17 Replies to “The 2nd Amendment: An Ammo Can Full of Freedom”

  1. Great post! We are all in debt to the brilliant writers of our constitution…the 18th amendment,not so much.

  2. I have some minor disagreements, but your essential point is well made. The 2nd Amendment is to protect the other rights and draw the line for the limit on federal government, as it is SUPPOSED to be. If advocate any type of “overthrow”, it is the roll back of areas in which the federal government has inserted itself (education, healthcare, to name but two) and in which it may have an interest, but should have no say or sway over how those interests are obtained. Served 21 years active, still love this country, but fear for its future…

    1. Thanks for commenting. All disagreeing points are welcome here. I too think that Government has reached too far in certain areas. The key is figuring out how to engage the public to pay enough attention. I think our two party system makes it very hard as each party has their areas of overreaching. So when we pull the government’s hand out of one pot, they newly elected party just puts their hand in another.

      1. A well written and very coherent post. I am a gun owner (an antique but serviceable shotgun) and I have an ammo can. Just saying that to establish my position. I must make an exception about the 2nd Amendment. The right to bear arms was to establish a militia to protect the frontier of an expanding nation. It was of limited value in the 1812 war, but was used mainly to fight hostile natives. Without a standing army and the a way to support a militia every citizen was required to provide his own weapons and ammo. And a horse if you had one. It is crazy the way the NRA wacko gun nuts have completely distorted the 2nd.

        1. Thanks William. The well regulated militia piece for actual defense against foreign threats was definitely a strong portion of the 2nd amendment. I do think that having just fought off tyranny, the founding fathers were instilling a mechanism to ensure the new government didn’t become the same. However, I think as a whole, that is what the bill of rights is about and not just the second amendment. For all the debates we have had over these matters in the centuries following the constitution, I do think it would be facscinating to go back and talk to the founding fathers about it all.

  3. You greatly simplified the Bundy situation. Actually you perpetuated the government narrative. In the historical context it’s plan to see that the BLM decided many years before the standoff that it wanted the ranchers gone. On Long Island they use eminent domain. In Nevada they raise fees so high that it’s economically impossible to stay in business. It doesn’t really matter if you thought the standoff was the time to resist tyranny. A whole lot of others did. I’d be curious to know exactly what it would take for you to decide to engage in armed resistance to “perceived” tyranny. I quote the word because to tyrants there is no tyranny.

    1. Based on what I have read about it all, it looks like the battle over the fees had been going on for decades. There were multiple court battles which was the right avenue to take. I actaully think the fees and the justification for the fees are quite stupid. So I would side with Bundy there. Imminent domain is regularly abused by Government and I would write a whole article just to rail on that. However, by the time the courts had ruled we have to decide if we are to be a nation of laws or not? Kind of like the indivdual who believes he is being arrested unjustly for speeding or something else, does he have a right to kill the cop?

      As for examples of tyranny, I would say 1. If they attempted to confiscate all guns. THat was the main point of the article actually. If they made pursuing your faith an actual crime. Or if people were not afforded their due process. I think my tone woudl change completely if the Government did all this without the proper judicial process being followed.

      I think States should have great leeway and not be trampled by the Federal Government. I am just not ready start shooting federal law enforcemetn officials.

      Good conversation though Michael, keep it going.

  4. Do you have knowledge of a militia group trying to over throw the government?
    The SPLC, MSNBC, and CNN, take great pleasure in repeating the “radical right wing militia” line over and over, but where is the intel? Where are the arrests?
    DHS has put out a few reports concerning this topic, and has had to retract every single one of them, because the reports turned out to be baseless political profiling.
    Muslims have plotted and carried out a few attacks against the United States, but we rarely hear about the domestic muslim threat here at home.
    What evidence do you have that militia groups are trying to over throw the government?

  5. Excellent post. I’d like to hear your thoughts on the continued paring down of the capabilities of firearms with legal restrictions. Where do you draw the line between preventing everyone from owning a SAW at home while still maintaining our readiness to defend our own civil rights. For that matter, since the government will probably never come to everyone in America with a formal declaration of war, when do you draw the line in the sand against such restrictions?

    1. I would argue against restrictions on firearms for the most part. I think banning 30 round magazines is absurd. I am not ready to riot and overthrow the government over it, but I think we can push back in the political process. Now, people obviously don’t need chemical weapons just because the Government has them. So somewhere in the midst of it we have to start using judgement and people often lean towards one or the other based off their philosophical and political views. I would argue for few restrictions.

      Now, when they start coming to confiscate guns from families, I think that is a major red flag.

  6. Also going to disagree with you on one point. The Bundy land dispute was an example of the 2nd Amendment working. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson owe many times more in taxes compared to the Bundy family, no armed agents show up at their door to collect. Our current administration is getting too big for their pants. While I do not think an outright, burn down Washington rebellion is needed, instances like Bundy are good power checks against abusive executive power.

    1. I agree that powerchecks are helpful for liberty. Personally, I think the mere fact that our population owns guns is in of itself a power check. For me, it really just boiled down to thinking that the armed standoff on the Bundy ranch was setting the bar a bit low for what would result in federal law enforcement officers being shot. IF they had opened fire should they have then been subsequently arrested for murder? I am without on checking the power of Government, I really am. I just think there are more peaceful ways to do so. Thansk for the comments and yes, someone please tell Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to pay their taxes!

  7. Good post Jeff, you keep this up and somebody might actually want to pay you to write. Keep it coming, I think I’m hooked.

  8. Some good points. Also, true words, however they are all moot when the powers that be do not regard the Constitution as the law of the land nor adhere to it in any fashion, but rather look for different and ” original ” ways to ” interpret ” new meanings for it. Everything you have stated is correct, but they are hollow words in a country that lets it’s leaders do as they please. The time for speaking about saving the Constitution is past. The empire is already in decline and all the talk in the world will not save it. What is passing for legitimate government in this country is a farce and an insult to what it was proposed to actually be. i will borrow from Shakespeare here, ” first, kill all the lawyers “

    1. Thanks for the comments Thomas. I hope you are not correct though. I would like to think that Americans can adapt and overcome. However, time will tell. I too think that there are concerning signs for the future of America.

  9. The act of defending one’s self, either by flight or by fight, is not a Human Right, but one any cognizant animal will take. Herbivores of the lowest intellect will flee a threat, or try to eliminate it or drive it away by attacking. This is Biology, and anyone wanting to debate this point with me should check some facts as I prefer opposition that is capable of thinking.
    Humans have been classed as tool makers and users, and weapons are tools for killing and/or defense.
    The second amendment only ensures that the average adult citizen can arm themselves adequate to their needs without governmental interference. The phrases “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ” is descriptive, but non-actionable. The section “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” is. The second half, describing the activities of the citizens, and government’s boundary therein, doesn’t require the Arms to be sporting rifles, to be used in hunting alone. It doesn’t specify Handgun magazine capacity, and in my opinion restricts government interference in the design, manufacture, or sale of Arms.

    This Army Puke (* seperate q. Is a Supply SPC/Armorer for an Infantry Company (HHC 1/87th Inf) a POG/REMF, a “Leg/Grunt”, or sommat else?) respects yer insight, (even if you are a Marine), and appreciates that you are honestly attempting to create a nonpartisan dialogue IRT the issues you’ve explored.

    Keep yer powder dry, yer eyes open, and see you on the Other Side.
    To the Top!

Comments are closed.