Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Reality Check: The "Politically Incorrect Truth" About The Second Amendment
Real Clear Politics Video (at source) ^ | January 4, 2013 | NA

Posted on 01/04/2013 8:39:08 PM PST by neverdem

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 last
To: alphadog
If you know of an older English dictionary, I'd be happy to look at it. Without the mass media of today, word meanings tended to be fairly stable.

Read the Federalist papers.

If you want everyone to have the same shot size, you issue arms to the army.

Why would that even be mentioned in a sentence securing the Right to keep and bear arms to the People? Makes no sense.

Your gas regulator controls pressure and flow. Pressure regulators control pressure. Regulations control people or products. Regulation is all about control.

Why would be controlling an Army be necessary to the security of a free (emphasis on free) State?

To keep the Army from taking over or being used to impose tyranny. After all, the British had used their army for just that.

Now we're into the meat of the Amendment--because keeping the Right of the People to keep and bear arms uninfringed gives the people the means to control the Army and the politicians, by sheer force of numbers, with their private arms and ammunition.

All verbal and symantic contortions aside, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure the liberty of Americans by securing their right to keep and bear whatever arms they can afford, for the express purpose of stopping the government from imposing tyranny.

81 posted on 01/06/2013 1:02:38 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; All

“Again, it’s a very controversial subject. But if we’re going to have a debate about what rights we’re actually going to guarantee under the Constitution, then we need to have an honest debate about what the Founders were attempting to guarantee,” Swann said.


There is NO need for any additional debate, honest or dishonest...Period...

Accept the fact that the Second Amendment means what the SCOTUS ruled it to be, and shut the hell up about it!!! Period...

Otherwise...No one will win when they (we know who they are) decide to make a poor decision to try and remove that inalienable right...

No one will be happy after that...

Personally, I do not believe the informationally challenged in this country to be smart enough to understand this point before it is too late...And then the shock and awe to follow when we see the crumbling of our society reacts to our resistance will not surprise me, nor will I have ANY inkling of remorse or compassion for those who are late to the party...

Just my opinion...


82 posted on 01/07/2013 10:37:22 AM PST by stevie_d_64 (It's not the color of one's skin that offends people...it's how thin it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson