The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 4, 2013, 03:22 PM   #1
Seeker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 30, 2001
Location: Lacomb, Oregon
Posts: 1,393
"Shot Heard Around the World"...

...is the famous catch-phrase that memorializes the the beginning of the American Revolution, but some have forgotten why there was any hostilities that day at all. It was about gun control.

The British had marched out to Concord and Lexington to seize cannon held by the colonists. Seems tyrants don't like their subjects armed as well as the government.

The Second amendment isn't about hunting, target practice, personal protection or even passing down granddads old shotgun. It's about citizens, not subjects, being able to defeat tyranny.

I just heard The POTUS on TV say the people should never out-gun law enforcement. However, that is exactly what the Second amendment is about.
-my feeling is that anyone that makes such a statement is in favor of government supremacy and opposed to individual freedom.
__________________
Molon Labe
Seeker

"The oppressed should rebel, and they will continue to rebel and raise disturbance until their civil rights are fully restored to them and all partial distinctions, exclusions and incapacitations are removed." --Thomas Jefferson
Don't Tread On Me!
"Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none" -- Thomas Jefferson

In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them. And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order to mobilize us.
-Thich Nhat Hanh
Seeker is offline  
Old February 4, 2013, 05:23 PM   #2
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,336
Quote:
The Second amendment isn't about hunting, target practice, personal protection or even passing down granddads old shotgun. It's about citizens, not subjects, being able to defeat tyranny.
I disagree, and so do many others. The 2nd Amendment is about all of those things. You'd be hard pressed to find any evidence that the Founders considered armed insurrection to be the only point of the 2A.

Quote:
I just heard The POTUS on TV say the people should never out-gun law enforcement.
This is similar to how things are in places like Mexico and Argentina, in which civilians have some right to gun ownership, but are prohibited from owning weapons in similar firepower or caliber to those used by government agents (hence the continued popularity of .38 Super).
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old February 4, 2013, 07:30 PM   #3
NWPilgrim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,150
From a Wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lexington

Quote:
Using detailed information provided by Loyalist spies, the grenadier companies searched the small town [Concord] for military supplies. When they arrived at Ephraim Jones's tavern, by the jail on the South Bridge road, they found the door barred shut, and Jones refused them entry. According to reports provided by local Tories, Pitcairn knew cannon had been buried on the property. Jones was ordered at gunpoint to show where the guns were buried. These turned out to be three massive pieces, firing 24-pound shot, that were much too heavy to use defensively, but very effective against fortifications, with sufficient range to bombard the city of Boston from other parts of nearby mainland.[64] The grenadiers smashed the trunnions of these three guns so they could not be mounted. They also burned some gun carriages found in the village meetinghouse, and when the fire spread to the meetinghouse itself, local resident Martha Moulton persuaded the soldiers to help in a bucket brigade to save the building.[65] Nearly a hundred barrels of flour and salted food were thrown into the millpond, as were 550 pounds of musket balls.
From other sources I have read that they were searching for cannon, lead shot and possibly muskets. Note the cannon are inappropriate for defensive use, only for assaulting a fortress. And the articles repeatedly state the British object was to search for and confiscate military stores.

It would hard to read the second amendment in this context and not conclude that it encompasses arms up to and including heavy cannon, or in our modern day, tanks, anti-aircraft, mines, etc. Somehow the Supreme Court has read this and determined it only means normal infantry arms and even then allows "reasonable restrictions."

Of course if the 2A protects heavy cannon for attacking fortified positions, then it obviously encompasses all other armed activities such as hunting, self-defense, and sport.

The narration of the colonial gun and beacon alrms going off hours before the British embarked from their boats seemed eerily similar to the helicopter approach scene in Black Hawk Down
__________________
"The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone. ... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition."
- James Madison
NWPilgrim is offline  
Old February 4, 2013, 10:50 PM   #4
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,336
Quote:
Of course if the 2A protects heavy cannon for attacking fortified positions, then it obviously encompasses all other armed activities such as hunting, self-defense, and sport.
Not necessarily, and that could put us back in the Miller position, in which we were limited only to weapons suitable for militia service.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old February 5, 2013, 01:19 AM   #5
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
I personally like to look at the 2A through the lense of our (WA) state constitution.

Article 1 section 24:

"SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

Consider; "Defense of himself" is first and formost..."or the state" is secondary. with the exclusion of a "private army"

It is an individual right, that is to be first used by the individual for his own self defense, reguardless of reason (robber or tyranical government), and then, if the state has a problem, the individual may be called upon to defend the state (we are not talking NG here, we are talking about defending the state with our privately owned weapons, maybe even our privately owned ammo.)

Then it explictly states that this section does not authorize privately controlled armies.

Personally, I think this is exactly what the 2A is saying.
hermannr is offline  
Old February 5, 2013, 02:41 AM   #6
NWPilgrim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,150
Quote:
Not necessarily, and that could put us back in the Miller position, in which we were limited only to weapons suitable for militia service.
Legally speaking I would agree with you Tom.
__________________
"The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone. ... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition."
- James Madison
NWPilgrim is offline  
Old February 5, 2013, 07:49 AM   #7
terzmo
Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2012
Posts: 59
The government position is the private law abiding citicen does not need an ar-15 for hunting. They are focussing most attention on the "hunter" platform and that is what is getting alot of people behind the government position. "you don't need 30 rounds to kill bambi" gets alot of people thinking negitive towards the sport and positive about "gun control" It makes sense to "them".

On our side, there a a few hinting revolution, violence and mayhem if guns are controlled or taken. This is not helping the anti gun control position. It fuels the thought all hunters and pro gun people are beer swilling, idiots with no respect for the law.

I see, in NY, SCOPE is very active in this issue but haven't heard what the NRA is doing. I believe it would be wiser to defeat the NY law, then it would set a precedence.
terzmo is offline  
Old February 5, 2013, 09:05 AM   #8
CowTowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,192
Funny thing about AR15's and hunting. We use them for just that here in Texas. I guess the folks in Washington D.C. aren't aware of our feral hog issues down here.
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearm Safety and Pistol Instructor
"There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see."
Leonardo da Vinci
CowTowner is offline  
Old February 5, 2013, 09:50 PM   #9
mrbatchelor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by CowTowner View Post
Funny thing about AR15's and hunting. We use them for just that here in Texas. I guess the folks in Washington D.C. aren't aware of our feral hog issues down here.
Well, yes they are. But they don't care. The folks in Washington are playing a political game.


Remember, "Anyone who is satisfied with their current medical coverage can keep it just like it is" {with our mandated changes}.


Now the Supreme Court has ruled that it isn't insurance, it's a tax. When the Roosevelt administration rammed Social Security through they sold it to the public as a savings account, but they sold it to the Supreme Court as a tax.


A tax is one of the few things the government has legitimate power to do. So if all you have is a hammer, everything has to look like a nail.


The moral of this story is that the government wraps the story into whatever package they need to get it passed, without much regard to real facts. Your facts that your modern rifle is used for hunting is just an inconvenient truth.


What we need to be focusing in on, in my mind, is that we don't expect people to drive cars built with 1940's technology. Why do we think people hunt with 1940's technology.


Sure, some aficionados do. I have a whole collection of black powder guns. But that's out of the norm, not the mainstream. I'm also in the process of trying to build a collection of WWI, WWII, Korean, and Vietnam examples. Again, out of the ordinary.


We've got to make it clear that the AR15 is the rifle of the ordinary working man today. Just look at how many of them are out there. They define mainstream. That's the narrative we need.
mrbatchelor is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 08:47 AM   #10
CowTowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,192
Add to that ^^^^ the amount of tax dollars generated by the manufacture, shipping and sales of the accessories that go on those rifles.
An appeal to the federal wallet may also be in order.
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearm Safety and Pistol Instructor
"There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see."
Leonardo da Vinci
CowTowner is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08154 seconds with 7 queries