Is The Second Amendment Worth Dying For?

The Federalist ^ | February 19, 2018 | John Daniel Davidson

[Mom MD]

If the second amendment leads to deaths (and I don’t believe it does but for the sake of argument I will go along with the premise) it leads to far fewer deaths than the dictatorial regime we would eventually be saddled with if we gave up the right to defend ourselves as private citizens

[dp0622]

lol!

I’m not your type :)

[Sopater]

If the second amendment leads to deaths (and I don’t believe it does but for the sake of argument I will go along with the premise)...

I think he's saying that if guns are allowed in a free society, that there will inevitably be innocent deaths via the use of guns. I don't think that he's saying that these deaths would not occur were there no 2A, but those who are calling for the repeal of the 2A seem to be making that unreasonable assumption.

[DPMD]

“What if we chose to regard the 2,973 innocents killed in the atrocities of 9/11 not as victims but as democratic martyrs...”

What if there were no hypothetical questions?

[Vermont Lt]

Did I say that?

[JoeFromSidney]

I don't think my death would help anything. However, I think the 2nd Amendment is worth risking my life for, and if necessary, worth killing for.

[Vermont Lt]

Did I say that?

[JoeFromSidney]

I don't think my death would help anything. However, I think the 2nd Amendment is worth risking my life for, and if necessary, worth killing for.

[stockpirate]

“A people unwilling to use extreme violent force to obtain or preserve their liberty deserves the tyrants that rule them”

“The 2nd amendment protect the 1st”

“You won’t need the second amendment until they try to take it away from you”

[stockpirate]

“A people unwilling to use extreme violent force to obtain or preserve their liberty deserves the tyrants that rule them”

“The 2nd amendment protect the 1st”

“You won’t need the second amendment until they try to take it away from you”

[stockpirate]

I say repeal the 2nd Amendment and let’s get this party started.

[tarawa]

DEFINITELY WORTH READING. THANK YOU.

[Vaduz]

And if guns are taken away Have Crock Pot Will Travel and any other that harms must keep the crazy locked up.

[bunkerhill7]

My ancestors said yes in 1776 to stand with the Continental Congress Oct. 1775 and bear their own arms against the British:

“In Consequence of the resolution of the Hon Continental Congress and to Shew our Determination in Joining with our American Brethren in defending the Lives Liberties and properties of the Inhabitants of the United Colonies We the Subscribers do hereby solemnly engage and promise that we will to the utmost of our power at the risque of our Lives and Fortunes with Arms oppose the Hostile proceedings of the Brittish Fleets and armies against the United American Colonies”
“signers in Salem” “Israel Ober”... “WILLIAM HALL, Amos Dow, RICHARD Massna Selectmen of Salem” Dated Salem Aug 27 1776 “ p278ff
“signers in Brentwood” “Benjamin Pulsifer” p217,p278ff “Provincial and State Papers, Volume 8 During The Revolution 1776-1783” By New Hampshire” -Nathaniel Bouton

[Billthedrill]

Keeping the Second Amendment does not imply that we must accept school shootings as regrettable but necessary background noise. That's simply silly. What has typified a number of recent such cases is not that "the system", meaning the background check system and the criminal investigative system, was inadequate but that people entrusted to populate it with the necessary information required by law failed to do so. In the Elliot Rodger case, for example, a diagnosed schizophrenic under medication for years had that information blocked from the NICS by the California Medical Association in the interest of medical patient privacy. In the case of the Texas church shooting, it was failure to provide dishonorable discharge information to the NICS as required. In this case it was the failure of law enforcement to respond to literally dozens of warning flags that the individual concerned was malevolent, mentally unstable, and actively threatening.

The "necessary" compromise is already in place - the background check system is, in my opinion, an encroachment on the Second Amendment but one that should be minimized if the people running it were obeying the law as well. They're not, the data they use is being illegally retained as a de facto form of registration. Aside from the fact that this has never solved a single crime, it is a clear indication that "the system" is being weakened by carelessness in data gathering and by many of the people entrusted to run it either gaming it for something else or simply failing to do their jobs. When people demand "strengthening" the background check system, "fixing" it and making the people who run it accountable for their actions and failures should be a more accurate goal.

There are a lot of crazy people out there, and we know who many of them are. I would turn the author's question around and ask him if allowing them to wreak havoc is a necessary compromise in the interest of the First Amendment or if some necessary compromise in having them institutionalized isn't more in order here? Because it's too late to ban guns, and forcible confiscation at the point of another gun, however dressed up by rhetoric, is a cure far worse than the disease.

[Pollster1]

Is freedom worth dying for? I’d rather fight and live for it, if necessary, but some things are worth dying for. I have a moral obligation to pass a free country on to my children . . . or die trying.

[Wpin]

“Once the snowflake generation assumes full control of the levers of power.”

I don’t think it will be that long...present democrats are extremely intent and aggressive...

[William Tell]

From the linked article: "But of course owning and driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right, it’s a privilege that comes with certain duties and costs."

I claim that this is nonsense.

The predecessor to the automobile was a horse-drawn carriage. Does a person not have an unalienable right to harness an animal and improve the lives of himself and his family by doing so? Even drivers of horse-drawn carriages must follow certain rules; for example, controlling which carriage may pass through an intersection first.

If there is no right to own and operate a horse-drawn carriage, then how about a horse-drawn plow. Must a person seek government permission before harnessing an animal in an attempt to feed his family?

Technology has made it appear that many activities for which we have an unalienable right are impractical. Under the proper circumstances the right will be self-evident. The Second Amendment will make the argument with the government bureaucrats much simpler if the time comes that we must have the discussion.

[William Tell]

"... much tougher for me is are we willing to kill For freedom? I just don’t know the answer to that personally..."

Some of us were among those sent to fight America's enemies in Vietnam. I spent many hours on guard duty armed with an M16 and a box of grenades. I had plenty of time to contemplate whether or not I was willing to kill if our enemies attempted to take our position. I do know the answer to that personally.

I was fortunate I think that my resolve was never tested.

[Wpin]

I truly appreciate your resolve...I don’t think I would be as conflicted in a similar case. But, if we go to war here, it will be with our neighbors...with Americans. We need to pause and contemplate that seriously.

In a defensive situation I would act to protect my family...no matter how I would feel later. But, it is important to realistically ponder ahead of time what this war would mean.