Friday, March 26, 2010

What Does the 2nd Amendment Really Mean?

Hi guys, this is the latest clip for Grab the Apple. Hope you like it and it helps understand what some of the terms mean: well regulated (well equipped) miliita (armed adults)free state (as in contrast to one that isn't free, such as a dictatorship) Keep and bear (own firearms and carry then on you)



FerFAL

10 comments:

DannyHSDad said...

Unfortunately, most people in the US have poor understanding of 2A.

I was raised in an anti-war (and anti-gun) culture here in the US.

However, I became pro-war during college years and became Republican in spirit and in voting (but never did donate any money).

In spite of it all, I went along with what I learned from the media and believed that guns were for sporting and home defense.

I didn't start to own guns until recently (after having 2 sons and they became teenagers), but after reading more about rights (especially through lewrockwell.com) and seeing what happened after Katrina (gun confiscations) and moving from TX to CA, I take 2A more seriously and follow 2A cases more avidly.

All this to say, I agree with you FerFAL: I believe that 2A gives rights to the people to over throw the government, along with recreational and self-defense usage. (The other power of the people is nullification but that would be getting off topic...)

BTW, I see myself as libertarian now.

David said...

Sawing away at the U.S. Bill of Rights started quite quickly, a predictable condition given that (especially with the direct election of senators passed in 1913) in all disputes between the central government and the citizen, it was an arm of the federal government that adjudicated the matter.

If you have a dispute with someone and you have no choice but to bring your dispute to his employee (as the judge), who do you think will prevail?

As long as U.S. citizens identify themselves as "CITIZENS of the USA" first and foremost, they will accept (maybe angrily, but still accept) whatever idiocy and evil the men and women ruling them decree.

Throughout its history, once it arrogated the power to judge the constitutionality of all laws, the Supreme Court has consistently rules with an expansive view of government power and a constricted view of individual protections from government power. Even the recent Heller decision gives ample room to limit the 2nd Am "by law," when in fact no such language exists in the stupid document.

500 years ago Etienne De La Boetie showed that all political rulers, despotic tyrants or "nice guys," rule with the consent of the governed. We all get the government we deserve, or at least the government our neighbors tolerate.

Of course, Sallust noted 2000 years ago that most men do not desire freedom; most only wish for a just master. MOST PEOPLE PREFER TO BE SLAVES, a condition all of us can see any time we open our eyes.

Anonymous said...

Back in 1982 the Senate authorized a study of the 2nd Amendment to find out what it meant. They didn't like the result: it was an individual right, had nothing to do with the militia. It was aimed directly at giving citizens the means to resist a tyrannical government. The Senate was not happy with the report, and let it fall into obscurity.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html

irishdutchuncle said...

there is another very good explanation of all this in backwods home magazine. they have their archive available for anyone to view online. see the article: "we don't need no steenking second amendment".

Anonymous said...

I might also add that the second amendment's reference to arms does not specifically mean guns.
I believe the original intention was to have a militia that could meet force with force on an equal footing.
This of course was made into law before even the invention of the gatling gun, let alone RPGs and shoulder launched missiles.

Anonymous said...

HI ferfal,

Your friend from Chicago here.

Enjoy your stuff except the Obama bashing. Just a reminder that the conservatives here(to me at least) are the ones just that block anything good laws that favor the middle and poor classes. The current employment benefits bill, health care bill and McCain and friends blocking extending benefits fir war veterans come to mind.

This also enforces what you said

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM&feature=related

-SS

Patrick said...

Where does the 2nd Amendment come in when the government has cyborg beetles and electromagentic pain rays?

Let's put this in proper context, guns can only defend you against petty criminals, the only way to overthrow the government is to grow your own food and de-escalate your participation in the ponzi scheme. That said, you can use guns to defend yourself against petty criminals who might interrupt that process, from piquiteros for instance. But if they want to WACO you they'll do it, rednecks with thermal goggles and rifles have a .00001% of winning an offensive guerilla war against the crypto-fascist state.

Rey said...

SS don't you get that "doing something for the people" is armed robbery of the producer to feed the voting recipient? Don't you understand that its making both the recipient and the producer slaves? When the government takes from one it steals its labor and one it gives it to the other it steals their free will.
The only true way of "doing something for the people" is not by making them wards of the state but by getting out of the way.
Allow the producers to freely produce and exchange the products of their hands and minds with other free men. Do not rob them of their property thru taxation or inflation. A rising tide raises all boats. Will there be some who can not adjust to not been dependents of the state? Yes. That is where charity and compassion come in. But charity and compassion can not come at the point of the federal master's gun, they always come from the free individual. If there was 1% unemployment in the US, do you not think we would be better off?, Do you not think we would be scrambling to import more labor therefore benefiting our neighbors? Or do you believe that extending the unemployment benefits yet again (is over a year now) and stealing from the producer to provide another fix to the vein of the dependent recipient will do more for the"people"? If you truly believe that, I say to you "may the chains of slavery be set upon you lightly"

Anonymous said...

Patrick,

Time to up your dosage of lithium.

Best regards

Patrick said...

Anonymous,

Time to learn how to cut and paste phrases you are skeptical of into a search engine.

Cyborg Beetles, Pain Ray.

Sincerely