The Founders on the 2nd Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms

a reply to: Leonidas

Leon, you apparently have lost all credible arguments
with everyone else here on this thread and so are
resigned to making oblique and tangential character assassinations.

This tactic works to deflect from the fact that you have no point
to make as well as inflame the emotions of your target.

In respect to the topic of the post, waltwillis has far superior
judgment and accurate grasp of the reality and facts than you
could ever purchase if clues sold for a quarter and you had two
20 dollar rolls in your hands.

Please get back on topic.
Actually, there is no point about the topic that you can address
that has not already been refuted and answered. You do not live in America.

I hope you are from Canada though.

If you are from across the sea, I will remind you that
Armed Americans came across the sea to help the Brits out of the
frying pan twice in the last century.

originally posted by: Leonidas

originally posted by: waltwillis

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: waltwillis

Even when I run your post through spell-checker and make allowances for your non-existent understanding of grammar you still do not make a cogent point. You are repeating your fears under the cloak of meaningless anecdotes and adding nothing to the discussion.

I should know better than to ask this: Have you thought of what the first 48 hours of your story will play out? What will you be doing? Who - specifically who - will you be shooting at?

If shots are to be exchanged they would be very well directed at anyone that would make an overt act of aggression against innocent people that are trying to exercise the freedoms enumerated in our US constitution.

As far as my use of grammar and spelling, I would much prefer to have a short coming and deficiency in that aspect of my life then to have piss poor judgment in matters of great importance.

Imagination is far more important than intelligence. Had to add the "R" in the word "Short'.

So sorry to offend you guy!

An inability to communicate in your native tongue really takes away from any point you may be struggling to articulate. Besides you will find that most people that cannot communicate properly are the ones "to have piss poor judgement".


(My native tongue is Polish as I grew up on a farm with a Polish born mother and grandparents where only the Polish was spoken..) My mother was given much grief from people just like you in school. Snob?)

As for your plan to run around shooting people who are "aggressive" seems to have a built-in single-bullet solution. We need people with intelligence in protecting our rights, not imagination of what those rights are and what you imagine should be done about it.


And I am certain that you are sincere when you place imagination ahead of intelligence.


(I quoted Albert Einstein as he is the person you should complain to when I said "Imagination is more important than Intelligence".)

You are a one-man band of crushing your own argument.

The greatest problem with being a stupid person is that you don't know when you are acting or thinking stupidly...

You are, or have been attempting to engage in verbal combat unarmed just as you will attempt to do so on a less cowardly field of battle some day.

We may yet get to see how that will work out for you!

originally posted by: waltwillis

The greatest problem with being a stupid person is that you don't know when you are acting or thinking stupidly...

I agree with you completely, you have articulated that point well.

To reiterate my point anyone depending solely on the Constitution to protect the right to own firearms is naive. The same applies to those that believe Posse Comitatus would ever limit boots on ground if so desired.. Yes, I am a Canadian who spends half the year in the US. I spend sixteen (16) to twenty-four (24) weeks a year training cold weather survival skills to members from most NATO countries and a select few others, mostly different American forces. Prior to that I served my time in more than one theatre over twenty-five (25) years.

So I dont care if a couple of the people in this thread dont understand my point or have decided against it. There is a bigger discussion going out there and many of you aren't part of it, obviously.

When I asked "Walt" "Who specifically would you be shooting at, specifically" in the first 48 hours of his scenario, I received the most ludicrous answer of "whoever looked aggressive..." That is Anarchy. Period.

Dont count on a document and dont trust a politician past his immediate need.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Leonidas

Thus the reason why those of us that understand OUR 2nd Right, continually state that OUR rights as a whole are being encroached upon.

That is the entirety of my point. Regardless of the existence of the 2nd, those rights are being encroached upon. Therefore, relying solely on the 2nd is naive and not enough.

To stop that encroachment more has to be done, and done at the grass roots level. As long as those who seek to limit 2nd Amendment Rights continue to view guns as part of the problem and not part of the solution, those rights will continue to be encroached upon.

The fight to keep those rights will be much easier than the fight to get them back.

a reply to: Leonidas

I disagree. The 2a codifies the right to keep and bear arms.

Those who employ that right, (purchasing the arm and ammunition,
which by all objective measurements has increased 500+
percent over the last decade) is sufficient unto itself.

In order to stop people from exercising the 2a someone will have
to use arms and ammunition to forcefully stop the 2a adherents.

There is a monumental increase in CCW states and towns as well as
a large increase in Castle doctrine laws. Stand your ground laws as well.

These fringe laws do not really touch the core of the 2a (keep and bear arms)
but they do build retaining walls around the basic right to self defense.

There is a sobering effect on elected officials, both good ones and evil ones
when they consider how well armed the population of America is.

Japan Emperor realized that after Pearl Harbor. The citizens
of America, have been dozing for the past ten to fifteen years
but even in our sleep we are preparing to wake up fighting.

a reply to: spirited75


An increase in weapon and ammunition sales including CCW etc. is a natural reaction by the CURRENT supporters of the 2nd after watching another groundswell against gun ownership from some segments of society. Enough of an upswing that politicians are paying attention to it, some are causing it. The people who currently and actively support the 2nd are not the people lobbying congress as individuals or via Lobbyists to encroach on, re-define terms within, or erode the power of the 2nd.

An up-sweep in 2nd supporters is more important than an up-sweep of gun sales and CCW by the current believers.

There will never be an all out repeal or reversal of the 2nd in our time (my time at least). However the attempts will be to continue to chew away at the edges, changing or clarifying the definitions of words within it. The "death by a thousand cuts" to the 2nd is an important issue. Change a word here, change the definition of that word over there and over time - if supporters aren't careful - substantive changes will make it into law slowly and gradually over time.

I agree with you that an out-and-out change would be a call to arms, literally. But that wont happen. The only real safety that gun ownership can enjoy is via general support of the voting public. A supportive public is not dragging cases to the Supreme Court looking for a change to a term, arguing restriction of magazine size, redefining a type of weapon.

Guns are not the enemy, the anti-2nd crowd is currently succeeding in vilifying the weapons themselves. That has to change. You will never get everyone to agree, but a substantive majority that believes in the concepts and rights afforded by the 2nd is the only safety the 2nd can enjoy.

Right now those people see the 2nd as a threat. That is what they want to change, that is what they want from the politicians they vote for to "do something about"

Relying on the 2nd is not enough. Getting more people to support the concepts enshrined in the 2nd is what will save it.

There is no point preaching to the converted.

a reply to: Indigo5

Still am waiting to have you explain the last portion of the 2nd......You know, that whole "Shall not be infringed" thing.


Oh, I forgot, you left the argument.

originally posted by: Leonidas

originally posted by: waltwillis

The greatest problem with being a stupid person is that you don't know when you are acting or thinking stupidly...

I agree with you completely, you have articulated that point well.

To reiterate my point anyone depending solely on the Constitution to protect the right to own firearms is naive. The same applies to those that believe Posse Comitatus would ever limit boots on ground if so desired.. Yes, I am a Canadian who spends half the year in the US. I spend sixteen (16) to twenty-four (24) weeks a year training cold weather survival skills to members from most NATO countries and a select few others, mostly different American forces. Prior to that I served my time in more than one theatre over twenty-five (25) years.

So I dont care if a couple of the people in this thread dont understand my point or have decided against it. There is a bigger discussion going out there and many of you aren't part of it, obviously.

When I asked "Walt" "Who specifically would you be shooting at, specifically" in the first 48 hours of his scenario, I received the most ludicrous answer of "whoever looked aggressive..." That is Anarchy. Period.

Dont count on a document and dont trust a politician past his immediate need.

I hate to be the one to tell you that you can't teach what you don't know and you don't know what you don't know!

Cold weather and starvation are very important if you wish to survive in a war zone, but they are the cake items of war and not the icing.

I have been in temps well blow minus 135 with a 30 to 40 MPH wind sleeping and working out of a shelter half.

Now please allow me to explain how an American hunter will live for days in the wild and be a living land mine sniper just waiting for the good shot from a 50 BMG with a day/night rifle scope.

The folks I hang with are all wanting to cap your ass from a mile and a half away while you are warm and just walk out to take a leak from you track or tank.

We are determined to kill and take your food, your weapons, and the photos of your girlfriend.

Been there and done that!

Welcome to America...

a reply to: waltwillis

Call of Duty doesnt count. Are you trying to be funny, or are you a complete loon?

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: spirited75


An increase in weapon and ammunition sales including CCW etc. is a natural reaction by the CURRENT supporters of the 2nd after watching another groundswell against gun ownership from some segments of society. Enough of an upswing that politicians are paying attention to it, some are causing it. The people who currently and actively support the 2nd are not the people lobbying congress as individuals or via Lobbyists to encroach on, re-define terms within, or erode the power of the 2nd.

An up-sweep in 2nd supporters is more important than an up-sweep of gun sales and CCW by the current believers.

There will never be an all out repeal or reversal of the 2nd in our time (my time at least). However the attempts will be to continue to chew away at the edges, changing or clarifying the definitions of words within it. The "death by a thousand cuts" to the 2nd is an important issue. Change a word here, change the definition of that word over there and over time - if supporters aren't careful - substantive changes will make it into law slowly and gradually over time.

I agree with you that an out-and-out change would be a call to arms, literally. But that wont happen. The only real safety that gun ownership can enjoy is via general support of the voting public. A supportive public is not dragging cases to the Supreme Court looking for a change to a term, arguing restriction of magazine size, redefining a type of weapon.

Guns are not the enemy, the anti-2nd crowd is currently succeeding in vilifying the weapons themselves. That has to change. You will never get everyone to agree, but a substantive majority that believes in the concepts and rights afforded by the 2nd is the only safety the 2nd can enjoy.

Right now those people see the 2nd as a threat. That is what they want to change, that is what they want from the politicians they vote for to "do something about"

Relying on the 2nd is not enough. Getting more people to support the concepts enshrined in the 2nd is what will save it.

There is no point preaching to the converted.

I don't think I disagreed with any part of that post. Well done!


In summary: we have to win hearts and minds to keep our rights secure, yes?

Everyone should take a non-shooter shooting this weekend and teach them that guns are neither mysterious nor scary.

a reply to: NavyDoc

And they will love it.

Have you ever taken anyone shooting for the first time - male or female - that didn't enjoy the hell out of it and want to go again?

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: NavyDoc

And they will love it.

Have you ever taken anyone shooting for the first time - male or female - that didn't enjoy the hell out of it and want to go again?

Never. I've taken anti-gunners out and gotten them interested enough to get their CCW.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Everyone should take a non-shooter shooting this weekend and teach them that guns are neither mysterious nor scary.

End of the month for me.

My Lodge is having a fundraiser at the range I sponsored my friends daughter so her parents are coming along as well. I am pretty sure her father never fired a gun.

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: spirited75

but a substantive majority that believes in the concepts and rights afforded by the 2nd is the only safety the 2nd can enjoy.


Relying on the 2nd is not enough. Getting more people to support the concepts enshrined in the 2nd is what will save it.

your flawed thinking on the origin of the second amendment is evident in the quotes above.

The second amendment does NOT afford any concepts or rights.

The basis for the second amendment is the inalienable, God given, naturally existing, present in all of nature, RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE.

The first ten amendments to the constitution, called the Bill Of Rights is just a list of rights that the framers believed existed before the constitution existed. They were nervous because they realized that these rights needed to be listed in writing so that any elected person in the future would be cautioned to not tread on the inalienable rights.

The bill of rights does not grant, confer, AFFORD, permit, let, regulate, allow, authorize, give permission for, give authorization for, sanction, license, enable, entitle or approve.

In the preamble to the bill of rights it mentions why they listed the ten rights.
And it also calls it a list because it is written, ENUMERATED.

This is true: The anti gun crowd has been pushing to get rid of guns.
This is true: The pro gun crowd has been pushing back to
keep the anti gun crowd from further infringing on the right to self defense.

The American Revolution was a success against the best
equipped army in the world with only three percent of the
population actively fighting the British.

The current estimates of gun owning households is 100,000,000.

That is not 3 percent it is 30 percent.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It may be better to start a new shooter off with a bolt action .22 cal. rifle shooting at balloons.

I use .22 shorts for the first 10 or 20 rounds as they have a very low report and recoil.

Crawl, walk, and then run...

a reply to: waltwillis

I plan on bringing a bunch of weapons in various calibers so they can pick and choose. It is also an indoor range so nothing is allowed other then a paper targets.

a reply to: spirited75

With all due respect, have a nice day.

All the best to you.

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: spirited75

With all due respect, have a nice day.

All the best to you.

Here's the thing. I'm very willing to admit I'm wrong if I find out I am. It seems, after reading everything, that Leonidas is on our side. What he seems to be saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that the 2nd amendment is important, people have a right to keep and bear arms, and we must protect our gun rights. However, what he seems to be saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that an important part of that is educating people and striving to show that owning guns is a good thing, not a scary thing. Certainly we need to protect our rights, but we also need to educate people, bring non-shooters into the fold, and show that legal gun owners are reasonable and law abiding people. I may be off base, but that's what I have ascertained.

a reply to: NavyDoc

You summed up my point better than I could. Agreed.