I reject any argument on being an unarmed victim. I reject the premise that people should be unprotected because some mindless bureaucrat decided that the Constitution doesn't apply specifically to them.
To the liberal idiots who claim the 2nd amendment is about state (i.e. government) rights, I would argue that the 1st amendment also only applies to government. The people are free to speak only through their elected representatives.
After all, speech can be a powerful thing (ask Imus) and the common people can’t be trusted with something so powerful! Only the government can be trusted with it.
So, every time a lib attacks our 2nd amendment (it’s ours, because they don’t recognize it), we need to attack the 1st amendment with equal vigor!
But “mindless bureaucrats” reject you...So what do we do about it Bob?
(I ask the obvious question, because I know the obvious answer...I only ask because I’m illustrating the absurd, but being absurd...)
Not that I am implying at all that you are absurd, far from it...
One interesting bit of logic here...
If you are to be civilly (sp?) disobedient wouldn’t it be wise to still have the means to back it up???
(Ohhh, this one’s really good...I need to write this one down...;-) )