The Legion's 2nd Amendment position, and why disarming will never happen

 
« Previous story
Next story »
 
The Legion's 2nd Amendment position, and why disarming will never happen

Every now and again I get a question about the Legion's position on the 2nd Amendment.  As with all Amendments and everything in the Constitution: we support it fully.  More specifically, our position comes directly from our resolution on the issue, which you can find by CLICKING HERE

Here are the resolved clauses:

RESOLVED, By The American Legion in National Convention assembled in Indianapolis, Indiana, August 28, 29, 30, 2012, That The American Legion reaffirms its recognition that the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees each law-abiding American citizen the right to keep and bear arms; and, be it finally RESOLVED,

That the membership of The American Legion urges our nation's lawmakers to recognize, as part of their oaths of office, that the Second Amendment guarantees law-abiding citizens the right to keep and bear the arms of their choice, as do the millions of American veterans who have fought, and continue to fight, to preserve those rights, hereby advise the Congress of the United States and the Executive Department to cease and desist any and all efforts to restrict these rights by any legislation or order.

Pretty simple, that is our position.

Now I received a video from the NRA this week that I wanted to share.  I'm not generally one to worry about the Government trying to disarm us en masse and send us to FEMA camps.  It's just not happening.  And Billy Johnson explains why.

Posted in the burner | 25 comments
 
« Previous story
Next story »

 

* To comment without a Facebook account, please scroll to the bottom.

Comments

The NRA video makes a supposition, but does not reflect the reality and scope of the situation. We may be told we are a Republic, we may think we are a Republic, but the Constitution under which we were formed has been replaced by one of incorporation. Hence we have been made domicile and chattel property to the Corporation of the United States. That is just a matter of fact, legal fact actually. So, the entire premise of the video does not recognize that the Rights under the original Constitution are no longer in effect. Nor are our allodial rights of property, and self. We are only left with our expression of unalienable rights under God, and whatever ability we individually or as community can maintain. Understand your Constitution, but take the same effort and more to understand the conditions of your government and your responsibilities regarding Freedom and Liberty. For if you do not, no one else will!

What about the constitution proclaiming no elected official will produce laws which are self serving?
Take a good look at how they have excluded themselves from the Obama Care, give themselves pay increases which are not equal to the cost of living increases and given themselves retirement plans that no one else gets. And you think if they decide to do this they won't come up with some way to impement it over time? Especially with all the shootings being done by young children in our schools. The "DO GOODERS" are going to continue to push this forever. They don't seem to have any common sence that the "bad guys" are not going to be giving up their arms. Case in point, Chicago.

A Constitutional Amendment is needed limiting all Congressional offices and all government bureaucrats to a maximum of 12 years employment. No retirement benefits of any type. What we have now is a group of lifetime elitists who could care less about average citizens, never mind veterans.

I firmly believe that it is unnecessary for anyone to carry a concealed weapon. It makes me uncomfortable, I'd rather see it. It should be made into law and made a criminal act to conceal a weapon.

William is wrong. The Democrats have for years tried and, at times, succeeded in prohibiting types and quantities of gun, magazine or accessory. Look what they pursue in cities like Chicago, NYC or Boston. Look at the policies advocated in Sacramento or Springfield. Listen to Democrats like Dianne Feinstein or Michael Bloomberg. They want to prohibit guns and their accessibility. Both have advocated for confiscation and so have many other Democrats. The Democrats do not like the Second Amendment or many other aspects of the very Constitution we both swore our oath to. This ambivalence---or outright opposition---should disqualify them from holding any office.

I think anyone sworn into public office should adhere to what they were sworn into. To defend the Constitutionand their amendments. Not just points they agree with. To pick out parts and attack them should be prohibited in some fashion. But now you get into 1st amendment issues.

Sen Feinstein packed a pistol for many years because of threats. She stopped because she thought she could not get it out of her purse fast enough. She has ONLY wanted to control/ban weapons such as the AR15 and other automatic weapons. You can have a pistol, revolver, shotgun, rifle as you please. NO Democrat has introduced ANY bill to prohibit gun ownership, only to keep the possibility of a massacre down with an automatic weapon.

No Republican, nor the NRA, has introduced nor advocated any bill to expand mental health coverage. Bur they always tell us after each massacre it was the mentally ill individual who was responsible not the gun. Guess you 2nd Amendment types won't do anything to protect us in any manner.

Is this the same William Cubley who told Tom that we are not here to insult one another? I suppose that it is ok for you to insult "Second Amendment Types". You know LUMP THEM ALL into ONE TYPE. Next time just use "You People".

The AR-15 is not an automatic weapon. Automatic weapons are prohibited by law for nearly everyone in the country, except for a relatively small number of federally licensed individuals. Unfortunately, what Sen Feinstein and others want to do is create headlines and win elections based upon the falacy that anyone can buy an automatic weapon.

I find it very interesting that most, if not all, of the mass shootings that have occurred here in the United States have been done by people who were registered democrats, or the offspring of same. I was astounded by this.
Conservatives are often portrayed as the haters in our society by the democrats and the media, but it would seem the opposite applies. It looks like the conservatives need to be armed to protect ourselves from more liberal ideology.

As veterans we all swore an oath to uphold the constitution of the United States. Isn't about time that all of our elected and appointed officials are held to the same standard. The amendments to our constitution, especially the first ten, known collectively as the Bill of Rights are there for specific reasons and should not be taken lightly as they seem to be by many career politicians. Constitutional scholars have researched and commented as to the intent of the founding fathers when they authored the Bill of Rights. They mean what they say and say what the founding fathers wanted them to mean. Maybe the disregard for this, shown by so many in public offices, is a good argument for limiting terms of office, for both elected and appointed officials. T. Earney might have the right idea.

WHATEVER OUR FOREFATHERS MEANT OR INTENDED TO MEAN, OUR CONSTITUTION DOES NOT INCLUDE "ASSAULT WEAPONS' WHICH SHOULD BE IN THE HANDS OF ARMED FORCES ONLY.

Assault weapons are in the hands of the armed forces and law enforcement. We civilians (Veteran USN) we are only allowed semi automatic lookalikes, rest easy liberal.

Please define, "Assault Weapons". This term, as well as "Assault Rifle", are bantered about in 2nd Amendment debates all the time. If I assault you with my Remington 870, 20 Gauge shotgun, then that becomes an "Assault Weapon". The same with my 9mm pistol.
So if I assault you with any weapon, including a knife, it is by, definition, an "Assault Weapon".
Those who are trying to destroy our Constitution, will use any demented form of argument that they perceive as usable.
Don't get drawn into their trap.

I used to own a pistol until someone stole it out of my house (one of my daughters friends!). I still believe in gun ownership, but disagree with owning "any" gun. Who needs a AK-47 or a AR-15 to hunt deer? Are you afraid they are going to shoot back at you? There are SOME people in the South that own automatic weapons, anti tank weapons and even more deadly wepons (They call themselves militia). Does ANYBODY out there think that is ok? I sure don't!!

Archie Bunker , from "All in the Family", said it best when his daughter, Gloria , argued with him about the gun control issue. She argued with him about the thousands of people who died from gun shot injuries & that guns should be banned . His reply was: "Would it have made you feel better, little girl, if they were pushed out of windows?" Point is if some dirt bag wants to kill you & there are no guns around then he, or she, will use what ever is available to get the job done. I'd hate to think I was being attacked by a person with a hand gun or worse & I have a pocket knife. "Never take a knife to a gun fight. Yeah, I know , if guns are banned then only criminals will have guns. How true!!!!

If there is any doubt about what the founding fathers intended as relates to the 2nd Amendment please read Federalist #46. This particular Federalist Paper makes it perfectly clear the people are intended to out gun the standing army.

Mr. Hunnewell, the most common "deer" gun is the 30-6, much more powerful that a standard AR-15 (.223 or 5.56). Anyone in the south or anywhere else that owns "automatic weapons, anti tank weapons and even more deadly weapons (SIC)" is in violation of the Federal Firearms Act of 1934 unless they have a Class 3 weapons license. In regards to militia groups, more are found are found North of the Mason Dixon line: Michigan has 12 recognized groups and Ohio 8. South of the Mason Dixon Texas has the most at 3. In regards to you lost pistol: I hope you have reported it stolen to the Police and second, in many states you broke the law but NOT securing you pistol in a locked container to prevent its theft or unauthorized use- YOU MIGHT BE A CRIMINAL. I am not certain where you got your data but I got mine for the FBI and the ATF. I am from "the South", I am NOT a militia member and do not know any, I own multiple AR 15 and "assault weapon" variants ( a description that has no meaning other than the cosmetic appearance of a weapon- it looks mean, can hold a bayonet, or more than 10 rounds- it does not address the functioning of the weapon ie: 30-6 much more deadly than an AR 14), I am not afraid of Deer, militias, the media, or you. After 30 years of military service and nine combat tours protecting people I don't know- I am strongly inclined to exercise my 2nd Amendment Rights to bear arms to protect my family, my community, my nation and even the misinformed. Target shooting is legal as in hunting. I have not shot a human since my last combat deployment even though I have multiple "assault weapons" and live in "the south". I not sure what you asking is OK- gun ownership yes, illegal guns no, misinformed broad assertions no, shooting Bambi with a LEGAL weapon yes. Keeping weapons for protection YES, Allowing unauthorized persons to "steal" your pistol no, NOT securing your weapons and allowing it to be stolen or used by an unauthorized person NO- you are potentially not only wrong but a CRIMINAL. Use you computer to educate yourself NOT spread innuendo and misinformation! Respectfully, A Proud Southern Gun Owner

The second amendment is obsolete and should be replaced since it assumes we do not have a regulated militia which is not true today. Registered background checked citizens should be permitted to own hand guns for self defense and sport and guns should be legal for hunting and sport but no individual needs an AK47 or Uzie or its ilk. Gun collectors should be allowed to own any kind of a fire arm so long as it is rendered inoperable.

The second amendment is obsolete and should be replaced since it assumes we do not have a regulated militia which is not true today. Registered background checked citizens should be permitted to own hand guns for self defense and sport and guns should be legal for hunting and sport but no individual needs an AK47 or Uzie or its ilk. Gun collectors should be allowed to own any kind of a fire arm so long as it is rendered inoperable.

If you read the Federalist Papers and the Consitution, you will see that our Founding Fathers did intend for us to have the same weapons as the military. The Founding Fathers knew that power corrupts and the only way to ensure that the citizenry could maintain control over the government is if the citizenry can get rid of a tyrannical government. If you don't beleive in guns, don't have them, but don't try to reinterpret the Constitution to say we all should not have them. Maybe it seems far-fetched to think of citizend with the same weapons as the military, but no matter where you go back in time, the only way a general populace was able to take control back from a tyrranical government is if they were evenly matched or better matched than the tyrants. Our Founding Fathers knew this and that is why the second amendment is so clear on this issue. A well regulated militia (that's a citizens army), being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
It seems our education system went downhill in the 60's when the government started allowing deferments to those who became teachers. All of a sudden we had an influx of "teachers" who were in reality dodging the draft. I was one of many students held hostage to the rantings of this new breed of teacher. Fortunately for me, I liked to read and I loved history. So I was able to read about our country's history from a variety of texts. I wonder just how many people today are aware that what started our revolution was the fact that King George, in order to keep the Colonist in line, sent his troops to Boston to DISARM the populace. That action turned into the "shot heard "round the world", and the rest is history. We do not need to disarm the populace in order to protect society; we need to enforce the current laws we have. We don't need to distort facts by calling a repeating rifle an assault weapon. We need to reign in a government that comes up with stupid gun-running programs it can't control. We have background checks. We need law enforcement and the judicial system to enforce the laws we have now.

So, who is to decide which types of firearms citizens can be allowed to own? An government or president bent to controlling its citizens? What criteria will be used to determine who "needs" a firearm? Will criminals obey these laws? What would be next- A ban on knives? Maybe certain types of bows or crossbows? After all who needs a bowie knife or a compound bow or a crossbow. Our founding fathers recognized the potiential danger of placing oppressive power in the hands of a few , which is why the Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment, was created.

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.
Have a tip for us? A link that should appear here? Contact us.
News from the World of Military and Veterans Issues. Iraq and A-Stan in parenthesis reflects that the author is currently deployed to that theater.