Your favorite single 2A-related article/video/book/other media piece --- and Why?

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cdk8

Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
422
If you had to pick a single 2A-related media piece as your favorite (ex: an article, video, book, recorded audio, etc.), what would it be?
WHY?
(please post links!)

Mine is Daniel Payne's article, "Sorry, But Owning A Gun Is An Individual Right"

As we all already know, many "civil rights" and gun control organizations have used the collective rights argument to argue that the 2A does NOT apply to individual citizens. He systematically dissects this argument, leading to a conclusion that those who promote the collective rights theory are either ignorant of history & law, or intentionally misleading others to achieve an outcome.

Yet he stays professional and I feel it could possibly be thought-provoking for individuals that are either undecided on the gun topic, or are slightly anti-gun, raising the question, "If they are that poorly informed, or willing to intentionally mislead me, how much of what they say about guns & gun owners is actually true?"

So what are yours?
 
John Norton Pomeroy's 1868 book An Introduction to the Constitutional Law of the United States, which stated that the Second Amendment would make no sense unless it enables citizens "to exercise themselves in the use of warlike weapons. To preserve this privilege, and to secure to the people the ability to oppose themselves in military force against the usurpations of government, as well as against enemies from without, that government is forbidden by any law or proceeding to invade or destroy the right to keep and bear arms...."

A passage that captures the essence of the right to keep and bear arms.
 
THR moderator Sam1911's post as seen here

I don't have the post link handy just the text

"The idea in my concept is that those who feel they must take up arms to defend their cause must have the ability to effectively do their oppressors significant harm. So their best weapons must not be mere heated words, pointed sticks, and other low-effect tools. A portion of society that feels all hope of peaceful redress of grievances through the legislative process is lost, must have the ability to act effectively in violent concert.

On the other hand, the goal of insurrection as promoted by the Founders in the Declaration of Independence and other documents is not that ONE person could have the power to force his will on others, and/or destroy towns, and kill mass numbers of people. So there is a practical reason for why ordnance (and the sorts of mass-effect weapons that have been developed, from nerve gasses to nuclear weapons) are not in the hands of the individual.

There is a balance here. We don't want one man to have the ability to wipe out a city because he's not happy. The individual with his rifle, or with his machine gun, grenades, and other anti-personnel weapons doesn't present a credible threat to society at large, and is not a compelling force for governmental change and/or resistance. But a large number of individuals all dedicated to one goal and armed with conventional arms may be so."
 
Looked at manithree's second link.

From that second link, found this:

These anti-freedom zealots are members of the well established international community of political ideologues who have brought you such gun-control activists as Joe Stalin and Chairman Mao.
Click to expand...

Which brings to mind JPFO's Death by Gun Control information, specifically the table at:

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm

scroll down to the genocide chart.

I'm fond of linking to that, too.

Terry
 
Last edited:
"A Nation of Cowards" by Jeff Snyder; essays on the ethics of gun control

https://www.amazon.com/Nation-Cowards-Essays-Ethics-Control/dp/1888118083

Just a hint:

"And if we think that laws designed to prevent crime can indeed make the world a safer place, we should ask ourselves this: How, exactly, is the world made a safer place by making self-control and responsibility irrelevant?"

"Why should the majority tell you that your life must be forfeit if the crime rates are so low as to not be worth thinking about? Why should that majority be able to tell you that your life must be forfeit if your carrying of arms won't produce any measurable benefit for THEM? Why should the majority tell you that your life must be forfeit if you might not perform as well as the police? Whose life is it, anyway?"

...and just about every other paragraph in the book is quotable.
 
cdk8 said:
If you had to pick a single 2A-related media piece as your favorite (ex: an article, video, book, recorded audio, etc.), what would it be?
WHY?
(please post links!)

Mine is Daniel Payne's article, "Sorry, But Owning A Gun Is An Individual Right"

As we all already know, many "civil rights" and gun control organizations have used the collective rights argument to argue that the 2A does NOT apply to individual citizens. He systematically dissects this argument, leading to a conclusion that those who promote the collective rights theory are either ignorant of history & law, or intentionally misleading others to achieve an outcome.

Yet he stays professional and I feel it could possibly be thought-provoking for individuals that are either undecided on the gun topic, or are slightly anti-gun, raising the question, "If they are that poorly informed, or willing to intentionally mislead me, how much of what they say about guns & gun owners is actually true?"

So what are yours?
Click to expand...
The occasional reprints of the Battle of Athens

reminder of why there is a second ammendment when tyrants shroud themselves in robes of 'we are the .gov' gun owners with the will to challenge the tyrants still have a vote

it just takes the guts to use them
 
Last edited:
97th Congress
2d Session COMMITTEE PRINT
THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
REPORT
OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

Most comprehensive study done on the 2nd amendment and was government sponsered - then forgotten and not to be mentioned again.
 
"A Nation of Cowards" was published in the Fall, '93 issue of The Public Interest, a quarterly journal of opinion published by National Affairs, Inc.

Single copies of The Public Interest are available for $6. Annual subscription rate is $21 ($24 US, for Canadian and foreign subscriptions). Single copies of this or other issues, and subscriptions, can be obtained from:

The Public Interest
1112 16th St., N.W., Suite 140
Washington, DC 20036
(C) 1993 by The Public Interest.
 
I'm glad this thread was started; lots of good stuff already posted.

TRX: I especially enjoyed Neil Smith's essay. Cant understand why I haven't seen it before. Thanks!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
Administration counting on "legitimate media" to further gun control agenda
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
Manco
M
hso
  • Locked
Interesting pro 2A opinion piece in USA Today
Replies
7
Views
821
tstrat99
T
L
  • Locked
Great Article on the Effects of Gun Control
Replies
5
Views
603
MarcusWendt
M
P
  • Locked
You can lie with Time Magazine articles.
Replies
18
Views
2K
OOOXOOO
O
2
  • Locked
Media And Guns
Replies
0
Views
255
2dogs
2
Back
Top