What does the second ammendment mean to you?

[AguaFriaRanger]

Good Morning OKShooters,

As we roll into another election cycle, I figured it was a good time to have this discussion. What does the 2A mean to you? Does it mean the government can't take the 30-30 you use to harvest a deer every year? Does it mean you're entitled to an M1 Abrahms tank? Personally, while the first few minutes are a little obnoxious, this video actually does a pretty decent, objective job of laying out the second amendment in full context. I encourage you to vote in the poll, and then if you have time, watch that video and see if your opinion changes at all. If it does (or doesn't), I'd love to hear your take on the whole thing.

Additionally, the 2A community has to start calling out the GOP for using our rights as a bargaining chip. The 2A is something that many legislators on the right LOVE to use as their concession point to get deals done. STOP supporting reps who do this. We're in a unique position with firearms culture in the United States. 3 gun competitions and the like are more popular than ever. The unrest of the last two years has more guns tucked into liberal closets/nightstands than ever before. With the right legislators, we could actually see things like the Hearing Protection Act or the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act go somewhere in congress instead of being DOA. Getting people like Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene into office is important... maybe even important enough to be a single-issue voter for a while. With the state of Washington where it is, I don't think much harm can come from it.

 

[Aku]

Constitution protects God given, natural rights, of an individual and group, that no government can infringe. I typically stop at that point.
But you mentioned nukes. This is like the old example of yelling fire in a crowded theater. I do believe time, place and manner restrictions are necessary for some items. It's also way past time for term limits. Plus I would make it easier for a tax payer to bring a removal action against any politician.

 

[AguaFriaRanger]

Constitution protects God given, natural rights, of an individual and group, that no government can infringe. I typically stop at that point.
But you mentioned nukes. This is like the old example of yelling fire in a crowded theater. I do believe time, place and manner restrictions are necessary for some items. It's also way past time for term limits. Plus I would make it easier for a tax payer to bring a removal action against any politician.

I agree completely. The second amendment only acknowledges the rights you already have, it doesn't provide anything new to you. I'm also anti-nuke in general, but I'm realistic enough to know that cat isn't going back in the bag. Term limits are absolutely needed for the longevity of our republic - no more career politicians!

 

[TedKennedy]

I agree completely. The second amendment only acknowledges the rights you already have, it doesn't provide anything new to you. I'm also anti-nuke in general, but I'm realistic enough to know that cat isn't going back in the bag. Term limits are absolutely needed for the longevity of our republic - no more career politicians!

Term limits prohibit electing a man that has served his time but proven himself a patriot.

Term limits (limits!) therefore restrict the freedom to vote for who you think is the best candidate.

We allow anyone with breath to vote, and the voters continue to vote in folks that promise everything. If we collectively can't control our politicians we deserve what we get.

 

[AguaFriaRanger]

Term limits prohibit electing a man that has served his time but proven himself a patriot.

Term limits (limits!) therefore restrict the freedom to vote for who you think is the best candidate.

We allow anyone with breath to vote, and the voters continue to vote in folks that promise everything. If we collectively can't control our politicians we deserve what we get.

Listen, if we could count on the moral integrity of the masses then this discussion wouldn't be happening. You're 100% correct, but it just isn't realistic. At least with term limits, we don't have people entrenched in their spots for decades. We all know they take bribes and work deals - make it harder! Make that company pay someone new every 4-8 years. Make the politicians have to work more deals. The more crooked crap they do, the more chances they have to get caught. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better than what is going on right now.

 

[TedKennedy]

Listen, if we could count on the moral integrity of the masses then this discussion wouldn't be happening. You're 100% correct, but it just isn't realistic. At least with term limits, we don't have people entrenched in their spots for decades. We all know they take bribes and work deals - make it harder! Make that company pay someone new every 4-8 years. Make the politicians have to work more deals. The more crooked crap they do, the more chances they have to get caught. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better than what is going on right now.

Instead of limiting voter choice, how about make it illegal for foreign countries to lobby our elected officials.

Also, make it illegal for former elected officials to become lobbyists?

 

[Aku]

Instead of limiting voter choice, how about make it illegal for foreign countries to lobby our elected officials.

Also, make it illegal for former elected officials to become lobbyists?

I like both of those ideas. However, voter choice is already limited by the two party system. To require term limits does not prohibit the proven patriot, because one would hope there would be more than just one or two patriots who could successively win office. Term limits also provides a way to counter a far more dangerous beast, the professional politician, i.e. Pelosi, McConnell, etc., which would in turn provide a path for those proven patriots.

 

[TedKennedy]

I like both of those ideas. However, voter choice is already limited by the two party system. To require term limits does not prohibit the proven patriot, because one would hope there would be more than just one or two patriots who could successively win office. Term limits also provides a way to counter a far more dangerous beast, the professional politician, i.e. Pelosi, McConnell, etc., which would in turn provide a path for those proven patriots.

The two party system simply exists because of gutless voters whoi refuse to choose anything else.

Again, we get what we deserve.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Shall not be infringed means exactly what it says. If a dildo like Kim Jong Un can have nukes, I see no reason to infringe upon any citizen of the United States having nukes. That said, good luck finding an affordable source.

With all the infringements upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms removed, there would never be a need for any acts like the Hearing Protection Act or the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act.

As for what an arm is, does it matter if it is a rock propelled by a person's limb for defense or aggression, or a 16 inch shell propelled by cordite, or a wicked downdraft propelled by nuclear fission? No. The Second added article to the Constitution - AKA the Second Amendment - prohibits infringement. There are no exceptions. The Founding Father's intent is undeniably clear with not allowing exceptions.

As for the "well regulated militia" mentioned in the Second Amendment regarding the keeping and bearing of arms by the people being necessary, Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, in the Constitution makes reliance on the militia necessary. Therefore, what good would a poorly armed, unpracticed, and disorganized militia be beyond cannon fodder?

Look at Article I, Section 8, Clause 12. If Congress decided not to fund the Army, which it has to do every two years, what defense would the United States have without the several state's militias? And, don't think for one minute that the National Guard is the militia. It is not. Once the Federal Government started appointing the officers, what was once the active militia became just another branch of the United States military. Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, reserves the authority for the appointment of officers of the militia to the states. Once the Federal government usurped the power of appointing the officers, it also usurped the "National Guard" from under the authority of the several states.

Senator Nathan Dahm's bill to form a real state militia is exactly what we need. It is also required by the Oklahoma Constitution in Section V-40, to wit:

SECTION V-40. Militia.

The Legislature shall provide for organizing, disciplining, arming, maintaining, and equipping the Militia of the State.

It would create an honest to goodness militia in Oklahoma. The person/people on that committee who blocked its passage is/are ignorant fools. Worse than them being ignorant is the fact that they blocked it by usurping power not granted to a committee in the Oklahoma Constitution. I refer everyone to Section V-34, of the Oklahoma Constitution, to wit:

SECTION V-34. Reading and passage of bills - Yeas and nays entered on journal.

Every bill shall be read on three different days in each House, and no bill shall become a law unless, on its final passage, it be read at length, and no law shall be passed unless upon a vote of a majority of all the members elected to each House in favor of such law; and the question, upon final passage, shall be taken upon its last reading, and the yeas and nays shall be entered upon the journal.

Not even the governor can kill a bill. Every bill the governor vetoes has to go back to the legislature for consideration to override the veto. See Section VI-11, to wit:

SECTION VI-11. Approval or veto of bills - Passage over veto - Failure to return bill.

Every bill which shall have passed the Senate and House of Representatives, and every resolution requiring the assent of both branches of the Legislature, shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the Governor; if he approve, he shall sign it; if not, he shall return it with his objections to the house in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large in the Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of the members elected to that house shall agree to pass the bill or joint resolution, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other house, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered; and, if approved by two-thirds of the members elected to that house, it shall become a law, notwithstanding the objections of the Governor. In all such cases, the vote in both houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the members voting shall be entered on the Journal of each house respectively. If any bill or resolution shall not be returned by the Governor within five days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Legislature shall, by their adjournment, prevent its return, in which case it shall not become a law without the approval of the Governor. No bill shall become a law after the final adjournment of the Legislature, unless approved by the Governor within fifteen days after such adjournment.

By the way, we all know what the word "shall" means, don't we?

Woody

 

[JD8]

With the amount of people I see that can't even follow the basics of gun safety...... I'm out on the nukes.

How do y'all feel about biological or chemical weapons for us common folk?