rise up against the Constitutional government, even when that government shortcuts the Constitution itself, as it does today. But the other rights of the Constitution can be violated in ways that an armed citizenry could foreseeably remedy. By using 2A effectively in the courts, now, we preserve the gun ownership that will be needed when the worst happens. So the “paper” means something in that regard.
I see three scenarios where we will be glad we used the words of 2A now to preserve gun rights in the courts. 1) Disaster scenarios, like Katrina and Ferguson, where the government retreats from its responsibility and only gun owners can secure any rights at all. 2) A coup, where say, a president tries to not leave office when he is supposed to. The government (including the military and police) would be split into Constitutional loyalists and presidential loyalists. Gun owners might help tip the balance. 3) A total SHTF scenario where the central government is replaced by a hodge-podge of regional governments. Gun owners may be the only line of defense of rights in that situation. All these possibilities are won by using “the paper 2A” in the courts today.
I reject the notion that 2A allows the citizenry to rise up against the Constitutional government, even when that government shortcuts the Constitution itself, as it does today.
It doesn’t allow anything at all. It restricts government.
As to the right of a people to rise up against a government… Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist (Papers), number 28, pages 178-179, “Right of Revolution”: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch3s9.html.
AFAIK, your opinion is at odds with historical record as to the thoughts of the founders of this nation on the subject of revolution. Heck, just look at the Declaration of Independence.
I think you kind of missed the point, Frame. The 2A is there to remind tyrants that it is an inalienable right whether written down or not.
“The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed …”
Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F3d 567 at 569-570 (9th Cir. 2002) Kozinski, A., dissenting
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
George Mason – Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
“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.”
“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1811-1845)
“Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”
Thomas Paine 1775.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
“That rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
“A man’s rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.”
“No Kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.”
“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
St. George Tucker
” … the right to defend one’s home and one’s person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law.”
Martin Luther King
So you’ve got a dissenting opinion and quotes from a lot of dead guys. I might agree with you, but I think you may have made the OP’s point.
Because quotes only matter from ‘live guys’?
Words can put you to sleep or they can inspire you to take action, it’s your choice.
IMO, this country will have a major change in freedom (either way) sometime within the next 6 years.
I don’t believe my chances of living through it are very good. I just hope my actions help the freedom side by taking as many of the enemies, as possible, with me.
I am new here – in the country I mean. I was born here (Texas) but never lived here; I just moved back here 11 months ago and I’m 47 years old. I even moved in one of the least free states – California.
Yet, I bought what most journalists would define “an arsenal” so far. About 30 firearms in a few months. I’m a passionate collector and the country I lived before sucked balls in terms of freedom (it’s all relative, isn’t it).
However, I am going to be a good classic American – and my children. I have my membership with the NRA and I am always ready to be more active about this – I *am* an American citizen by birth, after all.
Words, well they must firstly exist to describe what it is we are provided, in this case Rights. But it is true in the event all else breaks-down, you better have firearms because you’ll need them to WIN.
The 2A merely puts to words what already exists. Fascists and their slaves can enact whatever laws they want, the natural right of the people to defend themselves and secure their liberty is just that…natural. It’s up tothe American people whether they’ll let such a law exist, and thus extinguish the concept of liberty from Earth, or fight to reinstate it.
couldn’t have won if they weren’t armed we the people would have just been mown down, gotta say I envy you your constitution and maybe some of your citizens need to read a history book or three!