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

[2aguy]

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

The only group doing that is the democrats......their policies have created generational crime and poverty and have cost young black men their lives....in the 10s of thousands every single year............

 

[Hollie]

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

As is typical of the left, you retreat to playing the race card because you have no supportable argument.

Having little understanding of the Constitution or the intent of the framers, I'm pleased to offer a race baiter a bit of knowledge.

The entire constitution defines rules that limit the government's involvement in the citizen's lives. It is clearly a muzzle on the state's ability to dictate to the citizenry what it can and cannot do within the paradigm of the federal mandate. Certainly rule of law is to be enforced, but that is also controlled at the local level. It does not take any stretch of imagination to understand that the framers of the constitution intended to place limits such that government is restrained from interfering with individual freedoms.

 

[LibertyKid]

As is typical of the left, you retreat to playing the race card because you have no supportable argument.

Having little understanding of the Constitution or the intent of the framers, I'm pleased to offer a race baiter a bit of knowledge.

The entire constitution defines rules that limit the government's involvement in the citizen's lives. It is clearly a muzzle on the state's ability to dictate to the citizenry what it can and cannot do within the paradigm of the federal mandate. Certainly rule of law is to be enforced, but that is also controlled at the local level. It does not take any stretch of imagination to understand that the framers of the constitution intended to place limits such that government is restrained from interfering with individual freedoms.

To add to this, let's not forget that each state had their own constitutions that also supported the right to bare arms. So the "Muzzle" was clearly reinforced and supported by state constitutions.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

The problem with the 2A being a check on tyranny is that it has been a total failure in that regard. In 2020, virtually the entire country was placed under house arrest and not one tyrant was shot in response. Had a tyrant been shot the pro-2A crowd would have condemned the act. I mean, just look at the Right's reaction to the Whitmer kidnapping plot before it was exposed as an FBI hoax.

 

[Blues Man]

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

if you expect the government to protect you then you are more likely to end up dead.

The police have no legal obligation t come to your aid. They have no legal obligation to protect you.

The police are nothing but a revenue arm of the state and care more about issuing fines and fabricating scenarios where they can use asset forfeiture laws to make more money for the state.

Law abiding people are not the problem and the fact that a vanishingly small percentage of people in this country will use a gun to kill has absolutely nothing to do with people who own and use guns legally and responsibly.

 

[Blues Man]

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

Except that people of colo9r are killing each other off.

They do not value their own lives.

And before you start calling me a racist, my mother was Black and I grew up in the shittiest of shitty urban neighborhoods and I know this first hand.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

It's not about insurrection it is about the preservation of liberty from a tyrannical government be that foreign or domestic.

 

[whitehall]

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.

The alleged "primary point of debate" has been upheld in about a dozen Supreme Court decisions so it is no longer a primary point of debate.

 

[LibertyKid]

The alleged "primary point of debate" has been upheld in about a dozen Supreme Court decisions so it is no longer a primary point of debate.

Don't disagree. The attempted point is this: Anti-gunners says we must ban ARs, or ban guns entirely, or greatly restrict access to specific types of firearms. This means that the left "Trusts" government, more than they value the freedom and liberties that our constitution and the 2A helps to protect. The narrative we see shouts "Ban Guns", but I don't hear a lot of counter arguments as to why we the constitution allow the right to bare arms. The primary reason is to prevent a tyrannical gov't, Local, State and Federal Levels. By that allowance, we are then able to self defend. Pro 2A supporters should remind, more effectively and often, that the 2A is meant to protect us from the gov't. And if you trust the gov't more than our rights... there's Canada to the north, and the shit hole of Mexico to the south.

 

[whitehall]

Don't disagree. The attempted point is this: Anti-gunners says we must ban ARs, or ban guns entirely, or greatly restrict access to specific types of firearms. This means that the left "Trusts" government, more than they value the freedom and liberties that our constitution and the 2A helps to protect. The narrative we see shouts "Ban Guns", but I don't hear a lot of counter arguments as to why we the constitution allow the right to bare arms. The primary reason is to prevent a tyrannical gov't, Local, State and Federal Levels. By that allowance, we are then able to self defend. Pro 2A supporters should remind, more effectively and often, that the 2A is meant to protect us from the gov't. And if you trust the gov't more than our rights... there's Canada to the north, and the shit hole of Mexico to the south.

I suspect the "Kid" might be an ATF troll waiting for someone to post some outrageous threat against the government. Remember Ruby Ridge and Waco and be careful what you post. If I am wrong my apologies to the Kid.

 

[LibertyKid]

I suspect the "Kid" might be an ATF troll waiting for someone to post some outrageous threat against the government. Remember Ruby Ridge and Waco and be careful what you post. If I am wrong my apologies to the Kid.

Nope, I am not LOL

 

[Flash]

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

I had typed out a response to your stupidity but then I remembered you are Canadian so not worth the bother to educate.

 

[Flash]

if you expect the government to protect you then you are more likely to end up dead.

The police have no legal obligation t come to your aid. They have no legal obligation to protect you.

The police are nothing but a revenue arm of the state and care more about issuing fines and fabricating scenarios where they can use asset forfeiture laws to make more money for the state.

Law abiding people are not the problem and the fact that a vanishingly small percentage of people in this country will use a gun to kill has absolutely nothing to do with people who own and use guns legally and responsibly.

He is a Canadian. He doesn't have any concept of Liberty. In his country the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege, not a right. Why waste your time?

 

[Donald H]

He is a Canadian. He doesn't have any concept of Liberty. In his country the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege, not a right. Why waste your time?

I have been told to mind my own business. Do I have your permission to reply?