Clone this guy!

[skidmark]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONqcBKhikfk

TV news guy explains the Second Amendment.

No indication of how many pearls were clutched or fainting couches pressed into double duty.

stay safe.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Does he still have a job? CBS network must be having a cow.

 

[Citizen]

Wow! Wow! Wow! Thanks for posting!

 

[DeSchaine]

Holy crap. I'm floored. This guy is brilliant. Several of his pieces are just... wow. Spot on. Check this one out:

Reality Check: Can Armed Citizens Stop Mass Shootings

Edit: Guy works for http://www.cbs46.com/ WGCL in Atlanta. Looks like not your average liberal news station.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Too bad the 2A failed to do what it was supposed to.

 

[Citizen]

Too bad the 2A failed to do what it was supposed to.

Good point. Well, at least there's still a fighting chance when "the system" collapses from all the violations of natural law perpetrated by government.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Good point. Well, at least there's still a fighting chance when "the system" collapses from all the violations of natural law perpetrated by government.

The good thing is that enough people are starting to realize how horrible violating those laws are. I hope for similar jump in logic, the colonist had when they realized they owed no allegiance to their state or their king.

 

[utbagpiper]

TV news guy explains the Second Amendment.

Kind of a short form version of John Stossel. Thank you for the link.

I wonder if the naysayers have considered on where we might be in the absence of the 2nd amendment.

 

[ArtBrownSr]

Too bad the 2A failed to do what it was supposed to.

We were fighting it fine until the Feds were fighting the corruption and gangsters of the 20s and 30s then we decided to not fight the gov't when it declared certain weapons were not allowed

Good point. Well, at least there's still a fighting chance when "the system" collapses from all the violations of natural law perpetrated by government.

IF WE can gather enough support from those that still are acting like Ostriches

The good thing is that enough people are starting to realize how horrible violating those laws are. I hope for similar jump in logic, the colonist had when they realized they owed no allegiance to their state or their king.

Maybe but it would have been so much easier if we had KEPT what we had RATHER than trying to get it back
Remember Ben Franklin's words: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

[sudden valley gunner]

We were fighting it fine until the Feds were fighting the corruption and gangsters of the 20s and 30s then we decided to not fight the gov't when it declared certain weapons were not allowed

That surely was a horrible use of a "crisis". Of course that crisis was created in the first place by government prohibition.

I would say it goes back further than that, Lincoln created an empire were folks who used their right to throw off tyranny, were killed and so was their families and farms and etc.

IF WE can gather enough support from those that still are acting like Ostriches

+1
Most posters on here may know I feel the ostriches are on both major political parties.

Maybe but it would have been so much easier if we had KEPT what we had RATHER than trying to get it back
Remember Ben Franklin's words: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Yep, one of my favorite quotes. I go a little further with clarification. All liberty is essential and all safety is temporary.
The founders had created a fairly anarchist society with a minarchist federal government, very limited enumerated powers. Powers many who claim to be 2A supporters are in favor of expanding to virtually everything.

 

[Freedom1Man]

When the Founding Fathers were framing the Constitution and the BoR, WHO was the "militia"?

If memory serves me correctly, wasn't the militia actually every "able-bodied male", some as young as 14, that could shoulder and use a firearm and defend the fledgling country?

While we may not "need" a militia in that sense any more, what with the National Guard and the "standing army" we have now with our current military levels, I think the reporter is wrong in his assessment that the 2A doesn't mean an "individual right". The original militia WAS every able-bodied male and, in a few instances, some women fought alongside their men.

So I DO believe it is an "individual right" as the individual is still "the militia".

He did cover the differences between the "national guard" and the general militia. If you read between the lines and what was actually said.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[ArtBrownSr]

I'm sure there could have some areas made a little more clear but in general I think that reporter did a decent job of clearing the air.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I think the reason Franklin's words penetrate so well is because rights are safety.

 

[ArtBrownSr]

Quote Originally Posted by ArtBrownSr View Post
SNIP "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I think the reason Franklin's words penetrate so well is because rights are safety.

Sir the RIGHTS are the LIBERTY !
Dr. Franklin was speaking to those that gave up a liberty(RIGHT) to gain safety deserved neither.

 

[Brian D.]

We were lucky enough to have Ben Swann as a reporter here in Cincinnati on the Fox affiliate. His reporting here was spot on in that same manner. He works in a bigger market now, good for him!

 

[sudden valley gunner]

When the Founding Fathers were framing the Constitution and the BoR, WHO was the "militia"?

If memory serves me correctly, wasn't the militia actually every "able-bodied male", some as young as 14, that could shoulder and use a firearm and defend the fledgling country?

While we may not "need" a militia in that sense any more, what with the National Guard and the "standing army" we have now with our current military levels, I think the reporter is wrong in his assessment that the 2A doesn't mean an "individual right". The original militia WAS every able-bodied male and, in a few instances, some women fought alongside their men.

So I DO believe it is an "individual right" as the individual is still "the militia".

The militia clause is not at all dependent upon the individual right.

If we were to say, "Schools are important to a states education, the right for people to keep and read books shall not be infringed" not even the anti's deny this type of wording means individuals would have no right to books.

 

[HPmatt]

The militia in the Revolutionary War were comprised of volunteer state units, with members furnishing their own guns. They were not very reliable in battle and it wasn't till late in the war that the Continental generals figured out a role they would function well at.

They were placed at the front of the lines, to fire one shot or two at the British, and then fall back. Then the British would encounter the battle-hardened Continental troops.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The militia in the Revolutionary War were comprised of volunteer state units, with members furnishing their own guns. They were not very reliable in battle and it wasn't till late in the war that the Continental generals figured out a role they would function well at.

They were placed at the front of the lines, to fire one shot or two at the British, and then fall back. Then the British would encounter the battle-hardened Continental troops.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seems to me the militia acting as gorilla homeland fighters were way more effective than the government trying to emulate European style warfare.