Sorry I missed out on the locked 2A thread!!!

[JPH]

What can we do as individuals to help nurture society outside of more rules/regulations on firearms to prevent honest people from a true freedom[?]

That's the million dollar question, isn't it?

Obviously I have my own ideas on this, and obviously my notions of God and faith are not welcomed by some here. I guess that's fine. I have my work cut out simply living my faith, let alone convincing someone else to do it. I could probably go on about the corporal works of mercy but I think I'd be the proverbial "clanging gong". Maybe I'll get the motivation to answer the question later. Let me simmer over it for a while.

What about you? Everyone else?

[xmatax]

What can we do as individuals to help nurture society outside of more rules/regulations on firearms to prevent honest people from a true freedom[?]

That's the million dollar question, isn't it?

Obviously I have my own ideas on this, and obviously my notions of God and faith are not welcomed by some here. I guess that's fine. I have my work cut out simply living my faith, let alone convincing someone else to do it. I could probably go on about the corporal works of mercy but I think I'd be the proverbial "clanging gong". Maybe I'll get the motivation to answer the question later. Let me simmer over it for a while.

What about you? Everyone else?

Without digressing too much Religion, God, and faith quite possibly could be tied into this "hate". I myself don't believe in it (raised with religion), but that doesn't mean there aren't others who can be reached through this type of outreach. Our prisons prove it every single day. Really it comes down to the presentation of the argument as to not offend another (nearly impossible to do). The smoke and mirrors laid before us of video games cause it, music causes this, improper education causes it are all secondary effects of something else in my opinion. If it were as simple as every person who is abused as a child and grows up dropping out of school in the 10th grade or earlier and has a single parent were to go out and do something awful we would know how to attack it. (Back to the topic) Unfortunately it isn't that simple and as a result the people who choose to uphold their civic duty of living a responsible, trustworthy life are the ones who get punished for doing nothing wrong.

I think most people believe on this forum there needs to be something done but regulating more may not be the way to do it and once something is done (law passed, amendment, whatever), it will likely not be undone. I think that is what most people can agree on and that is one of the greater fears of the more stout supporters of the 2a (I used to say who cares it's just a clip size and now I could be considered one of those stout supporters). While I believe there may, at some point, be a need for some sort of harsher regulation as others have pointed out, and very validly so, we walk down a slippery slope and who's to say more rights aren't picked away if we concede on a single harmless law such as limiting clip size. Thank you to those who opened my eyes to this.

I applaud the people in this forum who have taken the time out of their days to write to their government officials about their concern no matter if I agree or disagree with them on this forum over petty details or not. The fact that they have expressed their concern and have stood up for what they, and usually we, believe in is honorable.

[Big Horse]

Can free thinking result in the realization that people 100's of years ago might have been right and promote a desire to continue with a life of liberty that they invisioned? Or does free thinking only involve trying new directions? Because unfortunely, I've noticed that the later version of free thinking tends to result in less freedoms.

[JPH]

Can free thinking result in the realization that people 100's of years ago might have been right and promote a desire to continue with a life of liberty that they invisioned? Or does free thinking only involve trying new directions? Because unfortunely, I've noticed that the later version of free thinking tends to result in less freedoms.

Well, there were once at least 4 million slaves that would have disagreed with your ideas on the subject.

But again, you confuse me with an opponent of the 2A. I am not. I just place some value on the "well regulated" part. Let's not go back down that road. Nothing new to see here.

[Woods Walker]

Yes, and you seem to confuse "well regulated" with "RESTRICTED" or "INFRINGED" which it most definately does NOT mean.


http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

quote [The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen <halonen@csd.uwm.edu>
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.] end quote


What the founders were refering to in "well regulated" was a MILITIA that was in "proper working order", or trained and ready, as ..."being necessary to the security of a free state...." (please note the word FREE!!) . They then went on to note that because it's THE PEOPLE who are that milita, then their "....right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Well regulated DOES NOT mean telling the militia (or, THE PEOPLE) what kind of arms it can and cannot have and/or accessories to those arms.

[Woods Walker]

"When the government no longer trusts the people with guns, then the people can no longer trust the government."

This I believe with all my heart. The people in government work for US. They do not have the right or moral authority to dictate to us what we can or cannot have in regards to Constitutional freedoms. No way, no how. This is my line in the sand.

Hoka hey.

[JPH]

Okay, we are literally repeating things we've already said in other threads. Let's open another can of worms.

[Woods Walker]

You noticed that too? LOL!

We could probably write each other's responses on this topic by this point!

[JPH]

That's not a bad idea! We should exchange passwords and cover for one another when life takes us away from out computer screens.

[Big Horse]

Can free thinking result in the realization that people 100's of years ago might have been right and promote a desire to continue with a life of liberty that they invisioned? Or does free thinking only involve trying new directions? Because unfortunely, I've noticed that the later version of free thinking tends to result in less freedoms.

Well, there were once at least 4 million slaves that would have disagreed with your ideas on the subject.

But again, you confuse me with an opponent of the 2A. I am not. I just place some value on the "well regulated" part. Let's not go back down that road. Nothing new to see here.

Which of my ideas on what subject?