US Gun Culture and the 2nd Amendment

MarinePMI

Well-Known Member
While I know that this can be a touchy subject for some here, I thought I would post a book that I have recently finished, that I think is well worth reading/listening. It is not the typical stats and figures weighing for or against the 2nd Amendment, but rather a look at the history that brought about the US 2nd Amendment. The historical look goes back to the Greeks, then Rome, then England (British Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, etc.), and why the Founding Father's enshrined it as a right (without exception, unlike the British Bill of Rights). It also documents (through the study of letters and notes written between the founders of each side of the aisle) why there is even a Bill of Rights, separate from, but in addition to, the US Constitution. The last 1/3 of the book can be ignored, as it goes into purchasing and storing of firearms for new owners.

At any rate, I thought it was an interesting look at WHY the US gun culture is the way it is, and wanted to pass along the book as perhaps a way to understand many Americans' views on the 2nd Amendment.

Amazon product ASIN B099M6NSK3
 
The NRA of America rejoin their members to remember the fate of the salami sausage. That is you never miss a slice, and then another slice and then...all of sudden and you never noticed...the sausage has all but gone. The United Kingdom is not the United States but they understand well there about the salami sausage whereas the British NRA seems only but too keen to suggest to those that seek to wield it to how best to sharpen the knife to make that slicing that so much easier...as long as, of course, what they do is left alone.
 
The NRA of America rejoin their members to remember the fate of the salami sausage. That is you never miss a slice, and then another slice and then...all of sudden and you never noticed...the sausage has all but gone. The United Kingdom is not the United States but they understand well there about the salami sausage whereas the British NRA seems only but too keen to suggest to those that seek to wield it to how best to sharpen the knife to make that slicing that so much easier...as long as, of course, what they do is left alone.
Yes, it was interesting to me, to learn that in your original bill of rights, it was something to the effect of "A person has the right to bear arms for protection, with arms applicable to that, and for which they are conditioned to have by the government." Or something to that effect. They let the camel's nose under the tent with that last bit. And so, it has been whittled away, slowly, over the years by the Parliament. Whereas in the US, the Founding Fathers made it absolute, knowing that an elected body can trample a person's rights just as easily as a monarch or dictator (the danger of democracies has always been the devolution into mob rule; that's what ended Rome). Also, our Constitution states what the Federal government can do, "and all else reverts back to the individual States". Command by negation of sorts, in that the Federal government can only protect the citizens rights, and provide for the common defense. Everything else reverts to the State's control, so long as they don't infringe on the Federal Bill of Rights and Constitution.

TBF, the Founding Fathers would be turning over in their graves if they saw the power that the US Federal government wields today. But with many new cases being considered by the SCOTUS, I think the pendulum may be swinging back a bit. There's rumor that they may accept to hear a case that could overturn "rent control" policies in many liberal cities, and revert back to the originalist view that a person's property can't be controlled by the government policies that take control away from the owner (not being able to evict people for not paying their rent, for example). Interesting times we live in...
 
Back
Top