Tag Cloud
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
2nd Amendment Day
by Bernard "Rusty" Kleine, published on September 10, 2011 at 10:49 PM
Storyline: Rusty's Culture
Loading images
“We have to fight to protect the Second Amendment” said Sam Parades, member of the Board of Directors of Gun Owners of America, to a group of gun enthusiasts who gathered to express their second amendment rights at a “2nd Amendment Day” event, sponsored by TDS Guns of Rocklin.
Craig, co-owner of TDS Guns, said they put on this event “to show our support for the Tea Party and the Second Amendment.” “People don’t take responsibility”, said Craig, when asked about the purchase of firearms for unlawful reasons. “It’s not the gun’s fault, it is the individual.”
Several guest speakers spoke at the event, including Eric Hogue, VP of Advancement at William Jessup University, Sacramento area talk show host, and radio commentator. Hogue reflected on his upbringing being exposed to guns and how his Great Grandfather taught him everything he needed to know about the use, danger, and proper way to use guns, “so why on God’s green earth, do I need a government to tell me more than that”.
Nearby, two protesters used their First Amendment rights to peacefully express their views on the subject of gun control. “We have been able to point out our beliefs about how accidental deaths from guns are unacceptable and there are too many in a modern society” said one protester.
Also on hand today was Miss Capitol City, Rachel Walter, who is vying for the Crown of Miss California in 2012. TDS Guns is one of her sponsors for the pageant. When asked about her goals for the competition, “my goal as the future crown holder is to help promote education in the state that she loves; after all, education is the process by which society deliberately transmits its accumulated knowledge, skills, and values from one generation to the next.
Mark Meckler, Co-Founder and National Coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots inspired the crowd with his thoughts, “It is critically important that we come out on days like today and support the Second Amendment. It’s critically important that we read the Second Amendment, that we read the entire constitution, and that we understand the rights given to us by the founders”.
In America, we have been given the right to express our opinions openly and honestly. We can march, we can protest, we can even criticize our leaders as well as hold events like today’s, as long as we stay in the boundaries of the law. There are issues we may not agree with that are neighbors see differently and for the most part, we agree to disagree. Some issues such as the 2nd Amendment can polarize people in a way, which is very hard to find common ground, but the majority of us seem to be proud, we have that right to do just that.
Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
In spite of all the poorly worded platitudes in the last paragraph, the tea party has a different opinion. The tea party views any disagreement with their agenda as un-patriotic or even treasonable. While the basic principle of democracy is "majority rule" the tea party is trying to impose their minority movement agenda on the majority.
The TEA party's minority rule is related to their interpretation of the constitution. The constitution can end up being "minority rule". To make an example, prop 187 passed with majority supporting. The courts overruled it saying it was unconstitutional. The TEA party often claim the same of many laws passed by legislative and executive bodies. That they may have been enacted by a majority, but should be ruled unconstitutional just as 187, 103, etc
I wanted to attend this, but have limited financial mobility these days. While I strongly support the 2nd amendment, and exercise it with my feet, I have to say that I'm always apprehensive where Meckler is a prime mover of an effort.
A well regulated militia was one that was governed by what George Washington called "a well regulated Militia Law." Such a law, Washington wrote, was necessary to keep militiamen from such mischief as "plundering the inhabitants, under pretense of their being Tories." The law, he said would put the militia under officers who would make the militia render real service and "protect, instead of distressing, the inhabitants."
That's what Washington told William Livingston, governor of New Jersey, during the Revolution. He insisted that the governor have his legislature immediately pass such a law, and he insisted particularly that the new law oblige every man to turn out who was "capable of bearing Arms." I
In the strictly militia context of Washington's letter, as in the wording of the later Second Amendment, the phrase "bear arms" means "provide militia service."
Old men in wheelchairs are generally capable of carrying arms of some sort, but they are not "capable of bearing arms" in militia context.
(George Washington to William Livingston, January 24, 1777.)
Pass a new amendment "Since well regulated militias are no longer needed, the right to bear arms may be infringed".
Until then... deal with it. The Constitution was written in ink, not pencil.
Not what the Founders had in mind at all. See Madison, for example.
Nope, sorry. There's a critical difference here: in America, we have a Constitution that protects our *pre-existing* right to express our opinions without someone forcibly quieting us. Similarly, it codifies our *pre-existing* right to self-defense. As a part of being existing, every creature has the inherent right to protect itself from harm. Like it or not, denying someone the use of a firearm for self-defense is denying them the most efficient and effective way for anybody - regardless of physical condition - to protect themselves from those who might harm them. Denying something that right is morally repugnant, and tantamount to denying them their value as a living being and a person.
Finally, for Davi Rodrigues, the Supreme Court certainly DOES get things wrong. They're humans, and over time they've ensured that they have powers to (prepare yourself for cliche here) essentially legislate from the bench. I personally never use the "the Supreme Court said" line to defend something. If you had 5 Justices claim that you weren't allowed to believe in God because of their interpretation, it doesn't make them right simply because they said it. Defending gun rights from a framework of rationality, reason, and human rights always trumps the "because someone said so" argument.
My point is: whatever the Supreme Court decides amongst themselves, if it's clearly against the actual intent and non-politicized meaning of the Constitution, or a violation of rights and liberties, I don't care what the guys and gals in the robes SAY. They're still wrong.
I'm not saying this is anarchy, and you just disregard the laws you don't feel like following. But it's important to recognize when a law isn't right and isn't just so you can protest, get enough people to realize it's wrong, and effect a change.
If the Supreme Court is wrong, and enough people feel that way, you push and lobby to change and redress that grievance. You don't just say "Well, it's the law now, right or wrong. I guess we just keep handing over liberties because we're told to. Nothing more to see here."
While it is the case that people in charge will try and co-opt more power and authority than is actually allowed for (all three branches do this shamelessly), it doesn't make it wrong to try and change that. It's probably not right to simply allow an executive or judiciary to take more and more power than their documented rulebook allows without trying to call them on it.
This session of the California legislature has passed and sent to Gov. Brown four bills aimed at restricting our Second amendment rights. Not a one of them will be effective in preventing misuse of firearms, but they certainly infringe on the rights of the law abiding.
Nothing TEA baggy about it. just the effort to comply with a very cumbersome, and soon complicated law in regards to transporting a handgun. It's become even worse lately, with the addition of 1000 ft school zones where it must be locked and unloaded, but in a vehicle. That alone took away some peoples ability to transport a handgun from their home if they did not have a vehicle. So you see......it does limit people's rights as per their guns. What with the government trying to get people out of their cars and all, it limits your rights a bit, and soon to be alot, to use your gun anywhere but home