[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The death of Yu Menglong: Political scandal in China (Homo Rape & murder of Actor)

The Pacific Plate Is CRACKING: A Massive Geological Disaster Is Unfolding!

Waste Of The Day: Veterans' Hospital Equipment Is Missing

The Earth Has Been Shaken By 466,742 Earthquakes So Far In 2025

LadyX

Half of the US secret service and every gov't three letter agency wants Trump dead. Tomorrow should be a good show

1963 Chrysler Turbine

3I/ATLAS is Beginning to Reveal What it Truly Is

Deep Intel on the Damning New F-35 Report

CONFIRMED “A 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon on 9/11” says Military witnesses on the scene

NEW: Armed man detained at site of Kirk memorial: Report

$200 Silver Is "VERY ATTAINABLE In Coming Rush" Here's Why - Mike Maloney

Trump’s Project 2025 and Big Tech could put 30% of jobs at risk by 2030

Brigitte Macron is going all the way to a U.S. court to prove she’s actually a woman

China's 'Rocket Artillery 360 Mile Range 990 Pound Warhead

FED's $3.5 Billion Gold Margin Call

France Riots: Battle On Streets Of Paris Intensifies After Macron’s New Move Sparks Renewed Violence

Saudi Arabia Pakistan Defence pact agreement explained | Geopolitical Analysis

Fooling Us Badly With Psyops

The Nobel Prize That Proved Einstein Wrong

Put Castor Oil Here Before Bed – The Results After 7 Days Are Shocking

Sounds Like They're Trying to Get Ghislaine Maxwell out of Prison

Mississippi declared a public health emergency over its infant mortality rate (guess why)

Andy Ngo: ANTIFA is a terrorist organization & Trump will need a lot of help to stop them

America Is Reaching A Boiling Point

The Pandemic Of Fake Psychiatric Diagnoses

This Is How People Actually Use ChatGPT, According To New Research

Texas Man Arrested for Threatening NYC's Mamdani

Man puts down ABC's The View on air

Strong 7.8 quake hits Russia's Kamchatka


Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: The Second Amendment is Second Only to the First
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 10, 2007
Author: Paul Revere
Post Date: 2007-04-10 15:57:37 by Paul Revere
Keywords: first amendment, second amendment, constitution
Views: 301
Comments: 29

The Second Amendment is Second Only to the First

People who try to limit the second amendment to hunting needs or the maintenance of a State Guard unit are an affront to the sacrifice and genius of the founding fathers. The purpose of the second amendment is to assure that Americans stay armed, as the ultimate check on a government created with checks and balances.

Our founding fathers rightly feared having a central government that had the power to dominate citizens and deprive them of their liberties. They saw first hand that a country of well armed citizens could overthrow a government which oppressed them. The goal of the second amendment is to keep our federal government from ever thinking about depriving us of our constitutional rights.

The first amendment is much heralded, and it should be. The colonies were created in part because people wanted to be free to practice their religion without having their government involved. Our right of free speech is the ability to criticize our government and each other freely. We treasure these rights, as we should.

The second amendment is much maligned, and it should not be. The colonies could never have achieved independence without the population being well-armed. It was the ability of the colonists to form militias and carry out attacks against the British that gave us our victory. If we had not been armed, we would still be bowing to the royals of Britain.

The opponents of the second amendment don't get it. They don't get that our risks and our freedoms go hand in hand. Yes, an armed society has more gun deaths. If our only goal as a country was to minimize guns deaths, gun control measures would do it. But we have a bundle of rights, and those rights include the right to keep and bear arms. Assault weapons, too? Yes, if that is what a person wishes to buy, and they're not a criminal or a certifiably crazy person.

There will always be years when a Charles Whitman crawls up into a tower and shoots a bunch of innocent people. There will always be a Columbine high school student or a postal worker who decides to shoot his classmates or co-workers.

Violent criminals should be locked up and put away forever, whether they use a gun or not. Stop paroling violent criminals. Punish the crime, not the weapon of the crime. There are tens of millions of guns in this country, and most of them are used a lot more safely than the tens of millions of automobiles in this country, which are every bit as dangerous.

The second amendment is second only to the first. If we lose the rights in the second, we'll eventually lose the rights in the first.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 16.

#1. To: Paul Revere (#0)

We treasure these rights, as we should.

Do we?

Do we really, us garden variety Americans?

Because I don't think we really do. Oh, sure, we SAY that we do. But what about the virulent hatred of the ACLU? Or even the ACLU itself in its refusal to fight for the 2d Amendment rights of Americans?

I don't think all Americans treasure the bill of rights or our freedom of speech, assembly or religion. Look at the hatred of Muslims as a religion. Or the lack of outcry when the Dallas police ride roughshod (with horses, literally) over peaceful protestors. Or when people are arrested for carrying placards along a presidential limo route.

I long ago concluded that most people who call themselves Christians didn't deserve to be the inheritors of such a genius of a religion as Christianity. I'm beginning to believe that most Americans aren't worthy of the genius of the government the founders established. We certainly haven't shown any great willingness to fight to retain it.

Twenty Muslims (I'm adopting the official version of 9-11 for argument only) flew some planes into a few buildings and killed around three thousand Americans, and we renounced the Geneva Conventions, Habeas Corpus, our UN obligations, international law and the Fourth Amendment in our fearful response.

That sounds like the actions of a pack of scared, lilly livered weaklings to me. Not people who "treasure" their liberties.

bluedogtxn  posted on  2007-04-10   16:10:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: bluedogtxn (#1)

The topic is the second amendment, not the first.

If you'd like to talk about the first, fine, but that's another topic, and you really should start a thread about that.

I have plenty of opinions about this first amendment, but this thread is about the second. Got anything on that?

Paul Revere  posted on  2007-04-10   16:18:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Paul Revere (#2)

The topic is the second amendment, not the first.

And my observations stand in regard to that one, too. The Feds have made it illegal to sell the kinds of weapons that we could really defend our liberties with, and they did it a long time ago, with nary a whimper from us.

So we're debating how big the stock is or the clip or the scope or the penetrating power of the rounds, nevermind the fact that you have to register ownership and the first thing they'll do in the case of insurrection is go to all the registered owners and force them to surrender their guns for "public safety" reasons. We saw that in Katrina, didn't we? By what right or law did weapons confiscation take place there? And that was mercenaries, no less, taking guns from private citizens. Barely a whisper of protest.

So the 2d Amendment is a dead letter anyway. It's an amendment we neither understand nor enforce. We don't deserve it, frankly, because we've given it up so easily.

The first thing they did when taking away our freedom was to take away our right to firearms, and they did it a long time ago without much protest from us. What we have left is a privilege, to be revoked by the Elected King at will. Else how is it that there is a gun ban in Washington DC, a purely federal preserve?

Should we bring back the 2d Amendment? Sure, but I'd like a big mansion and a pony and million dollars, too. I mean, while we're wishing on stars...

bluedogtxn  posted on  2007-04-10   16:54:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: bluedogtxn (#10)

Let's try this again.

One topic is the first amendment. It's different from the one called the second amendment. They're tied together consecutively by the founders, and the second follows only the first. By this placement we might infer the importance to the founders who adopted the Bill of Rights. I'm sure you've read the 87 Federalist Papers, and know this.

I agree that the first amendment has been terribly trounced upon this administration, and most Americans have not done much about, but that does not alter the status those rights have as TREASURED.

You infer improperly when you conclude otherwise.

Paul Revere  posted on  2007-04-10   17:42:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Paul Revere (#14)

Let's try this again.

Americans have not done much about, but that does not alter the status those rights have as TREASURED.

Yes, it absolutely does.

Because if you treasure something, you protect it passionately. You will not let it be taken from you. You will defend it, and if you treasure it enough and want it to be a legacy to your children and you want them to treasure it as you do, you will die defending it.

And we don't do that.

We didn't defend the second Amendment when the Supreme Court permitted the feds to strip it of all meaning and relegate it to some historical dustbin about militias; we didn't defend it passionately when they took our automatic weapons away; we don't defend the ancillary rights to possess explosives for the purpose of protecting ourselves against the oppression of the government, which is what the 2d amendment was intended for.

If we aren't willing to stand up and fight for this "right", then it isn't a treasured right, it is a dead fucking letter. Just like the rest of the constitution has become.

You have free speech unless you say the wrong thing, then you can be imprisoned for life without trial by the president.

You have freedom of assembly unless you assemble with folks who are anti- gummint, and then you are subject to being arrested and held without trial and tortured forever.

We've given the president the power to designate anyone, including American Citizens, as "enemy combatants" and put them in prison for a short life of torture and anonymous death.

You want to try this again? Okay.

Obviously we don't have any "treasured" rights in this country, because if we treasured them, there'd be blood in the streets right now. They have ALL been taken away. The president can lock up anyone anytime on just his own say-so. He and the rest of our representatives have stripped us of ALL of our rights, and with our tacit permission.

We didn't understand what was happening because we were too lazy to take the time to understand. We didn't fight because we didn't have the courage to fight. There's no blood in the streets because when it came our time to water the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants, we declined. Because we value our safety over our liberty; our property over our freedoms and our dependence over resistance.

So we did this to ourselves. We deserve the tyranny we've inherited and permitted. And our progenitors would be ashamed to even look at us.

So you can talk and talk about which hypothetical right we once had was more important than whichever other one, and you might be right or you might be wrong, but it's all hypothetical bullshit. Because if your words ever truly mean anything or impact anyone significantly enough, the powers that we've permitted to take over this country will arrest you and disappear you.

Get used to being governed without your consent, because we've consented to the government we have.

And welcome to police state America.

bluedogtxn  posted on  2007-04-10   18:01:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: bluedogtxn (#15)

Well, that's certainly one point of view.

Paul Revere  posted on  2007-04-10   18:13:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 16.

#28. To: Paul Revere (#16)

Well, that's certainly one point of view.

I'm lifting a candle, Paul. Time for you to take your ride.

bluedogtxn  posted on  2007-04-11 09:31:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 16.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]