Are we going to lose the 2nd Amendment rights?

[D.R.SCOTT]

I hope whoever wins will support the Paris agreement. That shouldn’t be a left/right dogma fight. Where’s Teddy Roosevelt when we need him?

The agreement as it was was a very bad deal with good intentions, and as shown there are other means to achive those good intentions without jumping on the feel good band wangon. If the purpose was to cut certain polulations, and it was achieved without being a part of the deal, I fail to see how re-joining it is a good thing.

Here is a good report that wont turn up on googles Paris agreement filter that gives you all Leftest and doomsday eccentric interpretations : https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapie...es-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/#7c59edec3535

 

[Borock]

1-To change the Constitution (repeal 2A) would be a HUUUUUGGEE undertaking. It's not impossible but very hard to do.
2-We need to keep our desires known to our elected officials. But firm but polite! https://www.270towin.com/elected-officials/
3-We need to be very respectful of people who don't like guns. It's a difference of opinions, that's all, but we need to keep your firearms concealed (out of sight) to keep any loud mouth from making a scene that we can't stop.
4-RESPECTFULLY continue the fight to keep what the Constitution grants us alive and well. The left will continue to try to not necessarily take away our guns but little by little will make it impossible to carry to defend ourselves while not at home.

 

[NKBJ]

I don't necessarily think this is true. I don't believe in God, but I also understand that self-defense is an unalienable right and one not provided by man or government.

Call it a God given right, call it a natural right, call it a human right. No matter how it's phrased, even atheists are capable of understanding the concept.

Yep, I understand what you mean.
"No God no rights" is a reference to the basis of our government, how it is set up. And oh my what a tangled skein that is.

 

[NKBJ]

In a word, yes. And probably in my lifetime. I see it was being inevitable that we lose our gun rights. Yes it's in the constitution, but one party openly hates and wants to abolish the constitution. They also seem to be gaining a ton of popularity every election. All it will take is that party having a majority and then the proper "event" and our rights will be gone within a year. They don't care. It's only a means to their end.

Jason

Not being about to reconcile observed actions into a party vs. party model it became obvious that a hierarchy was at work that superseded "dummycrats versus republithugs". And nowadays everybody speaks of the "deep state" and after half a decade they talking about "the establishment" again. I'm waiting for saying "sticking it to the man" to be repopularized!


Seriously though, President Trump has pulled a three stooges stunt poking them in the eyes and going nyuk nyuk nyuk and just as soon as they can focus again...

Unless, do you suppose perhaps a truce has been declared?
Don't know but this really is fascinating to observe if only from the perspective of a mite on a flea on the tail of the dog.

 

[kidraisersquared]

After “they” take away our firearms, then they can take away our social security, and we won’t be able to do anything about it. Imagine all the other problems they could fix and free educations they could give out...

 

[biggggg]

Hi there.
The answer to your question is "no".
I say yeah because (1) I understand the goals and the forces aligned to make it happen and (2) I've read how this ends up and (3) things are just a'clicking along faster all the time.
Does it happen in my lifetime? Don't know, my crystal ball isn't a Timex. But the wife was concerned so we had that discussion to leave no doubt as to what the priorities are.[/QUOTE]


Sir, I believe you have some correct insight, 2 tours in Iraq showed me civilians have little chance against organized military units{us)... but I choose not to get on the yellow bus to starve in the FEMA Camp... just saying....

 

[MCgrease08]

Yep, I understand what you mean.
"No God no rights" is a reference to the basis of our government, how it is set up. And oh my what a tangled skein that is.

Ah, got it. I was taking you too literally I guess.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm not smart enough to figure out the difference in hype, news, bias, or the real state of affairs of the 2nd Amendment.
It looks like the uneducated do-gooders have a lot of momentum right now.
I just wish these asses would leave our Constitution alone. Its worked well for a couple of centuries and I don't see why it can't exist for a few more before these azzhats destroy a good country.
IF they don't like this one and it's Constitution let them GO and start their own.

The appropriate phrasing should be: are we going to lose constitutional protection of rights currently protected by 2A? Because those rights are God-given and inherent, and we cannot "lose" them; we can only have them infringed upon by the state.

On the whole, the ability to exercise the right to keep and bear arms continues to advance. Wins are fairly huge while setbacks remain fairly minor (except for those behind the lead curtain in CA, NJ, etc.).

My advice: pay more attention to your state and local legislators, and less attention to media at all levels.

 

[chipbennett]

Hi there.
The answer to your question is "no".
I say yeah because (1) I understand the goals and the forces aligned to make it happen and (2) I've read how this ends up and (3) things are just a'clicking along faster all the time.
Does it happen in my lifetime? Don't know, my crystal ball isn't a Timex. But the wife was concerned so we had that discussion to leave no doubt as to what the priorities are.

I know how this all ends in the end, too. But I also know that I have a God-given mandate to ensure the liberties of my family. And once the right to keep and bear arms can no longer be exercised, the ability to exercise of rights of free speech, free expression, and and religion will not be far behind. So, I have a responsibility to act.

No, I certainly pray that the time never comes during my lifetime that I will have to make the ultimate decision to act, but I am resolute in how I will decide.

The words of our founders are instructive:

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. (I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.) - Thomas Jefferson


t is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or of any number of men, at the entering into society to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights, when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are life, liberty, and property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up an essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right of freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave. - Samuel Adams

 

[chipbennett]

While I agree, it still disturbs me. "WE" are the parents....."leftist education industry" is the same as Hillary's "village". And the parents willingly allow that village to raise their children.

Why do you think there has been such an explosion in homeschooling in recent years. As of a year or two ago, it was estimated that 3% of all students are homeschooled. (That percentage is certainly higher in Indiana, and probably most of flyover country.)

 

[chipbennett]

I hope whoever wins will support the Paris agreement. That shouldn’t be a left/right dogma fight. Where’s Teddy Roosevelt when we need him?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right. Because instituting Socialism under the guise of solving a nonexistent problem makes perfect sense.

 

[chipbennett]

I don't necessarily think this is true. I don't believe in God, but I also understand that self-defense is an unalienable right and one not provided by man or government.

Call it a God given right, call it a natural right, call it a human right. No matter how it's phrased, even atheists are capable of understanding the concept.

Such a belief structure is untenable without some form of Supreme law-giver. On what basis can an atheist claim such a thing as a "right" - that is, something for which there is a moral imperative against violating? On what basis do human have such "rights" while other forms of life do not? How does an atheist move from survival of the fittest, life begetting life, and life acting on instinct to the concept of unique rights inherent to humans without having a bridge based on moral law defined by a higher power? The mental gymnastics simply cannot cross that bridge without it. If the answer is that society as a whole mutually agreeing upon a moral code, then on what basis can we judge, say, mesoamerican society and culture that accepted as moral the practices of child and virgin sacrifice? How is an animal killing a human any different than another human killing a human? Both are merely acting on instinct and exercising their own will, and the fittest/strongest survives.

I believe that atheists do not understand the concept; rather, atheists accept the concept - or concede it as a matter of tautology - because they are either afraid, unwilling, or not intellectually capable or honest enough to draw the logical conclusions that result from a belief in the lack of existence of a higher power.

 

[chipbennett]

1-To change the Constitution (repeal 2A) would be a HUUUUUGGEE undertaking. It's not impossible but very hard to do.
2-We need to keep our desires known to our elected officials. But firm but polite! https://www.270towin.com/elected-officials/
3-We need to be very respectful of people who don't like guns. It's a difference of opinions, that's all, but we need to keep your firearms concealed (out of sight) to keep any loud mouth from making a scene that we can't stop.
4-RESPECTFULLY continue the fight to keep what the Constitution grants us alive and well. The left will continue to try to not necessarily take away our guns but little by little will make it impossible to carry to defend ourselves while not at home.

The decision to carry openly or concealed is a personal one, based on myriad factors - and I support whatever decision each individual makes for himself. I support the right to bear arms, fullstop.

But under no circumstances should offending the delicate sensibilities of the perpetually offended, safe-space seeking adult children be one of those factors. If your objective is to normalize the carry of firearms and gain acceptance for the law-abiding people who do so, then your should do precisely the opposite. The left understands this concept, and the right still fails miserably. The Gaystapo forced their desired policy changes upon society not by hiding, but by being loud, being proud, and letting their "freak flag fly". The principle is the same here: lawful exercise of the right to bear arms should be seen openly, not viewed as something to be kept hidden and secret.

 

[engi-ninja]

The decision to carry openly or concealed is a personal one, based on myriad factors - and I support whatever decision each individual makes for himself. I support the right to bear arms, fullstop.

But under no circumstances should offending the delicate sensibilities of the perpetually offended, safe-space seeking adult children be one of those factors. If your objective is to normalize the carry of firearms and gain acceptance for the law-abiding people who do so, then your should do precisely the opposite. The left understands this concept, and the right still fails miserably. The Gaystapo forced their desired policy changes upon society not by hiding, but by being loud, being proud, and letting their "freak flag fly". The principle is the same here: lawful exercise of the right to bear arms should be seen openly, not viewed as something to be kept hidden and secret.

^^^Well said. "Hiding your guns" is just an implicit admission that their irrational fears of inanimate objects have some validity.

I find it curious that so many people have resigned themselves to the eventuality that we'll lose the fight against socialism. Aren't we seeing signs worldwide that people are starting to wake up and push back? France, for instance? Or Brazil? Or Poland? Brexit? Or even here in the US; 1 million New Jersey residents have made themselves into felons for not surrendering whatever arbitrary objects their benevolent government determined to be illegal. They just ignored it.

The powers of evil aren't rolling over, but people are starting to realize that the Left's agenda does not lead to happy, prosperous societies.

All government becomes corrupt eventually; it's pretty much an inevitability. The most unique part of the founding of the United States is that they actually took that into account, a la the 2A. They knew, some day, the government would be corrupt, and people would be required to stand up and put it back in its place, just like they had done.

The real danger, which I don't think they foresaw, is the generational brainwashing of children to willingly give up their freedoms in exchange for the appearance or feeling of safety. This strategy is pretty much foolproof if given enough time; in a few more generations, the entire populace would be so indoctrinated that they'll look like the opening scene of the Lego Movie. However, Left has shown their hand now, when there are still a large number of thinking adults alive; I think it was too early. Unless they pull back and let things simmer for another generation or two, their current trajectory is going to push all of this to a head while there are still enough rational people left alive to resist.

I do think a terrible conflict is inevitable, but I don't think it's a forgone conclusion that the side of freedom and truth will lose that conflict. As long as there is a significant number of rational, thinking American's left alive, there's hope. We just have to start acclimating ourselves to the idea that it's better to die as a free man than to live as a slave. And if you don't care about your own freedom enough, then think about your children and grandchildren. If we're not willing to sacrifice for freedom, then we're dooming them to an existence of slavery and oppression. The people of Venezuela thought it was better to go along and live; but they didn't live for long anyway. Personally, I'd rather die in battle than starve to death while my wife and daughters are raped by government soldiers.

 

[biggggg]

TOTALLY AGREE.... support the right to bear arms, fullstop.

But under no circumstances should offending the delicate sensibilities of the perpetually offended, safe-space seeking adult children be one of those factors. If your objective is to normalize the carry of firearms and gain acceptance for the law-abiding people who do so, then your should do precisely the opposite. The left understands this concept, and the right still fails miserably. The Gaystapo forced their desired policy changes upon society not by hiding, but by being loud, being proud, and letting their "freak flag fly". The principle is the same here: lawful exercise of the right to bear arms should be seen openly, not viewed as something to be kept hidden and secret.[/QUOTE]

 

[NKBJ]

Ah, got it. I was taking you too literally I guess.

Well, don't take it too unserious (LOL).
I really do take it that if our creator is taken out of our government then our founding documents and the rights there acknowledged are de facto invalidated. In other words with no creator we have no rights bestowed upon us.