Let’s be honest about guns

The problem with all of the Second Amendment discussion is that very few people are willing to address this issue directly and accurately. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the right to and ability to conduct an armed revol…ution. The Second Amendment was to protect the ability of the people to violently overthrow the government.

Even if one agrees with the “Militia limitation” on the Second Amendment, the Militias to which the Amendment refers were State Militias which would have been used to fight the federal government.

When viewed in this light, it is apparent that a limitation on automatic weapons would be an infrigment on the purposes of the Second Amendment. If we want to have an honest discussion about the issue of gun control, then let’s frame the discussion correctly, “Should the people have the right to keep and bear arms that could be used to violently overthrown the central government”.

Let’s remember that this country was formed in a violent revolution. Let’s remember that at Lexington and Concord citizen fired on and killed government solidiers sent by the central government to confiscate their weapons and arms.

If we are going to have gun control then let’s not dicker around the fringes. Let those who would limit the law-abiding citizen’s access to arms first repeal the Second Amendment. That would be the intellectually honest way to address the issue.

My husband made the same observation the other day. If the purpose of the armed citizenry is to protect ourselves from an out of control government, then the citizens have the right to keep and bear the same kind of arms that would be used against them.

In many instances, the farmers and merchants who opposed the columns of red coats in April 1776 had better weapons than the British were carrying.

In most states, muzzle loading cannon and manually operated Gatling guns are perfectly legal and fairly easy to obtain. Go for it.

Up until 1968, you could legally order anti-aircraft guns and anti-tank guns and ammo through the mail without federal permission.

Charley Reese put it very well in his column of which I "quote a part: The Orlando Sentinel Commentary Section July 19, 1998 “When Confronted By a Criminal, You’re Back on the U.S. Frontier” By Charley Reese The easiest way to resolve, in your own mind, the gun-control debate is to take this little test. 1. Do you believe that you have a right to live? 2. Do you believe that your spouse and children have a right to live? 3. If someone is threatening to kill you and your family, do you think that you have a right to defend yourself? That’s the objective, yes-or-no part of the quiz. Now here is one final essay question: How will you defend yourself and your family if you are confronted by an armed intruder or intruders?"

The problem with this approach is that it assumes liberals are just ignorant of the truth and if somehow you hit them with very simple logic they will understand and change their beliefs. WRONG!

Liberals actually KNOW they are wrong. They just lie about it. They actually KNOW they worship a false god of benevolent government. They lie even to themselves.

I guess what I'm saying is it's simply a waste of time. We can't get along with libs. We can't live with them having power to impose their will upon us. They must not be reasoned with, they must be STOPPED.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.