2A Narrative: Are we missing the primary point of debate?

[LibertyKid]

With all the debate happening regarding the 2A, I feel that many 2A supporters fail to point out the primary reason for the 2A. It's not for self defense, or my right to bare arms. The primary purpose is to keep the gov't in check. Therefore, all other pro 2A narratives, cascade under that premise. Because guns are necessary to keep a gov't in check and from tyranny, we therefore have the right to bare those arms that will serve that purpose, while providing the ability to protect family, property, etc.

But, I hear politicians who negate the primary purpose of the 2A when having conversations or debate gun laws, AR-15s, etc.

If Point A = Guns are necessary to keep a gov't in check and from tyranny and = True: One has to prove that the 2A is not meant for this purpose.

For me, all arguments rest on that premise.

 

[pknopp]

I've long argued that the people have the right to own anything the government does. Certainly it is not practical for most.

 

[Woodznutz]

Especially since the government is setting up a pretext to severely limit gun freedoms, that being the deliberate failure of the criminal justice system to control crime, and the Legislature's failure to enact the laws needed to accomplish it. The foxes are guarding the henhouse.

 

[Donald H]

Who really cares about the imagined threat by government. It's a fantasy on account of government doesn't threaten the people unless the government becomes the people taking part in an attempted coup or revolution.

The guns issue in America is all about the slaughter of the American people by themselves, on account of the shooters being influenced by the culture of violence and wars.

It's almost as if some people imagine all the Senators picking up AR15 and pointing them threateningly at over 300 million citizens!

A scam perped on lawabiding people for the purpose of allowing gun crazed goons to run around pretending to be cowboys! LOL

 

[M14 Shooter]

The guns issue in America is all about the slaughter of the American people by themselves, on account of the shooters being influenced by the culture of violence and wars.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Two types of people push for gun control:
-Those who know the state cannot have a monopoly on force so long as the citizenry remains armed
-Their useful idiots.

That simple.

 

[007]

 

[LibertyKid]

Quickly, we have gotten off track.

Who really cares about the imagined threat by government. It's a fantasy on account of government doesn't threaten the people unless the government becomes the people taking part in an attempted coup or revolution.

Define threat?

 

[Abatis]

With all the debate happening regarding the 2A, I feel that many 2A supporters fail to point out the primary reason for the 2A. It's not for self defense, or my right to bare arms. The primary purpose is to keep the gov't in check. . . .

All well and good but that doesn't really address the core truth that defeats all arguments for gun control.

The right to arms is a retained right that was possessed and exercised by the people for a myriad of purposes before the Constitution was ratified and the Bill of Rights was added. That means no aspect of the right to keep and bear arms was ever conferred to the care and control of the federal government. The reason "why" the 2ndA exists is to REDUNDANTLY prohibit the federal government to exercise powers it was never granted. The 2ndA doesn't "do" anything but that, forbid government to do things which no power exists for them to do.

Any divisionary discussion about the "intended" protection and uses of the right are both unnecessary and dangerous.

No power was granted to the federal government to allow it to dictate to the citizen what are the proper reasons why we are armed or the uses of those arms. The federal government is completely impotent in declaring that there are qualifications or conditions or certain restrictions on a citizens RKBA.

The only allowable restraint, the only allowance given to the federal government under the 2ndA is to restrict the citizen's possession and use of arms that are "dangerous and unusual". That legal designation and its long-ago establishment is its own discussion, and it does not mean what so many anti-gunners suggest it means.

The states of course had extensive powers to enact restrictions because the 2ndA was not enforceable on the states . . . Now that the 2ndA is FINALLY being enforced on the states, their claimed powers and discretion is being reined in (as it should be).

Enforcing the 2ndA / RKBA on the states is an ever evolving / developing section of the law being applied by the SCOTUS and that process is moving in the correct and proper direction.

In a couple exemplary cases, SCOTUS is forcing lower federal courts to revisit decisions they made sustaining state gun laws using now invalidated (by SCOTUS) legal reasoning. If those lower (inferior) courts do the correct thing, those illegitimate laws ("assault weapon" ban, standard capacity magazine ban, restrictive carry laws) will all be invalidated in short order.

 

[Donald H]

The 2A has become an Albatross hanging from the necks of parents of children in America.

It will never be interfered with and it's here forever!

The culture of wars and killing by Americans is still something that can be dealt with, if it doesn't take too long.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 2A has become an Albatross hanging from the necks of parents of children in America.

^^^
A lie

It will never be interfered with and it's here forever!

As intended.

The culture of wars and killing by Americans is still something that can be dealt with, if it doesn't take too long.

Yawn.

 

[Abatis]

The 2A has become an Albatross hanging from the necks of parents of children in America.

No, liberalism has, and the costs incurred in blood and $$$ fulfilling their corrupt hug-a-thug agenda, e.g., Philladelphia:

​

​

It will never be interfered with and it's here forever!

Correct. Liberals would better serve the nation if they confined their proposals to "fight crime" (LOL) to just what the government is allowed to do.

The culture of wars and killing by Americans is still something that can be dealt with, if it doesn't take too long.

We need to reject and purge the criminal-coddling leftists that are perverting the criminal justice system and decide to punish criminals. When "social justice" supplants criminal justice, all justice is extinguished.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9133.12597

 

[Donald H]

No, liberalism has, and the costs incurred in blood and $$$ fulfilling their corrupt hug-a-thug agenda, e.g., Philladelphia:

You may be right but it's an American problem and as a Canadian I don't try to break it down into its component parts for you.

I do however recognize that it's not the guns that are to blame, it's the American mindset and a culture of death and continuous wars of aggression.

I'm always willing to explore the problem further.

 

[LibertyKid]

You may be right but it's an American problem and as a Canadian I don't try to break it down into its component parts for you.

I do however recognize that it's not the guns that are to blame, it's the American mindset and a culture of death and continuous wars of aggression.

I'm always willing to explore the problem further.

And you've been advised that as a Canadian, you don't know everything, see everything, or understand the full context and narratives being fed to you.
The "culture" that you incorrectly keep resounding, is only one that exists within the liberal controlled cities.
As unfortunate and troubling as school shootings or other very random true "Mass shootings", they are infrequent. Don't let the media fool you into believing the urban gang related shootings that they call "Mass Shootings" are the same as a school shooting. They are not. However, the media and politicians lump them into the same bucket so they can emotionally persuade the public.

Yes, we have gun owners who "love" their guns. They enjoy the hobby of shooting, modifying, training, you name it. These are not the ones to be worried about (unless they belong to a religious cult).

You need to stop with this' "Culture" Narrative you keep bringing up, over and over as you honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Abatis]

You may be right but it's an American problem and as a Canadian I don't try to break it down into its component parts for you.

I do however recognize that it's not the guns that are to blame, it's the American mindset and a culture of death and continuous wars of aggression.

I'm always willing to explore the problem further.

Philly again . . . The direct and irrefutable evidence that "non-prosecution" IOW, not locking criminals up, costs lives . . .

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The primary purpose is to keep the gov't in check.

Wrong.

There is nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that supports insurrectionist dogma.

It was not the intent of the Framers that private citizens should seek to ‘overthrow’ a lawfully and constitutionally elected government reflecting the will of the people because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceived that government to have become ‘tyrannical.’

It was not the intent of the Framers to amend the Constitution to authorize the destruction of the Republic they had just created.

The Second Amendment codifies the individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense as established in Heller.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And you've been advised that as a Canadian, you don't know everything, see everything, or understand the full context and narratives being fed to you.
The "culture" that you incorrectly keep resounding, is only one that exists within the liberal controlled cities.
As unfortunate and troubling as school shootings or other very random true "Mass shootings", they are infrequent. Don't let the media fool you into believing the urban gang related shootings that they call "Mass Shootings" are the same as a school shooting. They are not. However, the media and politicians lump them into the same bucket so they can emotionally persuade the public.

Yes, we have gun owners who "love" their guns. They enjoy the hobby of shooting, modifying, training, you name it. These are not the ones to be worried about (unless they belong to a religious cult).

You need to stop with this' "Culture" Narrative you keep bringing up, over and over as you honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

That the racist right seeks to devalue the lives of Americans of color comes as no surprise.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That the racist right seeks to devalue the lives of Americans of color comes as no surprise.

Looking at who commits violent crime and who they commit it against...
No one devalues people of color more than the people of color themselves.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Second Amendment codifies the individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense as established in Heller.

Why do you continue to spread this lie?

 

[Abatis]

Wrong.

There is nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that supports insurrectionist dogma.

It was not the intent of the Framers that private citizens should seek to ‘overthrow’ a lawfully and constitutionally elected government reflecting the will of the people because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceived that government to have become ‘tyrannical.’

It was not the intent of the Framers to amend the Constitution to authorize the destruction of the Republic they had just created.

The Second Amendment codifies the individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense as established in Heller.

So much ignorant speculation about "intent" . . .

The only intent of the 2ndA was to redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it does not possess.

The 2ndA is not positive law, one cannot read it to learn the extent of the RKBA . . . As SCOTUS has said in boringly consistent fashion for now going on 150 years, because the right to arms is not granted by the 2ndA, the RKBA does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence.

That means the 2ndA cannot be legitimately read to impart qualifying or conditioning action because it is purely negative law, it demands government inaction, by forbidding government interference with the right to keep and bear arms.

Your idea that the framers didn't "intend" to protect this or that, is hogwash. The framers knew they were granted no power to make any determinations regarding a right that was fully retained by the people with no aspect of it conferred to the care or control of government.

.