Gun Control, and the 2nd Amendment

[EricMGrant]

Lots of people are in favor of gun control. Lots of people are in favor of restricting guns under certain circumstances. Not many people are discussing that the 2nd amendment says ARMS (not limited to guns,) and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED; meaning any and all laws restricting or banning anything that can be considered a weapon is Unconstitutional.

Adam should make a video showing people being such huge supporters of the 2nd amendment, then suddenly placing limitations on it when it's interpreted for them.

[lukekale64]

its BS i honestly dont understand how they think gun control will work. look at britain for fuck sake. guns are banned there. most cops in the uk are not even allowed to carry weapons and they have higher gun crime rates than america!.


this video is one of the best i have seen for explaining the stupid idea of gun control

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE

[doubleplusgood]

It's going to be a critical issue come 2020. If Hillary wins this year, I hope she is unable to appoint ultra liberal SC justices with a "living document"  interpretation re: the 2nd amendment. Any one else and I'm confident we'll be able to last the full first term without any further judicial reinterpretation.

That being said...

Lots of people are in favor of gun control. Lots of people are in favor of restricting guns under certain circumstances. Not many people are discussing that the 2nd amendment says ARMS (not limited to guns,) and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED; meaning any and all laws restricting or banning anything that can be considered a weapon is Unconstitutional.

Obviously, it hasn't been interpreted by the courts this way. I have a fair amount of Constitutional knowledge and I'm mostly in your corner, but I much prefer arguing for the merits of gun ownership on the basis of a right to self-defense. It aligns perfectly with the NAP and there's plenty of good data to support it as a matter of pragmatism.

Devil's advocate, because if you are going to argue that the Constitution grants the right of the people to possess ANYTHING that could be classified as a weapon, and that is not to be infringed by the State in any way, this is what you will hear from anti-gun statists...

You cool with individual citizens having access to WMD?

[lukekale64]

Its our right to keep and bear arms.  No matter what. Our founding fathers gave us that right. To protect ourselves, especially from the government and whoever tries to infringe on our constitutional rights..  It doesn't matter what kind of weapon it is. Anybody can make a wmd from shit you buy at different stores.

[doubleplusgood]

Its our right to keep and bear arms.  No matter what. Our founding fathers gave us that right. To protect ourselves, especially from the government and whoever tries to infringe on our constitutional rights..  It doesn't matter what kind of weapon it is. Anybody can make a wmd from shit you buy at different stores.

This is the kind of answer I was scared of. I think that is framing the discussion in a way that we will lose. Hell, even I'm not convinced you could make an argument where I'd agree the 2nd amendment could be interpreted as granting individual citizens the right to bear WMD. now, being logically consistent, I wouldn't support the use of force to prevent someone from making one on their own property, but I sure as hell wouldn't live next to them and I'm not sure how a free society would regulate such things.

Our rights do not come from the first ten amendments, or the founding fathers, they are de facto inherent in all human beings. This isn't Ron Paul's campaign in '08 or '12. Kokesh is a totally new dynamic with a very different platform. Let's move on from the Constitutional arguments and look towards poking holes in statism's logic/sense of morality.

[lukekale64]

you will just lay down your arms and surrender?  That's not the answer our founding fathers fought and risked their lives to give us the right to stand up to our government when the time comes. I will die fighting and I will not die on my knees.  The 2nd amendment was written to american citizens can defend themselves against enemies foreign and domestic. Civilians and government.  Frankly conceal carry permits are unconstitutional.  It restricts people from carrying weapons whenever we want. 

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying people should be allowed to have wmd. I'm saying anybody with knowledge of explosives could build types of wmd with things you find at stores.  I really don't want people to be able to have them. Most people are not trustworthy enough.  Guns and other types of weapons people should be able to have.

[Canaan Myskowski]

Its our right to keep and bear arms.  No matter what. Our founding fathers gave us that right. To protect ourselves, especially from the government and whoever tries to infringe on our constitutional rights..  It doesn't matter what kind of weapon it is. Anybody can make a wmd from shit you buy at different stores.

This is the kind of answer I was scared of. I think that is framing the discussion in a way that we will lose. Hell, even I'm not convinced you could make an argument where I'd agree the 2nd amendment could be interpreted as granting individual citizens the right to bear WMD. now, being logically consistent, I wouldn't support the use of force to prevent someone from making one on their own property, but I sure as hell wouldn't live next to them and I'm not sure how a free society would regulate such things.

Our rights do not come from the first ten amendments, or the founding fathers, they are de facto inherent in all human beings. This isn't Ron Paul's campaign in '08 or '12. Kokesh is a totally new dynamic with a very different platform. Let's move on from the Constitutional arguments and look towards poking holes in statism's logic/sense of morality.

This is wonderful.

[doubleplusgood]

you will just lay down your arms and surrender?  That's not the answer our founding fathers fought and risked their lives to give us the right to stand up to our government when the time comes. I will die fighting and I will not die on my knees.  The 2nd amendment was written to american citizens can defend themselves against enemies foreign and domestic. Civilians and government.  Frankly conceal carry permits are unconstitutional.  It restricts people from carrying weapons whenever we want.

I agree with all of this. But the pro gun control people do not care about the Constitution. They haven't read the commentary from James Madison, or St. George Tucker, or Joseph Story, etc. They believe it refers to some collective militia right, or that we should repeal it, or that we should just disregard it altogether (conveniently overlooking the precedent that sets for the other 9 amendments). To argue for the merits of gun ownership, we need to look beyond the 2nd amendment. Because in the context of the State, we have already lost the legal argument via the judicial branch. So let's argue outside their framework. Let's promote self-ownership and a fundamental right to self-defense--the immorality of gun control follows.

[FreedomIsOurDestiny]

I have found that the simplest argument to present to a statist is one of economics.  Acknowledge that their main objective is to end gun violence and to keep guns away from a would-be violent attacker.  They are scared.  Empathize with them by acknowledging that they feel these things.  Then start to ask them questions.  Make them clarify that this is what they want:  less gun violence.  Ask them if a law banning an individual from acquiring one legally will prevent that from happening.  Explain how a market will always find a way to supply a demand.  The only thing a gun control law can possibly do is twofold:  make it easier for someone intending harm on others to acquire the weapons they want and at the same time severely limit the ability for an ordinary citizen who wants to be able to protect themself to acquire one via legal means.

Obviously this argument will not be readily accepted by the indoctrinated, but we must repeat the message over and over and loudly for it to sink in.