Are we failing at the 2nd Amendment arguement?

SPC(P) Jay Heenan — Fri, 29 Apr 2016 18:40:54 -0400

Apparently, I am inept at posting questions. I forgot to add my comments. So, I guess I will have to add it here. Sorry in advance.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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." We all know this, but are we failing the argument when we bring in 'self defense', 'hunting', or any of the many other reasons we use? Personally, I believe the Second Amendment isn't about any of that. I think the more 'reasons' we use to defend it, the more we muddy what is not supposed to be muddy. What do you all think?

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2016 6:42 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 29 Apr 2016 18:42:17 -0400

Why do you believe we are failing the argument?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2016 6:44 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 29 Apr 2016 18:44:45 -0400

How so? I see a lot of support for the 2A, gun ownership has been growing over the past ten years. There are now an estimated 100 million gun owners. I see this as a 2A win, citizens exercising their right to keep and bear arms. Don't be discouraged by the anti-gun crowd.

Response by SPC(P) Jay Heenan made Apr 29 at 2016 6:52 PM

SPC(P) Jay Heenan — Fri, 29 Apr 2016 18:52:27 -0400

Response by SPC Makissa Lewis made Apr 29 at 2016 7:03 PM

SPC Makissa Lewis — Fri, 29 Apr 2016 19:03:27 -0400

Is it an argument that one wants to win?

Response by SPC Rory J. Mattheisen made Apr 29 at 2016 7:09 PM

SPC Rory J. Mattheisen — Fri, 29 Apr 2016 19:09:06 -0400

I think we are failing to see that there is no 2nd Amendment argument, it is being used as a smokescreen to hide the actual issues: Income inequality, repayment of Social Security, and private interests owning the house and senate.

Response by Alan K. made Apr 29 at 2016 7:13 PM

Alan K. — Fri, 29 Apr 2016 19:13:59 -0400

Now that I have scrolled down and read your actual question I see exactly where your going with this. On that point I agree. The second amendment is just that simple, I'm not going to retype....you did a fine job below. the second amendment is a 100% thing. When you add hunting, self defense, target shooting....Now you have quartered it, I see. However I believe we are GTG on the second, I'm not saying they won't try to limit, tax, try to register etc. etc. etc. Just my opinion.....BTW, you're way better than me at posting heck you posted to 4 groups at the same time! I am still working on graphics for a post but i think I have it!

Response by PFC Daniel Starrett made Apr 29 at 2016 7:33 PM

PFC Daniel Starrett — Fri, 29 Apr 2016 19:33:39 -0400

Twenty years ago I would say we were failing the argument, since back then our National Guard was controlled by the state and not the Federal Government. Yeah, yeah, I KNOW, the National Guard still falls under state authority; except when the President wants to send more troops over seas, then he (the president) grabs the individual state guards and sends them overseas. I would LOVE to find our military back to where it was originally designed: active army flies out, reserve activates up to get more intense training in case the active units shit hits the fan and the National Guard does not leave their home state, unless it is to go to a neighboring (physically touching neighbor at that) state in the case of a natural disaster. But with the way things are now, we do not HAVE a "well regulated state militia" any more; Uncle Sam does, but we don't.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Apr 29 at 2016 8:49 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Fri, 29 Apr 2016 20:49:07 -0400

I agree, allowing the debate to go to weaker ground is poor choice. Win the high ground first, then descend to the lowe rmore tenous positions. My (detailed) thoughts on how to win arguments about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms:
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/does-the-second-amendment-need-to-be-amended

Does the Second Amendment need to be Amended? | RallyPoint

There's been a lot of debate about firearms and firearm ownership recently. I've been a part of a lot of it. I think one thing that is achingly necessary is some close reading of the Second Amendment itself. I slapped together a powerpoint for my sister a few years ago on the topic, and will post the text here with the title slide as an image (because it outlines the argument.) 2. Inherent Right to Self Defense All persons entitled to defend...

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2016 9:00 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 29 Apr 2016 21:00:15 -0400

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the US Supreme court held (5-4) that the prefatory clause of the second amendments announces the purpose, but does not expound upon or limit the scope of the operative clause. So yeah, we suck. In all actuality, limiting a felon's right to own firearms is unconstitutional. I'm not saying its not a good idea to limit access to firearms for felons but that is clearly "infringing" on their rights. Last I checked, federal statutes do not trump constitutional amendments.

Response by SSG Jeremy Kohlwes made Apr 29 at 2016 9:24 PM

SSG Jeremy Kohlwes — Fri, 29 Apr 2016 21:24:58 -0400

I think we are failing as a society to truly understand what the Constitution means. Everyone has gotten so butthurt and keeps trying to rationalize it away. We know what the purpose was when our Founding Fathers wrote it, at least we do if we didn't sleep through history class in high school. And all those other purposes was normal for that time as well.

Response by Cpl Rc Layne made Apr 29 at 2016 10:20 PM

Cpl Rc Layne — Fri, 29 Apr 2016 22:20:36 -0400

I think that the two most overlooked words in the argument are "The People." As in "We The People " and "the right of The People." I really don't think that the Founders were referring to different types of "People".

Response by MSgt John McGowan made Apr 29 at 2016 10:36 PM

MSgt John McGowan — Fri, 29 Apr 2016 22:36:28 -0400

SPC The folks that hates guns ar out shouting the gun people. It's going to depend on who wins the election. A large amount of people will not give them up. But you can rest knowing that all the big shots will be guarded with fire arms.

Response by SPC Brian Mason made Apr 30 at 2016 12:41 AM

SPC Brian Mason — Sat, 30 Apr 2016 00:41:24 -0400

When it was added, there weren't that many people around. Militias were untrained and vastly unlike our military. A militia /mᵻˈlɪʃə/[1] generally is an army or other fighting unit that is composed of non-professional fighters, citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government who can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel, or historically, members of the warrior nobility class (e.g., knights or samurai). Unable to hold their own against properly trained and equipped professional forces, it is common for militias to engage in guerrilla warfare or defense instead of being used in open attacks and offensive actions.
There were many groups of not-so-nice people, including Indian attacks. This regulated protection for the entire town as well as individuals in their homes = think thieves and marauders.
I for one am very glad that it's in there. It also to protect our rights given by the Constitution. Against all threats foreign and especially domestic. "Bearing arms" does not single it's coverage for use in firearms only. It's messed up that there are people who think it right on their part to just enter someone's home without their permission. A majority of the time they are armed. Since when do criminals give any thought to the law? The outcome of breaking the law, to them is more important than following it.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Apr 30 at 2016 1:24 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Sat, 30 Apr 2016 01:24:29 -0400

Good point.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 30 at 2016 2:24 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 30 Apr 2016 02:24:26 -0400

The 2nd amendment is perfectly clear in its intended purpose. It is only those on the left who choose to muddy its meaning.

Response by SFC Charles Temm made Apr 30 at 2016 12:21 PM

SFC Charles Temm — Sat, 30 Apr 2016 12:21:17 -0400

Something to be said regarding too many arguments maybe muddling the fight but given how many different directions progs/statists come at this critical part of the Bill of Rights, you have little choice in using them all.

As we fail to respond to any argument against b/c of it's silliness or what have you, you get things like SCOTUS supporting ObamaCare w/a argument it's taxation so yes Congress can impose it's will. Remember even the Administration didn't use that argument b/c ObamaCare wasn't taxation (which few Americans like) and we were all stunned CJ Roberts used that argument to keep ObamaCare alive.

Those who support/worship The State will use anything to destroy the Bill of Rights so every attempt must be met w/refutation. It may seem we are throwing too much out there but history shows what happens if you don't fight these people at every step.