"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."- Amendment 2, from the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution.
There it is folks, in black and white. The only amendment in the Bill of Rights that liberals seem to have no trouble trying to shred. "*sniffle* Guns kill people. We need to get rid of them all, for they are interfering in our welfare payments to crack whores."
The 2nd Amendment was put in for a good reason and it wasn't to protect hunters or even to protect against burglars. These things were a given back in colonial times. People had to hunt for food (especially on the frontier) and police NEVER arrested people who killed intruders into their homes. Even when someone shot the occasional sheriff that got too high minded and tried to enter without a warrant, the police knew the individual in question was protecting his home. Nope, the 2nd Amendment was put in so that the people could, if the government became too tyrannical, overthrow that government and put a new one in that guaranteed the rights of liberty in its place.
Jonathon Lowy, an attorney at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, says, "It doesn't make sense(to make a clause protecting the right of rebellion). (We weren't) forming this government, at the same time we wanted to protect the people's right to destroy it." Yes, you schmuck, that is what the framers intended. Read the Federalist papers! I think (although I might be mistaken that this is the exact paper number) that Federalist Paper #8 explicitly gave the right of rebellion as the reason for wanting an armed citizenry. An armed populace is much harder to exert tyrannical control over. One of the first things the Nazis did was take everyone's gun. I wonder how differently the Holocaust would have turned out if all the German Jews were armed...
A bunch of putrid, f**k-nut liberals claim that this is only for the militia. I laugh most heartily at their ignorance. They are equating the "militia" with the "military," when they are two totally different things. In the American Revolution or in the French and Indian War or the War of 1812 or any number of other conflicts, if you needed militia, you went down the road to Farmer Bob's house; he would then get his gun off the mantlepiece, fire a few shots for God and country and then go home. George Mason, widely touted as the Father of the Bill of Rights, went on the record and said that the militia included "the whole of the people." The Oxford Dictionary defines the militia as "the armed civilian populace of a nation," and US Federal Code defines the militia as "all able bodied male citizens." Our pathetic education system fails to hammer these points home in school, so most people don't know about them. That's why, when they hear militia, they nod stupidly and say, "du-huh...oh yeah." The militia is the citizenry, not some organized army. Our founding fathers were deathly afraid of standing armies, which was why the militia was such a big deal to them.
Some say the phrase "well regulated" means that the government can ban guns and organize them only to a standing militia. No, shithead, it doesn't mean that. If anything, it places the burden on the government to ENSURE it's citizens are armed, and train them on how to properly fire their weapons.
Please notice, as well, that even with the phrase "well regulated," there also exists the phrase "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT be infringed."
John Hinckley is one of the worst enemies the 2nd Amendment ever had, because by shooting Jim Brady, he gave ideas to that stupid f**king c**t, Sarah Brady. She has made it her mission in life to get rid of all guns in America. Well, come after mine - you'll get a welcome your next of kin will never forget. I am not kidding when I say that if anyone comes after my weapon, they will die. I will protect my freedoms with all necessary rigor and that includes the freedom to be armed. Morons like Brady are the reason crime is up. When you make something illegal, the law-abiding citizens pay attention. THE F**KING CRIMINALS DON'T!!!!!!!!!! THAT'S WHY THEY'RE CALLED CRIMINALS!!!!!!!!!! A study a few years ago, I can't remember now by who (although I will find out and report back on it), found that the places in the country that had laws allowing folks to carry guns, as well as those who did not prosecute people for self defense, had the lowest rates of crime in America. It was a county by county study (some of the most mind-numbing reading I've ever done, I will admit) that showed the rates of crime lower in those areas where guns were most prevalent. The highest rates of crime? Coincidentally in New York, Detroit, Los Angeles and Washington DC - the areas of the nation with the most restrictive gun laws.
Those who would ban law abiding people from having weapons are trying this moral equivalency bulls**t. No one is evil...we are all right and all wrong. They want to treat people like children, without the capacity to decide right and wrong for themselves. I got news for you - a free society requires a certain level of trust in its people. That trust must include the right to decide the right and wrong uses for a gun. You punish those who violate that trust; you don't punish all the people for the idiocy of a few.
With all the gun deaths, would you be happier if all those victims had been beaten to death with a stick? Maybe we would all be happier if I beat you to death with a stick. Or how about if I just shoved it up your @$$ and pulled it through your f**king spine (if you've still got one)?
Sincerely,
An Angry, P!$$ed-off, overly Self-Important Right Wing Nutcase