Quoted: What would be the point of protesting an opressive government if you had no way to escalate the issue? The government will do nothing when the citizens are merely talk, without game.

It'd be more effective than individual (armed) people deciding to go ballistic on their own.

Like I said, the 1st is basically crippled without the 2nd, but less so than the 2nd is without the 1st. If there is no capability for real organization, no reporting on what is going on around the country, etc. there will never be a valid organized response, and the 2nd is once again just a defensive tool on an individual/small group basis.

I'm not implying this will happen... but pretend for a moment that all communications are cut, people are not allowed to gather, all communication technology is shut down (news, radio, tv, phones, internet,etc), additional means of communication are interfered/jammed: Where would you find out that there is an attempt at restoring our rights happening? How would you even know when and where (and why) to use your guns to do anything?

There's only so much organization that can be done in that scenario, IF people even realize there's something to organize and retaliate about in the first place.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There tends to be a fairly large group of mindless fucktards here that have no real clue about guns other than that they look cool. I bet 90% would be against laws like here where anyone can carry concealed w/o a permit.  They themselves can't handle the thought of that much freedom.   Most here act like Lepers or closeted gays when it comes to their being gunny.  In essence ARF is largely populated by pathetic, weak men who are unable to stand up for themselves and who sit in the dark, fondling their AR's hoping for a disaster to befall us so they can rush out and act upon their hero fantasies. Without guns we do not have any other rights.   Oh, man, I love these self-important posts.  Whatever make you feel better about yourself, buddy.  Hard to believe you've wasted three years here among all us pathetic, weak men.  "I alone am a man!"   Nowhere in there did I say that "I alone am a man" or anything of the sort.  I cannot be responsible for your inference of such.  I could play the same game and infer from your post and locale that you are one of the very people that I was referencing, but I digress.   And in reality, the smart ones here know what I am doing when I am chiding people for being wimpy.

There are guys here who will be charged with shooting you if you are deemed a threat by the powers that be and do it effeciently. There are others who will give you a pass because they refuse an unlawful or unconstitutional order.  There are guys here who do seem a bit touchy about the fact that they have full autos and don't like curious questions about how they work but that doesn't make them pussy's. They already know which way the political winds blow and are cya.  There are guys and gals here who will step up and defend their 2nd ad rights and do it without saying a word on the internet and probably be portrayed in the media as terrorists or just another wacko gun nut but they will do it because they are right.  These would be the people I would like to be beside.
I'll see you there........right?

They are all important.  But there has to be a line in the sand somewhere.  The 2nd is the only logical choice because without guns your going to be defending that line in the sand with sticks.



You can't talk your way off of the cattle car.

Quoted: I see this on this site from time to time. "Guns are the least of our worries, I'm worried about tax hikes, global warming nonsense, and national health care goofiness" "Guns are not as important as..." How can anyone feel that way? The Constitution is meaningless unless we have the ability to enforce it with our government. Without guns, you have nothing. Period.

The 2A is my number one issue.

It is my deal-breaker issue.

I find that if a politician is anti-2A, they are anti-everything else I care about.

Very Important

I think yekimak is dead right on this in his post and follow up posts.  I believe a large portion possibly majority of ARFCOMERS are afraid to be pro gun.  They don't belong to any progun organization, they will hide/bury guns.  If victimized they will advise people to move because the criminals friends will return.  Its sad and irritating how weak so many gun owners are.  We have the guns but are so law abiding we won't use them, because of that we are our own worst enemy.

Quoted: Quoted: I find it hilarious that instead of proving me wrong, you are instead attacking me, kinda like a liberal does.   I find it hilarious that you expect anyone to prove you wrong, and that as you complain about being "attacked", you yourself are engaging in a bit of ad hominem by equating me with a liberal.   Your assertion is that ARFCOM is populated by mealy-mouthed girly men who do nothing to protect their rights, or are afraid to tell people they own guns.  Clearly, there's nothing I can do to "prove you wrong"; you're going to make whatever baseless assumptions you want.  I can tell you that I don't hide my status as a gun owner from anyone, that I have stickers on my truck from the NRA and my state rifle association, and that my name is on court filings challenging gun laws.  Now, I'm sure that's not enough, and that based on the fact that I live in Illinois, you're going to assume that I'm "one of the people" you were referencing.  Think what you will.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There tends to be a fairly large group of mindless fucktards here that have no real clue about guns other than that they look cool.  I bet 90% would be against laws like here where anyone can carry concealed w/o a permit.  They themselves can't handle the thought of that much freedom.   Most here act like Lepers or closeted gays when it comes to their being gunny.  In essence ARF is largely populated by pathetic, weak men who are unable to stand up for themselves and who sit in the dark, fondling their AR's hoping for a disaster to befall us so they can rush out and act upon their hero fantasies. Without guns we do not have any other rights.   Oh, man, I love these self-important posts.  Whatever make you feel better about yourself, buddy.  Hard to believe you've wasted three years here among all us pathetic, weak men.  "I alone am a man!"   Nowhere in there did I say that "I alone am a man" or anything of the sort.  I cannot be responsible for your inference of such.  I could play the same game and infer from your post and locale that you are one of the very people that I was referencing, but I digress.   And in reality, the smart ones here know what I am doing when I am chiding people for being wimpy.

`I'm not smart enough to decode your cryptic metaphors.  I guess I'm a wimp...

We have the guns but are so law abiding we won't use them, because of that we are our own worst enemy.

I completely agree.

Even in this very thread we have people admitting no one would do anything, we'll just watch our American Idol.

Shit, if you feel that way, bend over and lube up then.

Quoted: I see this on this site from time to time. "Guns are the least of our worries, I'm worried about tax hikes, global warming nonsense, and national health care goofiness" "Guns are not as important as..." How can anyone feel that way? The Constitution is meaningless unless we have the ability to enforce it with our government. Without guns, you have nothing. Period.

You did get that one right, it is nonsense.


All of my Constitutional rights are important to me. Gun rights are the most important though, since they are always under attack by someone.

I have lived in so-called "free" nations with strict gun control and there are only two classes of people; 1)Govt'/Mil/LE/Gang/Criminal with guns 2)VICTIMS without guns PERIOD!!!

Losing my RTKBA = the loss of liberty and freedom itself, I don't care how many flags you wrap it up in!

Quoted: Quoted: I find it hilarious that instead of proving me wrong, you are instead attacking me, kinda like a liberal does.   I find it hilarious that you expect anyone to prove you wrong, and that as you complain about being "attacked", you yourself are engaging in a bit of ad hominem by equating me with a liberal.   Your assertion is that ARFCOM is populated by mealy-mouthed girly men who do nothing to protect their rights, or are afraid to tell people they own guns.  Clearly, there's nothing I can do to "prove you wrong"; you're going to make whatever baseless assumptions you want.  I can tell you that I don't hide my status as a gun owner from anyone, that I have stickers on my truck from the NRA and my state rifle association, and that my name is on court filings challenging gun laws.  Now, I'm sure that's not enough, and that based on the fact that I live in Illinois, you're going to assume that I'm "one of the people" you were referencing.  Think what you will.

My assertion that ARF is populated by pansies is based on the threads where the majority here would not like to have Vermont style carry or the NFA overturned, or the numerous threads where a guy has to choose between guns and family.  

My inferences about you were purposefully baseless and just intended to be evidential to the fact that yours were completely baseless as well.   My apologies if that was not clear.  

 Since you do not seem to be the nambypamby wuss type I was referring to in the first place then I do not now why you are even bothering with this at all, unless you thought it would be an easy smackdown or something.  

Gun rights is dear to me and Arfcom but if we only worry about that our other rights might be taken away.  I am anxiously waiting for the US Supreme Court to make a decision on Heller if they haven't done it already.

People understand force and reason.

When reason runs out, force takes over.

Guns are the best means of force that are available.

They are second only to my mind and body.

As long as I live no one will take away either.

Everything else comes after.

I'm a one issue voter. Any poltician that doesn't trust Americans to own weapons isn't someone I want representing me.

#1 for me.

United we stand, divided we fall.

I left Kalafornia 5 1/2 years ago. Loved So. Cal but I am not going to be told by a bunch of fools how I am sopose to live my life. And the way I look at the the whole thing(GUN CONTROL) is come and get them. You will get the bullets first!, and I will show NO mercey on their ass. and thats the way I feel. Spent way too long Defending Enemys, foriegn and Domestic.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I always hear people saying that the second amendment guarantees all the other amendments and that if they take our guns away we'll lose all our other rights later (which I happen to strongly agree with)....  well, how come we aren't using our guns to keep our second ammendment rights?  In other words, how far does the second ammendment have to be eroded before it wakes up and protects itself?  If the act of having arms doesn't even serve to protect the right to have arms, how well does that that right protect the others? I agree that there once was a day when patriots would make true use of the second amendment for the greater good of the republic.  I however fear that day has come and gone. You first. Its not going to happen until someone goes first. If you're willing to stump on ARFCOM for such a willingness to exercise your rights in this manner, why won't you go first? Just another person that wants the benefit without throwing in his own buck o five. Exactly.  I too think this is the heart of the issue.  The first few people who will undoubtedly be remembered as patriots 100 years from now are definitely going to take a serious thumpin' and most likely won't survive it.  Who REALLY wants to be first in that line?  That gets at the heart of the OP's question: How important are your rights to you?  Answer: Important enough to "stump" about as you say, but not yet important enough to be first in line for Ruby Ridge part II. Right now there is too much to lose. Heller is going to be ruled on. Except for CA/NY I keep hearing good news as far as pro gun legislation. In AZ eventually our POS Governor will be on her ass and we'll have a chance to put someone in that won't veto legislation. Frankly if anyone did go first, good cause or no within say the next 20 years, I would be the first to sign up to fight along side the government. Too much good is happening right now.

So you are willing to throw away a resurgence of real Freedom in exchange for imagined advances? They shit on the Constitution and then give a tiny fraction back and you would fight to stop anyone from helping drive progress toward more real Freedom?

You really don't get it.

Quoted: Quoted: All of the rights in the Constitution are important to me, not just firearms. +1

Me too.

The 2A is important to me, obviously... I believe firearms will secure our other rights - but ONLY when the escalation of force reaches the tipping point.  No I cannot defend my 1A, 4A, 10A freedoms on a daily basis with a firearm.  On a daily basis I defend myself, my family, my friends, and my property (in that order) with a firearm.  I don't defend them ACTIVELY, but the option is always right there.

I'm not going to go out looking for a criminal, shoot and kill him, and claim I was protecting myself.  That's my understanding of escalation and use of force.  If I am pushed too it, either in self defense, or national defense, then they will protect everything else.

The people who try and "fight" the government, or "defend" the Constitution without appropriate escalation of force end up being people like McVeigh (don't get me started), and his crowd.

As far as being an internet intellectual, who hides his guns from friends, family, coworkers, etc... I know that I am not, and I could care less if anyone else thinks so, or not.  

I know I'm not Rambo, or Superman, or the best at anything.  There are guys here with more training than me, and guys with less training than me... but we're all on the same side (I would hope) when it comes down to it, if it ever does.  If it doesn't come down to it, then great.  I'm all for avoiding violence, but like many others I am capable and willing to engage in it if need be... again, I know it from personal experience, and I don't care if you agree.

I am not a single issue voter, so unfortunately there are very few candidates who ever make me happy.  The "Big 3" at the moment don't exactly blow my skirt up... so I won't vote for any of them.  We'll see who comes out in the Independants, and if I like them, I will vote for them.  If I dislike 100% of the options, as I have before, I will skip the polls, as I have before.

There has been an unacceptable loss of Constitutional rights in this country... but it hasn't reached a tipping point.  One man will do nothing but make the nightly news, and then be forgotten about when American Idol announces it's winner.  I haven't been directly confronted with the opportunity to make a distinct difference, or to engage in any form of civil disobediance, so I'll just remain vigilant and do what I can whenever the time comes, WHATEVER that may be.  Voting or shooting, it doesn't really make a difference what my responsibility will be because I am prepared for both.

Oh fuck!


teh ban for trolling

Quoted: All of the rights in the Constitution are important to me, not just firearms.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I always hear people saying that the second amendment guarantees all the other amendments and that if they take our guns away we'll lose all our other rights later (which I happen to strongly agree with)....  well, how come we aren't using our guns to keep our second ammendment rights?  In other words, how far does the second ammendment have to be eroded before it wakes up and protects itself?  If the act of having arms doesn't even serve to protect the right to have arms, how well does that that right protect the others? I agree that there once was a day when patriots would make true use of the second amendment for the greater good of the republic.  I however fear that day has come and gone. You first. Its not going to happen until someone goes first. If you're willing to stump on ARFCOM for such a willingness to exercise your rights in this manner, why won't you go first? Just another person that wants the benefit without throwing in his own buck o five. Exactly.  I too think this is the heart of the issue.  The first few people who will undoubtedly be remembered as patriots 100 years from now are definitely going to take a serious thumpin' and most likely won't survive it.  Who REALLY wants to be first in that line?  That gets at the heart of the OP's question: How important are your rights to you?  Answer: Important enough to "stump" about as you say, but not yet important enough to be first in line for Ruby Ridge part II. Right now there is too much to lose. Heller is going to be ruled on. Except for CA/NY I keep hearing good news as far as pro gun legislation. In AZ eventually our POS Governor will be on her ass and we'll have a chance to put someone in that won't veto legislation. Frankly if anyone did go first, good cause or no within say the next 20 years, I would be the first to sign up to fight along side the government. Too much good is happening right now. So you are willing to throw away a resurgence of real Freedom in exchange for imagined advances? They shit on the Constitution and then give a tiny fraction back and you would fight to stop anyone from helping drive progress toward more real Freedom? You really don't get it.

I really do get it. No one has gone first, they all want the benefit without paying the cost. You haven't done it either. Only difference is I've explained my reluctance to join a resurgence. You pretend as if one exists and it is a crime against nature that at this point in time I think a resurgence would be bull shit.

Should I tear down the whole house because I choose the wrong floor tile? I won't set loose chaos because the government passed unconstitutional laws. Corrections are being made without a resurgence.

I believe the right to possess and use arms is very important, but if not enough people are willing to stand up and use those arms when or if the time comes, what good does it do?  Too many people are apathetic and jaded.  We just let things slip by us and shrug.  This seems to originate with the fact that one person alone is powerless to stop or change anything, and we aren't able to unite and develop a consensus on a useful course of action.  That's assuming of course that we are even informed about everything that would be of concern to us, which none of us are.  

Quoted: The only thing more important to me politically than my 2nd Amendment rights are my 1st Amendment rights.

I'm the opposite.  I'd be happy to have guns and not be able to tell anyone about 'em.  

Much more so than being able to tell everyone about how cool it used to be to have guns.

Quoted: I always hear people saying that the second amendment guarantees all the other amendments and that if they take our guns away we'll lose all our other rights later (which I happen to strongly agree with)....  well, how come we aren't using our guns to keep our second ammendment rights?  In other words, how far does the second ammendment have to be eroded before it wakes up and protects itself?  If the act of having arms doesn't even serve to protect the right to have arms, how well does that that right protect the others? I agree that there once was a day when patriots would make true use of the second amendment for the greater good of the republic.  I however fear that day has come and gone.

In fact, guns have been used for just what the 2nd talks about. But in each case, the offended persons using guns were squashed by government and private "police". There was Shays Rebellion in 1786-1787 caused by high taxes, state official corruption and oppressive court decisions. It was put down. The Whiskey Rebellion in 1794 was caused by the feds adding high tariffs to whiskey sales in order to pay for putting down british/indian uprisings. General Washington sent 13,000 troops to western PA to stop this use of the 2nd amendment. There were numerous armed (and unarmed) slave revolts that were put down by force including the Stono Rebellion (1739), Prosser's Conspiracy (1800), the Louisiana Revolt in 1811, the Black Seminole Revolt in 1835. In 1932 the "Bonus Army", 15,000 US veterans, descended on D.C. to claim their promised war bonus. On July 28, President Hoover sent cavalry and 6 tanks to clear out the veterans.

There are lots of instances where US citizens have been "wronged" and have resorted to armed resistance, but in every case the outcome has pretty much been Government 1, Rebels 0. I suspect that superior firepower, training and sophisticated tactics have been the deciding factor. The historical losers lacked all three of those. We still do.

incredibly. The 2nd amendment is the bill that gives us the right to personally protect all other rights we are legally entitled to, without it, washington could run the Constitution and BOR through the shredder and we couldn't do anything about it.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I always hear people saying that the second amendment guarantees all the other amendments and that if they take our guns away we'll lose all our other rights later (which I happen to strongly agree with)....  well, how come we aren't using our guns to keep our second ammendment rights?  In other words, how far does the second ammendment have to be eroded before it wakes up and protects itself?  If the act of having arms doesn't even serve to protect the right to have arms, how well does that that right protect the others? I agree that there once was a day when patriots would make true use of the second amendment for the greater good of the republic.  I however fear that day has come and gone. You first. Its not going to happen until someone goes first. If you're willing to stump on ARFCOM for such a willingness to exercise your rights in this manner, why won't you go first? Just another person that wants the benefit without throwing in his own buck o five. Exactly.  I too think this is the heart of the issue.  The first few people who will undoubtedly be remembered as patriots 100 years from now are definitely going to take a serious thumpin' and most likely won't survive it.  Who REALLY wants to be first in that line?  That gets at the heart of the OP's question: How important are your rights to you?  Answer: Important enough to "stump" about as you say, but not yet important enough to be first in line for Ruby Ridge part II. Right now there is too much to lose. Heller is going to be ruled on. Except for CA/NY I keep hearing good news as far as pro gun legislation. In AZ eventually our POS Governor will be on her ass and we'll have a chance to put someone in that won't veto legislation. Frankly if anyone did go first, good cause or no within say the next 20 years, I would be the first to sign up to fight along side the government. Too much good is happening right now. So you are willing to throw away a resurgence of real Freedom in exchange for imagined advances? They shit on the Constitution and then give a tiny fraction back and you would fight to stop anyone from helping drive progress toward more real Freedom? You really don't get it. I really do get it. No one has gone first, they all want the benefit without paying the cost. You haven't done it either. Only difference is I've explained my reluctance to join a resurgence. You pretend as if one exists and it is a crime against nature that at this point in time I think a resurgence would be bull shit. Should I tear down the whole house because I choose the wrong floor tile? I won't set loose chaos because the government passed unconstitutional laws. Corrections are being made without a resurgence.

Uh? No, you really don't get it. You said that you would help squash anyone who did go first. Even if they were right. The government is going ape shit and you side with them. I get what your laying down bro! No problem.

To quote a Great Document

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Our rights have not yet been removed from us(the laws on guns are going back and forth), so the "Causes" are still "Light and Transient". When our rights are Actually removed from us(When we can no longer own a gun, We can't redress our grievances, speak our mind, etc...) Then we will be justified in following the part in Blue.

When we can no longer effect change by the way of the Pen, We may use the sword. Until such time, we will be acting against ourselves by supporting violent revolution.

You can tell who hates guns by who's refusing to vote for John McCain over small shit when the people he's running against want things like national registries, national bans on concealed carry, licenses to even OWN guns, etc.

Quoted: To quote a Great Document We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Our rights have not yet been removed from us(the laws on guns are going back and forth), so the "Causes" are still "Light and Transient". When our rights are Actually removed from us(When we can no longer own a gun, We can't redress our grievances, speak our mind, etc...) Then we will be justified in following the part in Blue. When we can no longer effect change by the way of the Pen, We may use the sword. Until such time, we will be acting against ourselves by supporting violent revolution.

Agreed.

How important is the 2nd and the the other 9?

Important enough to give up my health and tie myself to the closest hospital for the rest of my life.

More Important than (a womans right to choose , 2 Cycle Boat engines & Personal watercraft in Tahoe, an imediant clampdown on the border, Drilling in Anwar ...

Read my post on page 3. Don't ignore history. It will bite your ass.

As others have said, the 2nd is the ultimate litmus test - Anyone who wholeheartedly supports and defends it is also likely to support and defend the other Amendments as well.

"Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put." "If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you." "If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims." "What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him? If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?" — Novelist L. Neil Smith, Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?

Gun rights are what stopped me from being apathetic with regards to politics.  

my right to bear arms makes me thank the founding fathers of this great country every day!

The second amendment  is very important to me, however it wouldn't be much use if all I could own were shotguns that fired p/c ammunition to be merely used for hunting.
That is one thing that worries me, if they can't take our guns they'll try to ban most of the ammunition or restrict when and where we can shoot and so on and so forth.  Other issues  are definately important, but protecting our basic rights created by our forefathers is getting to be more and more paramount in our litigous and easily offended society.