2nd Amendment

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Mark Walker, Nov 16, 2008.

  1. I believe that the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence is the whole point of the maintenance of the Second Amendment. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not. Maybe everyone should take a second read at it. I'm not saying that the government needs or should be overthrown, but gun ownership is thought to be another check and balance in the system.

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, 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, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
    He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
    He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
    He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
    He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
    He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
    He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
    He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
    He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
    He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
    He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
    He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
    For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
    For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
    For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
    For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
    For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
    For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
    For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
    He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
    He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
    He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
    He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
    He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

    In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

    Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

    We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
     
  2. Ken

    It was not too long ago that a man in Tacoma shot a burglar in the back as he was trying to escape. He was two houses down when the homeowner dropped him with one shot from his 45 Auto.

    The Grand Jury refused to indicate as the homeowner plead self defense, claiming the burglar had shouted he would be back.

    I have no idea if he did shout and was surprised that the homeowner got off but people are getting tired of being ripped off by thieves and other criminals and the Police are completely ineffective in protecting anyone.
     
  3. Yep...and with absolutely ZERO remorse.

    It is not the outboard motor...$2270 and that will be reimbursed by insurance minus deductible...big flippin' deal.

    To me, it's not the motor. It's certainly not the money. It is that someone came on MY property, stole my $hit and now I don't feel happy, cozy and safe in my own flippin' homestead. Can I leave that there or is someone gonna steal it. What's next...they gonna break in my house.

    That is why I would cause death to someone for "merely" stealing an outboard motor. Just how I roll.

    Ed
     
  4. I love TJ.

    Ed
     
  5. :iagree: Amen! :thumb: The previous should put it all to rest.
    The main reason for second amendent was to enable the people, should the need ever arise, to stand up against an oppresive government.
    That,,, is what scares the bejesus out of some politicians!
    :eek:

    Now, lest anyone contest whether or not and armed citizenry could stand up against the United States military, think about Viet Nam & Afganistan.
    And remember that bunch of rag tag rebels that stood up against the King of England! And won!
     
  6. While you're at it, don't overlook the ragtag group of rebels who chased the red army out of Afghanistan and by all accounts seem to be doing a pretty good job of eluding and fighting back against US forces today.

    That knife doesn't just cut one way.

    K
     
  7. don't forget that ragtag group of rebels didn't succeed until the US gave them the weapons (surface to air missles) to knock down the soviet helicopters (mostly Mi 4 Hound, Mi 6 Hook,Mi 24 Hind (D, E, etc) and assorted MIG 21's)
     
  8. OK - I'll give you that 'cause to reflect' may be a poor choice of words...but I do think we as a society are guilty if we can take reasonable actions to stop needless death. Cars, drugs, guns...all have reasonable, valid, life-affirming uses. But, used incorrectly, all can contribute to tragic loss of life. I totally agree that the action/person is the problem, not the gun per se, but unlike drugs and cars, personally I don't see that the cost/benefit calculation tips in favor of loose regulations on firearms. I don't advocate anything near a ban, but am strongly in favor of just about any tightening of the rules surrounding who, when and how someone can get a gun.

    As far as upholding the constitution -- I find it strange that every one seems to forget the 'well regulated militia' part. Here's the actual text (not that I need to quote the constitution to most of you)...

    "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."

    Now, I'm no constitutional lawyer, but I can say as an educated citizen, this is some extremely poor wording. My read of it is that the militia part is crucial, but I can see the alternative reading the focuses on individual rights to make pretty good sense as well. So I guess the real question for me is WWTFFS? (what would the founding fathers say?)
     
  9. I can't tell you how many forums are buzzing with this subject. Everyone has their "data" to back up their point of view. Too many have lots of names to call the folks on the other side of the debate. I can tell you this much, this administration will be the most anti-gun administration we have ever had. There exists many anti-gun, anti-hunting, anti-fishing, PETA loving, no fur wearing groups out there dying to win their battle. They don't care if you are law abiding or not, nor do several politicians. They want to control what you can do, what you can eat, what you can wear, etc. This is the best chance they've had in a long time.

    We will certainly see if the "paranoid gun lovers" are right or not, time will tell all as it always does. But on a larger scale beware of anyone that wants to control any part of your life. And some of you might consider some more self control...:ray1:

    Me, I'm going to the range tomorrow morning as I do every Wednesday and this weekend I'm going bird hunting and I'm gonna be shooting lead...:eek:

    The rest of you can keep up the pissin' match...:hmmm:
     
  10. hikepat, again, I'm no expert, but a jury of your peers would have to find you guilty of taking a life while in self defense or the defense of others, being threatened by someone with the means of deadly force. Breaking into your car while you were in it, maybe you walk. Just snooping around your yard, pretty unlikely. Some states may take a more firm stance to protect your property, but honestly that is what insurance is for...not life insurance.

    Hooked, I genuinely regard your input across the board as valuable. Please do not think that you or anyone else is truly capable of planning remorse and downplaying the psychologic affects that seeing or causing someone to die can have upon each of us. Not saying you are a puss and would break down, not saying you would not ever think about it after the fact for one more second. I just don't think until you are in those shoes that you can't exactly know how you will react.
     
  11. Matt

    The Founding Fathers had plenty to say about individual rights of gun ownership. Adams, Jefferson etc felt it was not only a right but a duty for an individual to own a weapon. They have written long and succinctly on the subject leaving no room for doubt as to their feelings. The 'militia only crowd' refuses to admit these writing into the discussion, preferring to play a game of semantics about a comma or a poorly phrased (in today's grammar) sentence.
     
  12. What about the first ammendment? Anyone give a damn about that anymore? Anyone?

    The second amendment is all about being able to quickly and efficiently form a miltia (remember back in the day when soldiers used their hunting rifles to defend their country) it in fact opens the door for regulation I'm just saying... Also when the rest of the constitution is shredded by the same folks who put the 2nd ammendment as some sort of inalienable right I get pissed... I like shooting guns just as much as the next guy but fuck I also like not having my phone line tapped without a warrent
     
  13. AKPM, what you been doing that your phone is getting tapped? :eek:Wait, don't answer that, they are reading this post too. Actually delete this entirely because now they know your IP address, my IP address and now we are in this together. Have they been outside on the street at night? Should I be looking out for them?:cool:

    I think that if you read the title of the thread it is about the 2nd Ammendment. Should we start a new thread about the 1st?
     
  14. Nah I'm just disgusted with NRA type folks making jokes out of possessing deadly force, it really pisses me off. Guns are not a laughing matter, its things like the original post on this thread that makes our nation have one of the highest (the highest?) violent crime rate of 1st world nations.
     
  15. Ed,

    I would sincerely hope I have not come across as downplaying the psychological effects relating to someone's past experiences; nor, do I underestimate the impacts of what we are talking about here. So, my apologies if I was as unclear as I usually am. I just have pretty strong feelings about some things in case you didn't notice (including IPA). I also respect other opinions so just call me crazy.

    I'm off to fight with an Akroyd now. I got plenty of Large Jungle Cock but I'm out of BEP.

    Ed

    Who is John Galt?
     

  16. Ed, I think we're good!:beer2:Oh, and you must be certifyably crazy too, IPA can't hold a candle to a nice Porter, but if you're buying IPA again, I think we're good.:beer2:

    Nothing like sharing beers over a casual conversation about the Constitution and Constitutional Ammendments!

    Good luck with the Akroyd, will we see photos?
     
  17. Haaaaa! You're an elitist fly fishing snob...drinkin' porter.

    Photos...hmmmmm...The akroyd is half finished, that's how fast I am. The dogs however had a good jaunt whilst I was swillin' on some peasant beer.

    I do have a Xmas fly that was d'round as a prototype for a CCA Xmas tying fest for them little chitlins. Here you go. Not super classic but I figured out the Golden P on the sweep which I was pretty stoked about.

    Back on topic. Here's two of the three solutions for household security too:D.

    Ed
     

    Attached Files:

  18. Recently in Skagit County they tried a guy for shooting 2 people on his front porch, killing one and permanently disabling the other. Both men that were shot were not armed and neither had entered the man’s house. The shooter used a defense that he was in fear for his and his daughter’s safety; he was acquitted.
     
  19. government infringing on an individuals rights?????????

    hey there, wake up, we have just spent the last 8 dark years with the government doing just that.

    the NRA has lost a major voice in congress and the WH with this election. that is the one and only reason they are making so much noise about guns and the 2nd. they have been marginalized and they don't really like that at all. but all of you citizens need to wake up to the fact that this is very small potatoes compared to what is still going on, right now, by the bush administration and the constitutional rights of US citizens.

    and i have to say, any person here who thinks they can kill and walk is delusional. without 'imminent danger' you are just a murderer, plain and simple.
     
  20. I'm a little late to the thread but I wanted to comment on something. Earlier in the thread the discussion had some focus on the constitution and whether Obama would respect it or try to change it etc. I don't believe those are the issues of concern. The Constitution will not be changed (I can't imagine another amendment in my lifetime for anything) and yes, Obama is a constitutional scholar and I have no reason to believe he doesn't respect it.

    The concern about the second amendment is not respecting it or changing it, it's in the "interpretation" of it. Further, the interpretation of it as it relates to the political and ideological positions of just 9 people in this country (you see where I am going). Constitutional Scholars disagree with each other all the time in good conscience and with good intent. To those both scholarly and otherwise who believe the 2nd amendment (and the various writings of the time they cite supporting it's "intent") gives the common citizen the right to bear arms, the issue is clear cut. But look at the recent Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. It passed 5 to 4 with the the votes falling on very well known ideological and political lines. I would love to think that politics has nothing to do with it and my preferred ideal is that the justices are voting their conscience and what they truly believe from a scholarly standpoint. However, Presidents pick justices who match their ideology and interpretations of major issues. Once in a while you get a justice who goes rogue, but history shows by in large they reflect the politics of the Presidents who appoint them.

    In his dissent, Justice Breyer wrote:

    "The self-defense interest in maintaining loaded handguns in the home to shoot intruders is not the primary interest, but at most a subsidiary interest," he wrote. "The Second Amendment's language, while speaking of a 'militia,' says nothing of 'self-defense.' "​

    President-Elect Obama has said that he supported the DC gun ban. Even with the DC v. Heller ruling, citizens in DC can only have a gun in their home. President Obama will likely have the opportunity to appoint more than one Supreme Court Justice, maybe three or four if he serves 8 years. I am inclined to think that there will be more Breyers, Ginsburg's and Souter's on the bench than Scalia's after he leaves office.

    my .02 cents


    < / Begin prayer >
    < Please God let me catch my first Steelhead soon, my arm is getting very tired and my spirits weak>
    < / End Prayer >
     

Share This Page