Posted: 3/30/2012 5:39:11 PM EDT
|
I need some help for a discussion question for school.
Does supporting the right to bear arms (the 2nd Amendment) make you more American than someone who opposes it? Why or why not? |
|
Quoted:
I need some help for a discussion question for school. Does supporting the right to bear arms (the 2nd Amendment) make you more American than someone who opposes it? Why or why not? Yes it does, because someone opposed to the 2A is opposed to one of the most cherished ideals of the nation and founding fathers: the right to PROTECT YOUR OWN LIBERTY. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I need some help for a discussion question for school. Does supporting the right to bear arms (the 2nd Amendment) make you more American than someone who opposes it? Why or why not? Yes it does, because someone opposed to the 2A is opposed to one of the most cherished ideals of the nation and founding fathers: the right to PROTECT YOUR OWN LIBERTY. Thanks. This is for an ethics class dealing with cultural diversity, so I appreciate the approach from an ideal since those are the foundation of our culture. |
|
I dont think people will enjoy being called "less American" and if you are trying to change the minds of people. negativity almost never works. Facts do. Do I think they are less American? I'm not sure I can answer that, because who am I to decide what makes someone more or less American than someone else. ETA: If I had to choose a side, I would have to say that it doesn't make someone less American. Inferring that would lead to a back and forth over who is more or less American than someone else. They can call you less American for not supporting (insert lib topic here), etc. |
|
Quoted:
I dont think people will enjoy being called "less American" and if you are trying to change the minds of people. negativity almost never works. Facts do. Do I think they are less American? I'm not sure I can answer that, because who am I to decide what makes someone more or less American than someone else. This is a great point. I know that if the question was about the First Ammendment, the answer would be just as clear, but there would be zero resistance to the response. I'm going to try and not offend any of my fellow students because becoming less abrasive is one of my professional goals for the year 
ETA: Maybe I need to brush up on my spelling and grammar as well 
|
|
Yes, supporting the 2A shows understanding for what America is about. America was founded on the principle that Americans were equal, with no person having privilege over another. Amendments 1-10 are individual rights. No King, Queen, Emperor, Dictator, Pope, Mullah, Tribal Chief or Witch Doctor would have autocratic rule over the people. The Republic was formulated in a way that the majority could not enslave the minority. A key component of the Bill of Rights is "your private property is yours alone", not the King's. Private property includes oneself, the ability to protect oneself (2A) and the ability to keep the fruits of one's labor (wealth and property). This was a new idea for 1787, where all other countries were ruled by Kings, Popes, Mullahs and Tribal Chiefs. It's what enabled the individual innovation that made America great. And could make America great again, if we can get the Federal monkey off the backs of the American people/businessman. |
|
Something along the lines of
... allowing yourself to be easy prey to criminals only encourages criminal behavior. So yes, supporting the right to keep and bear arms is patriotic, because it's patriotic to want more people to be safe. If you refuse to arm yourself and you submit to crime, you are a proximate cause of criminal's future crimes. |
|
If you need historical documentation to support your position, I'd advise you to look at the Militia Acts. These acts define, in strict and clear terminology for modern people unfamiliar with the history and philosophical underpinnings of our nation, what the word "Militia" means.
Those acts define the militia as every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45, and REQUIRE them to arm themselves (at their own cost) with the standard infantry firearm of the day, and to furnish themselves with enough ammunition and supplies to participate in a pitched battle. This illustrates our unique system of government, as well as our culture and legal philosophy. As our articles of government were crafted, it was taken for granted that a FREE NATION could NOT EXIST unless the people were armed and able to defend both their liberty and sovereignty. This is the same philosophy that underpins the Swiss system. Until someone understands this central, lynch-pin concept, they do not understand what it is to be a citizen of a free nation. A disarmed, helpless, subservient population is functionally incapable of creating or preserving liberty - it is an essential requirement for a free peoples to be armed. I'd argue that anyone who does not support that concept, is either ignorant of or hostile to the basic prerequisites for a free nation to even exist, and hence holds views incompatible with that of America. |
|
Quoted:
If you need historical documentation to support your position, I'd advise you to look at the Militia Acts. These acts define, in strict and clear terminology for modern people unfamiliar with the history and philosophical underpinnings of our nation, what the word "Militia" means. Those acts define the militia as every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45, and REQUIRE them to arm themselves (at their own cost) with the standard infantry firearm of the day, and to furnish themselves with enough ammunition and supplies to participate in a pitched battle. This illustrates our unique system of government, as well as our culture and legal philosophy. As our articles of government were crafted, it was taken for granted that a FREE NATION could NOT EXIST unless the people were armed and able to defend both their liberty and sovereignty. This is the same philosophy that underpins the Swiss system. Until someone understands this central, lynch-pin concept, they do not understand what it is to be a citizen of a free nation. A disarmed, helpless, subservient population is functionally incapable of creating or preserving liberty - it is an essential requirement for a free peoples to be armed. I'd argue that anyone who does not support that concept, is either ignorant of or hostile to the basic prerequisites for a free nation to even exist, and hence holds views incompatible with that of America. I believe that I can support my position without needing to cite anything other than common knowlesge (it's a simple discussion post, not a paper). I'm not sure if I could truly explain the Swiss system to a class that is *likely* a left leaning group, since I'm still somewhat ignorant of it. I'll research that more later, but I find the part in your post about stocking the standard infantry weapon and enough ammo to be interesting. I think that I will not be sharing with the class that I have 1,200 rds of IMI M855 on the way.... |
|
Quoted:
Supporting the Constitution makes you more of an American. Last time I checked the 2nd amendment was still there. Exactly. The best way to answer the question is by re-phrasing it as another question: Does supporting ALL of the Constitution makes you more of an American than supporting just some parts of it? |
|
Quoted:
Supporting the Constitution makes you more of an American. Last time I checked the 2nd amendment was still there. So people were less American because they tried to repeal Prohibition? The whole concept is that we Americans choose our own destiny. If we don't like it, we change it. There's even a mechanism in the Constitution on how to do it. No, they're not less American, but they are misguided. |