- Nov 2012
That is correct in my opinion.For the longest time, I believed the Second Amendment followed the First Amendment because the Second insured the First, our Founders' logic.
Depends on what is the government you speak of? Are you talking about some county deputies? State Police? The Military? As much as you hate to hear this, the Bundy's just proved that they in fact could. Rather or not you agree with the Bundy's is not relevant as far as the use of firearms is concerned. They did in fact use firearms to stand off, make their case and was then acquitted. I doubt that would have happened had they just showed up holding signs.It's truly inapplicable today. Being armed now won't stop the government. If the beast wants to crush you, it will, and you can't do a damned thing about it but fantasize that you can. That fantasy helps with the day-to-day, but it's a fantasy pure and true.
Its founded in the right for the people to defend themselves against tyranny against their person, rather it be a thief, a killer or a tyrannical government. I feel it is as applicable today as ever. Its like anything else, does extreme examples of the pro or anti gun rhetoric go to far? Yes, of course it does. Unfortunately all the media wants is to feed us is extreme examples.So, what is the mad race to arm founded in?