# Farewell to 2A



## Jem (Mar 7, 2019)

I generally lurk and read for months without popping up outa my foxhole. So here’s my bi-annual rant. 

To understand what I am about to convey, you must first disabuse yourself of what you believe to be a fundamental truth: “Your chosen political representative fights the opposition party to advance your interests in Washington.” RUBISH! There is NO democrat vs republican push and pull in Washington. Any conflict that you may see on the evening news, or via your smartphone’s news aggregator is carefully curated theater to bend and twist your perception, and make you believe that the people you send to Washington have your best interest at heart. Indeed, there are only those WITH power standing against those WITHOUT power.

Understanding the rules: When democrats appear to be in power, they do not mess with guns or religion. When republicans are in power, they do not mess with abortion or entitlement programs. That way they can all get together at the end of the day and share drinks and cigars. Consider that eight years of Barack Obama resulted in ZERO gun control measures. Honestly, republican POLITICIANS are just as opposed to guns as democrats. Guns threaten their power…. Or so we are led to believe. 

The reality is that the tattered and torn remains of the second amendment are little more than a distraction. A loud and phallic rallying cry rammed squarely between the left and right butt cheeks of a largely ignorant and gullible population of patriots. Guns may represent a threat to individual politicians, but the global machine could care less how many puny guns you have. The machine has spent decades, perhaps centuries carefully shepherding and nurturing entire populations around the world to absolutely HATE Americans. If ever there comes a time when America’s “freedom” becomes to much of a liability or inconvenience to those global power brokers, “we the people” wouldn’t last any longer than it would take to sing the first three stanzas of the Star Spangled Banner. How many of you have gas masks for your entire household? Or underground bunkers that can withstand a GBU 57A MOP? The point is that our puny small arms and hunting rifles are ill prepared to repel a concerted attack on our way of life.

The Federal Government would be instructed to have our armed forces stand down. Unofficial estimates indicate that 2/3 would comply, and 1/3 would wage a rouge war. These true patriots would be canceled out by at least 1/3 of the remaining 2/3 of armed forces, so no help there.

Many of you fine people here at Prepper Forums would linger and continue some manner of resistance, but the greater American way of life, sadly, would be lost whether we have guns or not. Personal arms still afford me the possibility to defend myself and my loved ones from everyday thugs and miscreants, so there is that. The original intent of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America was to provide “We the People” the possibility to resist and possible unseat a tyrannical or corrupt government. I’m pretty sure that not a single one of you owns an F35 Lightning II, and THAT’S what 2A SHOULD be about. Just do me a favor – Don’t hang your future on the promise of a 230 year old document that was, for all intents and purposes, nullified by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Look to the larger picture.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

I see that Biden's "you'll need F-15s and nuclear weapons" threat worked.
As long as he can continue to make headway with defeatists using mere words, why bother using force, right?

Can you enlighten us on the details of this "larger picture"? I assume it entails learning a new salute and calling every one "Party Member So-and-So", but I could be wrong.


----------



## Jem (Mar 7, 2019)

Kauboy said:


> Can you enlighten us on the details of this "larger picture"? I assume it entails learning a new salute and calling every one "Party Member So-and-So", but I could be wrong.


Yes, the post was regrettably depressing. I love my people as much or more than the next guy, but the "bigger picture" is knowing who your people are. I served this government for 25 years. fought it's wars, and killed who they told me to kill. After the fact, I had to consider "what was the point?" I've concluded that someone who claims to be an American isn't necessarily "my people." I'm certain there was a time when being an American was was synonymous with being "my people", but those days have gone. Madonna is an American. AOC is an American. Joe and Camilla are Americans. RuPaul is an American. Colin Rand Kaepernick is an American. You may claim one or the other of these as your people, but I don't. 

The "Larger Picture" is to not be limited or defined by documents or national identity, but rather by ideals and principals. Then find those like minded people and make something. Undoubtedly, that's what our fore fathers did when they first founded this once great country. Unfortunately, the tree of liberty has missed a few too many refreshing's in past years.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

The larger picture is that our culture is nonexistent and our society is splintered.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Jem said:


> Then find those like minded people and make something.


Isn't that what the states are for?
The nation, as a whole, was never meant to be a homogenous entity. Each state was supposed to be a micro-chasm of differing ideals and principals. The federal government was established simply as a means to ensure the various states would interact with each other on a level field of play, and protect them from foreign incursion. It has since ventured beyond that scope. But the real power still remains with the states themselves.
To loop this back around, that's why I see a positive future in so far as the 2nd amendment is concerned. 61% of our nation's counties are now "sanctuary counties" for the 2A. That has yet to be truly tested, but it's a push in the right direction.
It's the first hand being played at the poker table. Is it a bluff? Is it real? We won't know until it's called. After that, we could see many more hands played with more aggression and fervor from both sides.
I look to Texas' recently passed silencer bill. The can of worms it could open up could provide decades of amusement. If Texans can begin to build and own unregulated silencers, you can imagine the logical next steps...

I do not share your bleak view of the future.
Not yet...


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Isn't that what the states are for?
> The nation, as a whole, was never meant to be a homogenous entity. Each state was supposed to be a micro-chasm of differing ideals and principals. The federal government was established simply as a means to ensure the various states would interact with each other on a level field of play, and protect them from foreign incursion. It has since ventured beyond that scope. But the real power still remains with the states themselves.
> To loop this back around, that's why I see a positive future in so far as the 2nd amendment is concerned. 61% of our nation's counties are now "sanctuary counties" for the 2A. That has yet to be truly tested, but it's a push in the right direction.
> It's the first hand being played at the poker table. Is it a bluff? Is it real? We won't know until it's called. After that, we could see many more hands played with more aggression and fervor from both sides.
> ...


You are generally correct, but you are ignoring how far we are from where we should be.
As far as principles, while each state would have different styles of leadership, and while there would be slight differences in the understanding of things like faith (I say slight, but new colonies were created over the "slight" differences), but the understanding of "the laws of nature and nature's God" was shared. While there were differences, we were still one nation. 
Now, even within states, there are deep divisions.

That isn't the first hand at the poker table, by the way. The federal drinking age mandate is one example. The federal government demanded 21-years and Louisiana balked, not wanting to raise the age from 21. The 16th Amendment made it legal for the federal government to directly take money from the states and then dole it back to them as it sees fit. That being the case, Louisiana received no highway funding until it bowed to the federal government's demand.

Gangs run over law enforcement in our large cities and that is only going to get worse as the Mexican cartels are rolling over our southern border, thanks to the Establishment control of D.C. They recruit American youth, send them into the military to learn combat tactics so that they can come back to teach gangs to fight better.

Speaking of our standing army (I mention standing army to point out another stray from the Constitution), the troops are recruited from our population, a population that that is suffering from cultural rot where the Constitution and it forming is not taught but where socialism and moral disease as a good thing is taught. The military is a great place for indoctrination, and I'm sure we've all read about the "principles" being pushed by today's military leadership.

No, my friend, it is worse than you think. I don't think that we are going to implode, tomorrow, but I do think we are beyond the point of no return. As a matter of fact, it could be said we sailed beyond that point when the Godless Commies took control of our public education system. Speaking of government-funded public education... but that is yet another Constitutional discussion.


----------



## Jem (Mar 7, 2019)

Kauboy said:


> I do not share your bleak view of the future.
> Not yet...


And I applaud you for your optimism. And your position on States Rights - Mostly. Like Denton, I see the full weight of the federal government attempting for homogenize the states, and consolidate authority (as opposed to power)*. Some resist more than others. Our state of Alabama was the fourth to turn off the federal unemployment spigot. We've already seen backlash in the form of withholding other Covid Relief disbursements.

This is one of the main reasons why I ABSOLUTLY OPPOSE a nationally reciprocated concealed carry card. Let the states chose for them selves. Here in AL, only have to pass a rudimentary background check. If the standard were nationalized, I'd likely have to take classes, participate in training, and swear fealty to a sock puppet to legally carry concealed. I DO NOT oppose national constitutional carry.

Have a look at the what Washington is proposing for national election rules. And I say "Washington", because it's most of the swamp that is for it, not just liberals, though this specific article sites clear partisan lines. :









House Democrats Vote to Nullify, Nationalize State Election Laws


The House votes 220-210 to pass HR 1, which would make felons eligible to vote and expand Election Day registration and ballot harvesting.




www.dailysignal.com





* The difference between power and authority as I see it (and this is only me) - Power is taken or seized. Authority is bestowed or granted. There's a whole lot of bestowing going on when there's free chicken on the line.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Jem said:


> This is one of the main reasons why I ABSOLUTLY OPPOSE a nationally reciprocated concealed carry card. Let the states chose for them selves. Here in AL, only have to pass a rudimentary background check. If the standard were nationalized, I'd likely have to take classes, participate in training, and swear fealty to a sock puppet to legally carry concealed.


That's not how reciprocity works for state driver's licenses. Each state still enforces their own requirements for obtaining one. You're making an assumption that a carry reciprocity bill would add federal regulations. It's a safe assumption, but it's an assumption nonetheless. I won't support any reciprocity bill which seeks to add federal regulation, but I will support one that simply mandates that all states must accept the carry licenses of other states. It will all but ensure a national constitutional carry movement, since people will start applying for out of state licenses that their own state must now honor. (See Utah) Which will in turn make all licensing moot.

Why would you not also apply your fear of federal regulation to a national constitution carry proposal? Couldn't they still add whatever restrictions they wish, such as caliber or magazine size limitations, or anything else that strikes their fancy?

BTW, HR1 failed in the senate. It fell exactly along party lines. Kinda defeats your original proposition that our elected officials are not opposing each other.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> You are generally correct, but you are ignoring how far we are from where we should be.
> As far as principles, while each state would have different styles of leadership, and while there would be slight differences in the understanding of things like faith (I say slight, but new colonies were created over the "slight" differences), but the understanding of "the laws of nature and nature's God" was shared. *While there were differences, we were still one nation.*
> Now, even within states, there are deep divisions.
> ...
> ...


We were not "one nation" in the manner you are implying until after Lincoln, the Civil War, and Reconstruction.
Prior to that time, we considered ourselves "these United States", or used in conversation, "the United States are"(plural). Afterwards, this shifted to "the United States", seeing usage such as "the United States is"(singular). It's a minor distinction, but it is an important one.
The original intent behind state's rights was to allow experimentation within the various states while all falling under the overarching protections of the national government.
That changed when we started believing that we should put the nation above the state, and that supporting your national government was paramount above all other levels.

It would be incorrect to assume that I don't see the deterioration of this nation happening around me. The slow crawl toward tyranny started July 4th, 1776. We exclaimed to the world what tyranny we were escaping, and plans were made in secret to reinstate new tyranny.
I'll modify your statement slightly, to what I personally believe is more accurate:
_*"it could be said we sailed beyond that point when the Godless took control"*_
To put a finer point on it, I'll add the words of John Adams:
*"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."*

When we told God we didn't need him anymore, God said "Ok."


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> We were not "one nation" in the manner you are implying until after Lincoln, the Civil War, and Reconstruction.
> Prior to that time, we considered ourselves "these United States", or used in conversation, "the United States are"(plural). Afterwards, this shifted to "the United States", seeing usage such as "the United States is"(singular). It's a minor distinction, but it is an important one.
> The original intent behind state's rights was to allow experimentation within the various states while all falling under the overarching protections of the national government.
> That changed when we started believing that we should put the nation above the state, and that supporting your national government was paramount above all other levels.
> ...


I am well aware of how the nation was referred. As a matter of fact, you can find early writings where it was referred to as the united states of America rather than the United States of America.
Furthermore, you are ignoring what I said and are now trying to assert I was saying something else, and I wasn't. What I DID say was:



> You are generally correct, but you are ignoring how far we are from where we should be.
> As far as principles, while each state would have different styles of leadership, and while there would be slight differences in the understanding of things like faith (I say slight, but new colonies were created over the "slight" differences), but the understanding of "the laws of nature and nature's God" was shared. While there were differences, we were still one nation.
> Now, even within states, there are deep divisions.


As I stated many times on this and other forums, had you asked Thomas Jefferson what he was, he would have stated that he was a Virginian, not an American. 

I have also used that quote from John Adams many times. If it makes you feel better to use his quote to more accurately describe my sentiment, I am good with that.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> Furthermore, you are ignoring what I said and are now trying to assert I was saying something else, and I wasn't.


It was not my intention to ignore what you wrote, but your point wandered a bit.
I was contending with your assertion that we "should be... one nation". In name, and on the world stage, yes. In practice, no.
If states are divided, we either need more states, or we need to stop using the "moving is too hard" excuse and begin consolidating.


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

Keep in mind the armed hunters. It adds up to the biggest army in the world. My guess is most of them have a positive attitude for the 2A. 

With numbers near 15 MILLION plus I'm not to worried. One day they will kick the sleeping dog a little to hard.


----------



## KUSA (Apr 21, 2016)

Chipper said:


> Keep in mind the armed hunters. It adds up to the biggest army in the world. My guess is most of them have a positive attitude for the 2A.
> 
> With numbers near 15 MILLION plus I'm not to worried. One day they will kick the sleeping dog a little to hard.


It would have to be coordinated to be effective.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> It was not my intention to ignore what you wrote, but your point wandered a bit.
> I was contending with your assertion that we "should be... one nation". In name, and on the world stage, yes. In practice, no.
> If states are divided, we either need more states, or we need to stop using the "moving is too hard" excuse and begin consolidating.


I meant exactly what I said and I was accurate. We now have the Constitution and not the Articles of Confederation. We were and are a nation. The quote of John Adams you offered is correct to a large extent. Without shared values, the continued balkanization of the nation with more states would be meaningless. That is my opinion.

As far as the overarching protection of the federal government, I am going to assume that you are saying that the federal government is to protect those unalienable rights that were endowed by our Creator. That would be correct, and the 2A is one of those rights that should be protected by the federal government. It should be protected, instead of a state (Texas) doing what the federal government will not do, and then possibly face fiscal repercussions from that same federal government.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Chipper said:


> Keep in mind the armed hunters. It adds up to the biggest army in the world. My guess is most of them have a positive attitude for the 2A.
> 
> With numbers near 15 MILLION plus I'm not to worried. One day they will kick the sleeping dog a little to hard.


I'm going to address that very topic in tonight's show.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> As far as the overarching protection of the federal government, I am going to assume that you are saying that the federal government is to protect those unalienable rights that were endowed by our Creator. That would be correct, and the 2A is one of those rights that should be protected by the federal government. It should be protected, instead of a state (Texas) doing what the federal government will not do, and then possibly face fiscal repercussions from that same federal government.


"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."
Precisely.
I'm sure we will both agree that what our government "should" do, and what they have an unfortunate history of doing, are two diverging courses of action. It should NOT be the obligation of the state of Texas, or any state, to be the only protector of citizen's rights. But when the national government fails to do so, the authority must fall somewhere. In effect, it's exactly what lead to the original declaring of independence from England. The U.S. had been so long separated from the crown that they had, in effect, become a different nation without any close relationship to those back in the "motherland". The people in the U.S. felt their national government was not upholding its end of the deal, and was actively working against them. Hence, explicit separation became the only recourse.
History has a tendency to repeat itself...


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."
> Precisely.
> I'm sure we will both agree that what our government "should" do, and what they have an unfortunate history of doing, are two diverging courses of action. It should NOT be the obligation of the state of Texas, or any state, to be the only protector of citizen's rights. But when the national government fails to do so, the authority must fall somewhere. In effect, it's exactly what lead to the original declaring of independence from England. The U.S. had been so long separated from the crown that they had, in effect, become a different nation without any close relationship to those back in the "motherland". The people in the U.S. felt their national government was not upholding its end of the deal, and was actively working against them. Hence, explicit separation became the only recourse.
> History has a tendency to repeat itself...


I'm also sure that we will agree that it didn't take long for things to start deviating from the proper course.

Texas is doing the right thing but don't be surprised if the tyrannical federal government doesn't find a way to punish Texas for standing up for the laws of nature and nature's God as doing that is no longer the way of our federal government.

As far as I can tell, the only way for this nation to survive its federal government is for the states to make the same laws that protect our rights and stand together to defend those rights.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Chipper said:


> Keep in mind the armed hunters. It adds up to the biggest army in the world. My guess is most of them have a positive attitude for the 2A.
> 
> With numbers near 15 MILLION plus I'm not to worried. One day they will kick the sleeping dog a little to hard.


And many of those hunters are Fudds who spoke loudly in FAVOR of Bill Clintons's assault weapons ban, saying Americans should not own them.
Plus, a majority of them probably only have one box of ammo on hand at any one time. I mean, who needs more than that for deer season?

I do not put very much faith in American hunters being any type of fighting force, short of useless.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Denton said:


> Texas is doing the right thing but don't be surprised if the tyrannical federal government doesn't find a way to punish Texas for standing up for the laws of nature and nature's God as doing that is no longer the way of our federal government.


Absolutely!! Washington can very easily cut off federal funding on various levels to any state not kneeling in fielty.


----------



## ErickthePutz (Jan 10, 2021)

Jem said:


> And I applaud you for your optimism. And your position on States Rights - Mostly. Like Denton, I see the full weight of the federal government attempting for homogenize the states, and consolidate authority (as opposed to power)*. Some resist more than others. Our state of Alabama was the fourth to turn off the federal unemployment spigot. We've already seen backlash in the form of withholding other Covid Relief disbursements.
> 
> This is one of the main reasons why I ABSOLUTLY OPPOSE a nationally reciprocated concealed carry card. Let the states chose for them selves. Here in AL, only have to pass a rudimentary background check. If the standard were nationalized, I'd likely have to take classes, participate in training, and swear fealty to a sock puppet to legally carry concealed. I DO NOT oppose national constitutional carry.
> 
> ...


So you DONT want to have to take training in order to CCW. That right there tells me ALL I need to know about your weapons “skills”. You don’t want anything more than a “rudimentary “ BG check. So anyone with any type of history, including desires to take down America, like ISIS, HAMAS, etc should be allowed to CCW…

Yeah. Great arguments for your point…


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

ErickthePutz said:


> So you DONT want to have to take training in order to CCW. That right there tells me ALL I need to know about your weapons “skills”. You don’t want anything more than a “rudimentary “ BG check. So anyone with any type of history, including desires to take down America, like ISIS, HAMAS, etc should be allowed to CCW…
> 
> Yeah. Great arguments for your point…


I'm about to eat dinner, Putz. When I'm done, I'll let you know about the man you think you are attacking. Someone I personally know. In my phone, I don't use his last name. He's James Gun Guy.

Stand by, Putz....


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

ErickthePutz said:


> So you DONT want to have to take training in order to CCW. That right there tells me ALL I need to know about your weapons “skills”. You don’t want anything more than a “rudimentary “ BG check. So anyone with any type of history, including desires to take down America, like ISIS, HAMAS, etc should be allowed to CCW…
> 
> Yeah. Great arguments for your point…


Now, Putz, let me explain something to you and your idea that only a good American want a government-mandated weapons training.
Jem is the go-to gun guy around here. Need honing of your skills? Go to Jem. Need advice on weapons or ammo? Go to Jem. Want to see someone break down any one of dozens of weapons in mere seconds? Go to Jem.
Here's the thing, Putz. Jem could give advanced weapons training. You are running your Putzy mouth at someone whose existence makes you look, well, like a putz. Actually, that's not true. Your typing makes you look that way.

See, here in Alabama, we don't need no stinkin' government to git no trainin'. There are many weapons and tactics schools in my area. Furthermore, there are many skilled shooters who spend their time training others. As I said, we don't need some government-mandated training that explains how to operate a safety, how to use sights and how not to shoot a neighbor.

Want to get diarrhea of the typing fingers? Fine, but you might pick someone who isn't a 25-year-veteran of the United States Army who knows what he is doing.

You? You poo-poo our rudimentary background check and the lack of a government-mandated gun course (those are gun safety courses most ten-year-olds around here could pass without going through the training). Government boy.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

I seem to have missed the sentence in the 2nd Amendment that makes training, back ground checks, etc mandatory to keep and bear arms.
Quite the contrary, it clearly says "shall not be infringed."
I was taught by my father how to shoot when I was six. For my 10th birthday my gift from him was my very own Winchester 22 rifle. Which I kept in my own room. Unlocked, of course. No one locket up guns 62 years ago.

Let me ask you the important question - did you vote for Biden?
(I think we know the answer.)



ErickthePutz said:


> So you DONT want to have to take training in order to CCW. That right there tells me ALL I need to know about your weapons “skills”. You don’t want anything more than a “rudimentary “ BG check. So anyone with any type of history, including desires to take down America, like ISIS, HAMAS, etc should be allowed to CCW…
> 
> Yeah. Great arguments for your point…


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

ErickthePutz said:


> So you DONT want to have to take training in order to CCW. That right there tells me ALL I need to know about your weapons “skills”. You don’t want anything more than a “rudimentary “ BG check. So anyone with any type of history, including desires to take down America, like ISIS, HAMAS, etc should be allowed to CCW…
> 
> Yeah. Great arguments for your point…


Oh, you poor lost soul.
A right should only be allowed if the person's beliefs align with yours? Where is that line drawn?
The founders of our country proclaimed rebellion against the crown. I suppose they should have been denied the right to keep and bear?

A right is a right. Until you DO SOMETHING that causes you to give up that right, you should be free to exercise it.
The thought of an untrained carrier who underwent no background check might scare you... but where were you ever guaranteed a right to not be uncomfortable?

Could more innocent people end up getting hurt? Yep. But more will be able to prevent getting hurt by others too.
My sig line sums up my position on the matter.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

ErickthePutz said:


> So anyone with any type of history, including desires to take down America, like ISIS, HAMAS, etc should be allowed to CCW…


FYI, ISIS, is government trained and the govt supplied the weapons when they came into existence. So by your standards, ISIS should be allowed national CCW permits.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

_"Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."_
--History of the United States of America, Vol. II, p. 229.


----------



## Rellgar (Sep 25, 2018)

ErickthePutz said:


> So you DONT want to have to take training in order to CCW. That right there tells me ALL I need to know about your weapons “skills”. You don’t want anything more than a “rudimentary “ BG check. So anyone with any type of history, including desires to take down America, like ISIS, HAMAS, etc should be allowed to CCW…
> 
> Yeah. Great arguments for your point…


Oh wow, one thing you got right was calling yourself a putz.


----------



## Jem (Mar 7, 2019)

I let the thread cool a bit. I was undecided between a meat cleaver and a 10 pound sledge to make a response to Erick, but he seems to have been adequately responded too already. I'm sure he means well. 

My wrap up is thus:


The Government will always have better guns/training/resources than you.
Coordination/communication is king. With out coordination, we all die an individual and uncoordinated death.
You can shoot a cloud of VX gas, but it's not terribly effective.
Nobody in Washington is your friend. It's like sitting across from a police detective in the interrogation room and he says "I want to help you". It's a lie.
And for the love of little puppies, ice cream, and our Lord and Savior Jesus - PLEASE quite saying "they can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead fingers"... It's like asking them to kill you.... Which they will.


----------



## KUSA (Apr 21, 2016)

I kinda liked the cold dead fingers thing though.


----------

