close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

our own version of the 2nd amendment

Discussion in 'Band of Glockers' started by Kiddo, Dec 25, 2005.

  1. Kiddo

    Kiddo

    560
    0
    Jun 14, 2003
    Hey BOGs, since we are looking at changing our constitution, are there any pro gun groups lobbying to put a right to own and bear arms in our bill of rights?
     
  2. mikey177

    mikey177 Remember

    1,357
    0
    Jan 28, 2003
    Philippines
    Maybe someone could inquire with PROGUN or PPSA about this matter, but I doubt if enough legislators would support such a move. The legislature knows that an armed citizenry is an empowered citizenry, so I don't believe they would willingly share such power with us commoners when they as VIPs can have it all for themselves.
     


  3. TED

    TED Millennium Member

    1,136
    0
    Jun 2, 1999
    Anchorage, AK, USA
    If the Phillipines actually had something like a 2nd Amendment I would give serious consideration to moving there or at least certainly retiring there.

    TED
     
  4. horge

    horge -=-=-=-=- Lifetime Member

    3,045
    19
    Jan 22, 2004
    almost home
    PROGUN? **hawkkkk** **spittttt**
    They can't even provide an 'approved' candidate list when asked
    for one during elections. A waste of oxygen.

    PPSA? Dunno... they're not really a political-activist org.
    Maybe one of sport-shooters on this board can enlighten us on
    what the PPSA has done politically to protect/promote widespread
    (not just for their own rich-boy gamers, mind you) KBA.

    This Constitutional rewrite is bad juju anyway:
    It smacks of extremely poor form to bundle it with
    substantial term extensions for the breadth and width of government officialdom, from village councilmen all the way to the President.
    Talk about self-serving...



    Personally, I'd demand two things:

    1. If a multiparty system is retained, then a mandated runoff election
    to ensure the President-elect wins a clear majority of the vote.

    2. A specified right to keep and bear arms, voided only by conviction of committing a serious crime.
     
  5. Kiddo

    Kiddo

    560
    0
    Jun 14, 2003
    I hope PPSA is doing something about this, although I think most of the politicians are busy on the NOEL, among other things. :(
     
  6. Mang Danny

    Mang Danny

    470
    0
    Jan 11, 2005
    Nadale mo sir Horge!;)
     
  7. horge

    horge -=-=-=-=- Lifetime Member

    3,045
    19
    Jan 22, 2004
    almost home
    Just so we're clear, I don't have a beef with the PPSA.
    The PPSA exists to promote so-called 'practical shooting', and apparently
    does its job well --witness the preponderance of its adherents on this subforum.
    ;)

    My impression is that the PPSA looks after its paying members.
    Period. Nothing wrong with that at all.

    Just pointing out that there's quite a gulf between the raisons d'etre
    of PROGUN and the PPSA.
     
  8. toxic

    toxic

    1,491
    0
    Jan 15, 2005
    doin' time
    Once again you hit the right spot Sir Horge.

    Giving it to PPSA and other org " Any org cannot function without proper funding/s"
    Why would i spend these funds to others who are not members of my org.
    As i heared within PPSA ,there are some money matter problems already, descrepancies , conflicts and other hoplas .
    Entering into politics i think would only make the org worst.
    This 2nd amendment thing has been a topic before , i believe a BOG member had asked for a petition or a signature campaign already. I wander what happen to it.

    PROGUN..nah...i dont need another car sticker.

    I think this sort of question needs to be directed to politicians who share the same passion of bearing arms. Then again these politicians need to weigh things out: on how many voters he/she can get by supporting the issue at hand.
    Politicians will be facing these groups: Human Rights group,The Church,Women rights activist and some othe HOPLOphobe groups out there.They would even spend more time on entertaining the gay rights Pc of s..t why? These ...ters campaign for them and gets hundreds of ignoramus to vote for them.

    For me its a dead end not unless AFAD (the group that sells gun/ammos)steps in. AFAD will benifit from lobbying for the RBA/KBA.

    On the citizenry side; our culture is not that openminded yet not seeing the full picture picture of bearing arms for PROTECTION lots of guys out there just buy sidearms just for "show" .

    Quoting mikey177
    "The legislature knows that an armed citizenry is an empowered citizenry, so I don't believe they would willingly share such power with us commoners when they as VIPs can have it all for themselves".

    For the final comment do you guys VOTE?
     
  9. isuzu

    isuzu

    4,072
    0
    Jul 3, 2005
    North America
    I think the difference between the PPSA and PROGUN (or PROGONE) as others have said is this: PPSA is an IPSC regulating body and our country's representative to IPSC in the Philippines. PROGUN is supposed to be the NRA of the Philippines, but where is it now? It occasionally pops out of the radar screen, but not much. The NRA in the US is supported by big businesses related to firearms, and boy, it's a big political lobby group. PROGUN needs one thing: MONEY for ammo. Without it, the organization can't move much.
     
  10. asintaderoche

    asintaderoche

    184
    0
    Sep 24, 2002
    team member
    "PROGUN" (People Responsible Owners of Guns) the name says it all. WAla bang like Philippine Sporting Guns Association, National Guns Association, Samahang Manunudla ng Pilipinas or Kapatiran ng Armadong Mamamayan. Or sali na lang sa No Permanent Address ( di na kailangan ang PTT, PTC )
     
  11. horge

    horge -=-=-=-=- Lifetime Member

    3,045
    19
    Jan 22, 2004
    almost home
    (warning: /long-rant mode on)

    We cannot rely on an industry association like AFAD.
    Its primary purpose is to protect the industry and to
    settle internal conflicts. They are already making money
    under the present laws and will IMO be ill-inclined to
    put money and effort into promoting a Philippine 2A.

    The first premise in this thread is that a Constitutional
    rewrite is in the offing. Fine, we can assume that.
    The second premise is that a Philippine constitutional
    "right to keep and bear" is supportable, necessary or even useful.

    This is where we have problems.
    If we cannot defend the second premise via argument,
    then even if a Philippine 2A is somehow 'bought', we will be
    unable to defend it once the pseudo-liberals come
    to have it neutered.

    Have a brief taste:

    Is a Philippine RKBA supportable?
    The United States freed itself from colonial subjugation,
    on the strength of an armed citizenry. All its sovereign
    economic dominance can, with little effort, be traced to
    this bedrock ability of every American to fight for freedom.

    Filipinos have NEVER freed themselves from colonial subjugation,
    and have won no armed conflicts without the direct aid of a
    colonial power.*

    We have been trained to let a father-figure do the heavy lifting.
    That is why we have no defense budget to speak of, and all our
    defense materiel is US EDA. That is why even the most
    ridiculously-minor police problem has to be referred to the
    Office of the President. This is why constucting a community
    basketball court has to be referred to a bloody Congressman...
    and these power brokers, from the President down to security guards,
    love it.

    The population are sheep, having handed over their fate and
    safekeeping to the wolves. With this widespread attitude of
    infantile dependency, there is no bedrock for a constitutional RKBA.

    And for those wo are not sheep?
    In no way does present law forbid us from keeping and bearing, anyway.
    That's what FA licenses and PTCFOR's exist to serve.
    We are allowed to arm ourselves against crime, and from 1917 onwards,
    our ability to arm ourselves as private citizens has broadened by
    leaps and bounds, even beyond the possibilities that Americans can avail of.




    Is a Philippine RKBA necessary?
    Necessary for what?
    For personal self-protection vs. crime?
    Who here has been a victim of crime wherein possession of a firearm
    would have made a realistic, positive difference? Privately-owned firearms
    seem either useless (against heavily-armed and trained carjackers, etc.)
    or else overkill (against trespassers, B&E thieves, etc.) --our laws
    recognize the latter, and so the legal use of firearms in self-defense is
    VERY narrow in scope.

    There is widespread lack of necessary skill in firearm-use for self-defense.
    Bad enough that not everyone is honing motor-skills via one of those
    'practical shooting' games, but there are no real venues for learning
    the other 90% of surviving/winning a gunfight (using cover, legal knowhow, etc.)

    Until a system is set up to properly and efficiently teach safe gun handling
    and effective, legal and moral use of firearms for self defense,
    it is a good bet that a new RKBA will only accelerate the spread of
    'Ryan Jaworski syndrome'. There are not a few here who are long
    on motor-skills and machismo, but betray a lack of tactical
    common sense when they make claims of how they'd shoot their way
    out of trouble.

    What are the Police meant for?
    If the police are incompetent, argue for their better training.
    If they are too few, argue for more trainees.

    Again:
    In no way does present law forbid us from keeping and bearing, anyway.
    That's what FA licenses and PTCFOR's exist to serve.
    We are allowed to arm ourselves against crime, and from 1917 onwards,
    our ability to arm ourselves as private citizens has broadened by
    leaps and bounds, even beyond the possibilities that Americans can avail of.




    Another motive for a citizenry arming itself is readiness to defend the State,
    and to defend against the State.
    So, who here has actually taken up arms to effectively defend freedom
    against enemies from without the State? From within?

    1986 was the diametric opposite of 1776.
    Our unarmed People Power; and the armed American Revolution.
    Our one and only successful revolution against State tyranny did
    not involve the participation of an armed citizenry, so there is scant
    historical basis to draw on, for arguing RKBA as a hedge against
    State abuse.

    The Constitution and the law are easily reduced to mere ink and paper:
    but whether or not the Constitution and the law are here honored
    more in their breach than in their observance, I do note AGAIN that:

    In no way does present law forbid us from keeping and bearing, anyway.
    That's what FA licenses and PTCFOR's exist to serve.
    We are allowed to arm ourselves against crime, and from 1917 onwards,
    our ability to arm ourselves as private citizens has broadened by
    leaps and bounds, even beyond the possibilities that Americans can avail of.


    Has the US Second Amendment actually prevented 'infringement' on their RKBA?
    Has it resulted in a broadening, 'by leaps and bounds', of Americans' ability
    to KBA over the past 100 years?

    Then why do we need a 'Second Amendment'?



    There.
    That's just a handful of the stuff that anti-RKBA'ers will sling at you.
    (Aside from the incoherent knee-jerk drivel that is IMPOSSIBLE to counter-argue).
    If enough of you can counter all that and more, from the heart, then a
    Constitutional RKBA in the Philippines is possible.
    If you can counter all that and more, then KBA is to you not just a matter
    of personal rights (insert puke icon here), but likely,
    one of patriotic, moral, and familial duty.

    Note that the US Second Amendment is NOT in their 'Bill of Rights'.
    It thus strikes me not so much as a 'right', but a necessary article for preserving freedom.
    As the Second Amendment's designated agents, American citizens have a duty to keep and bear.
    Too many of them seem to have lost track of that, IMPO.


    Too many of us are sure only that we WANT a constitutional RKBA.
    Very few can and will coherently argue why our country NEEDS it.
    When it comes to guns, we are often enthusiasts first.
    Too often we are enthusiasts only.

    What is needed;
    what has always been needed, are patriots.


    (rant mode off)

    -horge


    *LapuLapu was arguably not a native ~ he was an outsider
    who camped on Mactan island against the sovereign rights of local
    chieftains (that is why those chieftains maneuvered Magellan into
    getting rid of LapuLapu. Magellan failed.)
     
  12. riddler

    riddler

    1,189
    1
    Jan 19, 2001
    ...either that dahil mayabang o para panggulat sa mga walang alam.

    I was looking for the right words to post on my reply until I chanced upon this statement. Truly an accurate assessment!
     
  13. How many of our Senators and Congressmen are THEMSELVES proficient in the safe and wise use of firearms? (Rather than owning a gun/guns but not really knowing how to use them safely and wisely.)

    I suspect most of them have gun permits but are not actually proficient themselves, mainly relying on bodyguards/bodyguard-drivers, miscellaneous policemen/soldiers etc. Of course, there are exceptions. And then there are many mayabang, pa porma types who ideally should be kept away from anything remotely harmful to human beings, including spoons.

    My suggestion is : these politicos, and/or whoever will be the delegates to any assembly/conference/convention etc. to draw up changes to the Constitution, will have no personal imperative or interest to add ownership of firearms as a Constitutional right, nor will they see any bonus from any significant number of voters if they espouse that right.

    Would the Roman Catholic Church espouse such an Amendment? Has it anywhere in the world? The Church certainly accepts gun control in europe.

    Perhaps we just have to live within what horge points out are our present abilities to have gun ownership licenses,
    PTTs, and PTCs; and basically HOPE these will not
    be taken away in the future by administrative fiat as what happened when Mrtial Law was declared.
     
  14. cznayr

    cznayr Dis-member

    320
    0
    Jun 14, 2004
    that was hard to digest.. but horge has a point though...
     
  15. horge

    horge -=-=-=-=- Lifetime Member

    3,045
    19
    Jan 22, 2004
    almost home
    :)

    Holy Mother Church supporting such an Amendment?
    If it exalts Christ's exemplary life and sacred acts, it should.

    A lot is made of Jesus' admonition to Peter at Gethsemane,
    ("Those who live by the sword ... "),
    but what the events of that fateful night show is that
    Peter had a weapon to draw.

    More importantly, it would follow that all the time prior,
    the Lord did not object to Peter's keeping and bearing
    (a chereb, or short sword: clearly a weapon
    and not some utilitarian 'knife').

    Unfortunately, by drawing and wielding in that particular instance,
    Peter was choosing to trust his weapon instead of the Lord
    physically present before him! Thus was Peter rebuked.

    Peter should have known that Jesus didn't need anyone's steel.
    However, today as then, many innocents including our loved ones
    and those we've never met-- just might. We, our wits and our weapons,
    all that we are and have, can and should be intruments of God's will.

    For so long as Catholics keep and bear in the context of
    Christian faith and humility, they aren't "living by the sword".
    They will instead be armed and "living by the Lord"


    JMO, YMMV, etc.
     
  16. Hallelujiah, brother, and Amen!

    Some gun forums quote an Old Testament verse that sounds like "He who hath not a sword, let him sell his cloak and buy a sword".

    I think Peter should have had a Glock 17 at Gethsemane. That would have changed the whole history of redemption somewhat. Maybe that's why Jesus came in those days, not now.
     
  17. horge

    horge -=-=-=-=- Lifetime Member

    3,045
    19
    Jan 22, 2004
    almost home
    Irreverent, perhaps.
    One might feel Peter would carry a 1911 instead.
    That's a gun designed by John Moses Browning, after all.

    In any case, the posters are actually taking from the NEW Testament,
    Luke 22:36, and are making the same mistake that the poor Apostles
    made:

    Luke 22:35 to 22:38
    (Jesus) said to them, "When I sent you forth without
    a money bag or sack or sandals, were you in need of
    anything?" "No, nothing," they replied.

    He said to them, "But now one who has a money bag
    should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who
    does not not have a sword should sell his cloak
    and buy one.

    For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled
    in me, namely, 'He was counted among the wicked';
    and indeed what is written about me is coming to
    fulfillment."

    Then they said "Lord, look, there are two swords here."
    But he replied, "It is enough!".


    This is right after the Last Supper, right after Jesus foretells
    of Peter's threefold denial of Christ, and just before they all
    go to Gethsemane, before the Agony in the Garden.

    It seems to me that our Lord was both warning and rebuking
    the Apostles for their fast-approaching, fearful lack of faith,
    ESPECIALLY Judas' betrayal of Jesus for a money bag of silver
    and Peter's faithless presumption in taking up a sword to
    defend Jesus. He also foretells of His crucifixion among the wicked
    in fulfillment of scripture.

    The Apostles misunderstood Jesus' words about selling
    their cloaks for swords as a literal command, and produced
    two swords (one of the swords, apparently Peter's).

    The Apostles simply didn't get it, and so Jesus cut them off
    with a reply that contradicts any supposedly literal 'order'
    for each of them to arm himself:

    "It is enough!".


    horge
     
  18. darwin25

    darwin25 Make your move

    Now that's blasphemy my friend. :) Being an Israeli, I think Peter would carry a Jericho 941 ;f Joke
     
  19. horge

    horge -=-=-=-=- Lifetime Member

    3,045
    19
    Jan 22, 2004
    almost home
    :)
    Excellent!