To: chulaivn66; Safrguns
Very well stated. I couldn't possibly add to that except to say that I am not, never was and will not be the aggressor. IMO "we" (ie law-abiding citizen gun owners) cannot possibly be cast, honestly, as aggressors in this push-and-shove over the supremacy and the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. "We" have never been anything but defenders of that founding legal principle.
It is telling that the one means to alter that principle that a Constitutionalist patriot would have to accept if it did alter it, a Constitutional Convention to ratify a new Amendment, is the one avenue of change the gun grabbers have never considered trying.
posted on 04/20/2013 2:52:21 PM PDT
(If babies had guns they wouldn't be aborted)
You and I are in agreement as stated. As to the Constitutional Covention, why amend the rules of the game when they are broken by the players? Lack of enforcement is the problem. The People’s problem. I believe the left is fearful of pursuing that option as they know they are outnumbered in force and therefore effect. There would be war, not progress through incremental means. IMHO
posted on 04/20/2013 3:06:41 PM PDT
(Semper Fidelis in Extremis)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson