[bunkerhill7]

Sorry but there is nothing in Second Amendment about self- defense-

to bear arms means to "carry arms","to support, to move arms" [Webster, 1887] which means an offensive action, not just sitting there waiting for someone to attack you

- It means to bear arms against tyrants, which is what the founding fathers just went through before those words were written with cannon bursts still echoing in their ears-

...

To bear arms is a term of military offense, i.e. also to aim a weapon at a military taget, by anyone, including civilians, against tryants, which is the intent of the Second Amendment-

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with Self- defense, which does not appear in the Second Amendment, but "Self-Defense" was made up to abrogate and infringe upon the Second Amendment.

In reality, the intent is to bear arms against oppressive governments. And you know it.

The thousands of New England farmers and civilians in the American Revolution who took up their own modern-day arms and rushed to Saratoga did not wait for the Burgoyne to invade Massachusetts and Albany but rushed to take the OFFENSIVE against Gentleman Johhny at SARATOGA,

Au contraire, they did not wait for the British to come to them- they attacked the British.

That is called OFFENSE, not DEFENSE.

[Sergio]

bkmk

[Terry Mross]

If there was one intelligent republican in congress he or she would say “If banning gun ownership will make everyone safe, once the ban is in effect will the president be willing to give up SS protection?”

[IbJensen]

This makes it easy to understand why the 2nd Amendment MUST be protected.

http://voxvocispublicus.homestead.com/Battle-of-Athens.html