Gun Control is about one thing only...

Gun Control is about one thing only...destroying the rule of law by circumventing the Constitution with law conceived by capricious popular politics and judicial activism.

There is no reading of the Second Amendment, along with the Constitution's powers granted to Congress under Article I, Sec. 8, that would give cause to believe that there are exceptions to its clear and simple confirmation of the individual's right to keep and bear arms, especially for the purpose of having a militia, apart from state or federal control, that could unseat tyranny.

There is no reason not to trust the people if the people are the government and the government is a republic.

For a great short read on the essentials of our Founder's intents and purposes and for the fallacies of left-wing thinking on the subject:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

Yeah, but that was then and this is now and the times have changed and the Constitution needs to be rewritten and we have better weapons and they didn't know about them then and should we have tanks and the gov. is the enemy? Really? Evolve already! The rest of the world bans them! Our guns are responsible for killing animals in Africa! What do you fear? Call a cop! It never happens!(even though it happens everyday)
Just a brief list in opposition to your great post.


Here is a thought. If guns are so useless in overthrowing governments, why have we provided so many of them to "insurgents/freedom fighters" around the world? As we move towards the endgame of Socialism, the powers that be are becoming more shrill in removing them from our populace. At some point the jig will be up and you will have to make a decision. Why do some think we cannot become Syria? We are that special? They have bribed over 50% of the population now and are promoting class warfare to pit middle class whites against all others. The poorer whites are told that the rich are keeping them from utopia. What do you think it sounds like to under privileged people to hear the news report that business's in the US are setting on Trillions of dollars in cash and they won't spend or invest it to help the economy? How hard is it for the current pied piper to cast this in a negative light for business owners and vilify them to his base?
We have moved away from the values and ethics that made us great, and we started down this path over 100 years ago.

Kevin

Regardless of what people say or think. I won't say how or if I would resist. There is still fear in government that there will be resistance, there are a lot of ex military and private militias out there. The govt I don't believe has a lot of faith that the military would side with them when it comes to defending the constitution. Majority would defend the constitution. Either way I believe the government does have some fear of the people which is what it should be.

"Flyer5" You called it."When the people fear their government there is tyranny, when a government fears the people there is liberty"- Thomas Jefferson. Who says that what was prevalent then still didn't apply now. Same problems, 2 centuries later.

mikeandgerry wrote:Gun Control is about one thing only...destroying the rule of law by circumventing the Constitution with law conceived by capricious popular politics and judicial activism.

There is no reading of the Second Amendment, along with the Constitution's powers granted to Congress under Article I, Sec. 8, that would give cause to believe that there are exceptions to its clear and simple confirmation of the individual's right to keep and bear arms, especially for the purpose of having a militia, apart from state or federal control, that could unseat tyranny.

There is no reason not to trust the people if the people are the government and the government is a republic.

For a great short read on the essentials of our Founder's intents and purposes and for the fallacies of left-wing thinking on the subject:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

Guess what. The original constitution had nothing about gun rights. The Second amendment is just that, an AMENDMENT to the original. Amendment's as their names suggest, are changes that are made by laws being passed. That's just the way it's done. Many people talk about being law abiding people and that's why they should have this privilege. Yet if there is an amendment that says otherwise and it's passed through law, they start talking about not being so law abiding? Can't have it both ways.

You are right Steve. If they are going to make me a criminal legislatively then I will accept the mantle and be a good one. Several quotes come to mind, but I'll keep it short.

Kevin

KLook wrote:You are right Steve. If they are going to make me a criminal legislatively then I will accept the mantle and be a good one. Several quotes come to mind, but I'll keep it short.

Kevin

I will just maintain my good behavior.

We had "gun rights" long before the second amendment. And yes, it is about more than gun rights. It's about the right to arm and defend yourself and your lifestyle, both individually and collectively against all enemies. The second amendment merely clarified the natural right to self-defense and self-determination that our forefathers insisted on. Same goes for free speech and many other rights. Rights are not conferred. Rights are inherent and follow from the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness that we were endowed with by our Creator.

The Constitution is far more than a body of law. It was a statement of intrinsic liberty that the Founders found inalienable. So, yes, any disruption of the guarantee of the Constitution toward less liberty would indeed be grounds for insurrection. Remember, SteveZee, our founders were criminals of the British Crown. As Kevin pointed out, anyone can be legislated a criminal, but as the Founders remind us, men will live free so long as they can fight those who would bind them. Having it "both ways" is the only way we can have "it".

One thing I am not sure a lot of the media understands is that if the 2nd amendment were to fall the 1st amendment would be the next on the radar.

Flyer5 wrote:One thing I am not sure a lot of the media understands is that if the 2nd amendment were to fall the 1st amendment would be the next on the radar.

It already is..

grumpy wrote:

Flyer5 wrote:One thing I am not sure a lot of the media understands is that if the 2nd amendment were to fall the 1st amendment would be the next on the radar.

It already is..

Good point.