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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Try It For 5 Days! - The Most EFFICIENT Way To LOSE FAT

Number Of US Student Visas Issued To Asians Tumbles

Range than U.S HIMARS, Russia Unveils New Variant of 300mm Rocket Launcher on KamAZ-63501 Chassis

Keir Starmer’s Hidden Past: The Cases Nobody Talks About

BRICS Bombshell! Putin & China just DESTROYED the U.S. Dollar with this gold move

Clashes, arrests as tens of thousands protest flood-control corruption in Philippines

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


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: 315
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 # 8.

#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  


#3. To: Paul Revere, Blue, shooters here (#2)

Got anything on that?

We just took delivery of two .416's if that tells how we feel about the 2A...

The paperwork included the typical lawyered-up WARNING: This round can be fatal up to five miles.

Lod  posted on  2007-04-10   16:25:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: lodwick (#3)

I'm not so much interested in what hardware people have, as their attitudes about attempts to make the second amendment much more limited than it is intended. It seems that the events of Columbine and other incidents are used, much as "terror," to limit our freedoms.

Paul Revere  posted on  2007-04-10   16:31:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Paul Revere (#4) (Edited)

The process started along time ago when Tommy Guns got a bad rap because mobsters used them. (You can go back farther if you like regarding gun ownership to minorities.) Columbine had the nil effect of trigger locks which is nothing compared to banning machine guns or the FAA banning guns on airplanes.

JohnGalt  posted on  2007-04-10   16:37:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: JohnGalt (#5)

...the FAA banning guns on airplanes.

Courtesy the smirk regime only a few month pre-9/11.

Lod  posted on  2007-04-10   16:39:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: lodwick (#7)

No, the FAA hasn't approved guns on planes since the 70s, I think the cover was DB Cooper or a spat of hijackings, I cannot quite recall.

JohnGalt  posted on  2007-04-10   16:46:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 8.

#11. To: JohnGalt (#8)

OK - You're talking passengers, and I'm talking pilots - aren't we?

Lod  posted on  2007-04-10 17:02:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 8.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


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