Basically we have allowed our constitutional right to own firearms to be eroded away piece by legislative piece.

Our united approach should be simple:

The 2nd Amendment needs no interpretation.  What it says is clear - Individuals have a right to own firearms without restriction.

There is only one way that anyone can alter or take that right away from us and that is to amend the Constitution of the United States.

AR15.com, the NRA, the Congressmen and Senators that represent us and and anyone else that believes that the constitution is worth protecting should publically state and require that any attempt to do it any other way is unacceptable.

Any one who attempts to take our constitutional rights away without amending the constitution will be severely chastised in a very public manner and viewed as unamerican by our united organization.

Again - Our position should be simple - If you want to change it then amend it!

I think that it will be hard for anyone to find fault with this approach, including the media.



Your thoughts?

Call me a pessimist if you must, but I think it would be a temporary solution.  It would only work up until the time that they actually DO amend it.  I think it's coming.

I do not believe that it would have any chance of happening.

Everyone would know that speech, religion and press would be next.

Quoted: Basically we have allowed our constitutional right to own firearms to be eroded away piece by legislative piece. Our united approach should be simple: The 2nd Amendment needs no interpretation.  What it says is clear - Individuals have a right to own firearms without restriction. There is only one way that anyone can alter or take that right away from us and that is to amend the Constitution of the United States. AR15.com, the NRA, the Congressmen and Senators that represent us and and anyone else that believes that the constitution is worth protecting should publically state and require that any attempt to do it any other way is unacceptable. Any one who attempts to take our constitutional rights away without amending the constitution will be severely chastised in a very public manner and viewed as unamerican by our united organization. Again - Our position should be simple - If you want to change it then amend it! I think that it will be hard for anyone to find fault with this approach, including the media. Your thoughts?

Simplified it.

I agree with you 100% 1Bigdog. These firearm acts, bans, and laws are an infringement on our constitutional(more importantly God given right) to bear arms. I believe any politican or citizen that works to subvert the constitution through these backdoor non amendment routes is unpatriotic and extremely unAmerican. Oh, and if they were do amend it to ban privatley owned arms i would view it as a hostile act against the free people of this country and i would honor the unamended constitution our founding fathers had laid down for us.

Quoted: I agree with you 100% 1Bigdog. These firearm acts, bans, and laws are an infringement on our constitutional(more importantly God given right) to bear arms. I believe any politican or citizen that works to subvert the constitution through these backdoor non amendment routes is unpatriotic and extremely unAmerican. Oh, and if they were do amend it to ban privatley owned arms i would view it as a hostile act against the free people of this country and i would honor the unamended constitution our founding fathers had laid down for us.

It would be great to see this go 20 pages or so, if only we can have an intelligent conversation. I too would see it as an attack on my personal liberties. I too would know what to do. To go further would maybe promote a lock on this subject.

Here this is much simpler:

Any further violation or restriction against the 2nd Amendment will be taken as an act of war.

C

Quoted: Here this is much simpler: Any further violation or restriction against the 2nd Amendment will be taken as an act of war. C

That could work too.

It's been brought up here before, but the problem is that firearms don't play a pivotal role in the everyday life of the typical American. While it remains an important issue for us, the  trouble is drumming up support. Unlike 100 years ago, firearms aren't common place in the household and aren't used everyday. How do you think the nation would react if SUV's or cellphones were banned?

Best thing any of us can do is invite friends, family, and coworkers to the range. Introduce new shooters to the sport and encourage them support the RKBA.

Quoted: Quoted: Basically we have allowed our constitutional right to own firearms to be eroded away piece by legislative piece. Our united approach should be simple: The 2nd Amendment needs no interpretation.  What it says is clear - Individuals have a right to own firearms without restriction. There is only one way that anyone can alter or take that right away from us and that is to amend the Constitution of the United States. AR15.com, the NRA, the Congressmen and Senators that represent us and and anyone else that believes that the constitution is worth protecting should publically state and require that any attempt to do it any other way is unacceptable. Any one who attempts to take our constitutional rights away without amending the constitution will be severely chastised in a very public manner and viewed as unamerican by our united organization. Again - Our position should be simple - If you want to change it then amend it! I think that it will be hard for anyone to find fault with this approach, including the media. Your thoughts? Simplified it.

I think I understand your point, however, gun owners need to to take a unified public approach that the public can easily understand.

Many members of the public may believe that a ban on specific types of firearms is a good thing for the country.  The same people that believe this however would not  go along with a trampling of our Constitution in order to accomplish it.

The second Amendment says that our rights "shall not be infringed".  To me this means that our representatives are not allowed to make laws that limit this freedom in any way at any time.  Therefore any one that attempts to create a law that infringes our rights is doing something that directly flies in the face of the Constitution.

This is important.

We should never allow ourselves to be put in any position of having to argue over whether any proposed piece of legislation makes sense from the country's perspective or not.  It may be a difficult argument for us to win if the average Joe is the judge.  However, from the Constitution's perspective what a proposed piece of legislation says is meaningless, because "shall not be infringed" means it is not allowed in the first place to even be considered by our representatives no matter what it says.

Our unified position should be;

If you want to change it then amend it first.

Because until they do they are not allowed to even propose any changes to our right to bear arms.

They will never get a constitutional amendment passed.

Everyone has a fear of losing something in the Bill of Rights.  Once the second is changed then freedom of religion is not far behind.  At some point people may believe that certain freedoms that the press has should be abandoned.  Once we start eroding the basic freedoms the slope becomes very slippery.

The average person can understand this and would not want to see it begin.

If you want to change it then amend it first.

It is simple, the average Joe can understand it, and we do not have to enter into any debates regarding issues.

Zumbo knows what a ton of bricks feels like. Whoever feels that legislating is adequate without amendment first - should feel the same weight.

If we are unified the weight will be 100 times greater than Zumbo felt.

We never argue the details of what is being proposed, we only scream bloody murder when anyone attempts to piss on one of the most important documents in the history of mankind without first following the proper procedures for altering it.

I agree, but I personally suspect someone would try to amend it and we'd have to once more counter arguments over the actual intent of the framers of the Constitution and their 'inability to foresee' what is generally and vaguely referred to as the circumstances of today.  I always point out that any interpretation needs to consider:

1) The arms of the 18th century, which citizens were guaranteed the right to keep and bear by the Bill of Rights, were in every respect equal and in some respects superior to the common military technology of the time.

2) The framers of the Constitution were not considering hunters when they wrote the Second Amendment; they were thinking of Lexington Green and Concord.