This thread has been totally hijacked. There are those of us who know about the right to keep and bear arms, and how that right has been corrupted. Then there are those who use weasel words and sophistry to attack that very nearly absolute right. I’m glad you’re on our side.
The bottom line is we don’t need approval from any government to defend ourselves; we never have and we never will. And there does not need to be any debate about it. That debate closed around 1776, before any Constitution was conceived.
It is OUTRAGEOUS that the man in the article was so abused by the local “authorities.” And if incidents such as the one described in the article continue, I am confident that they will be answered appropriately.
Indeed it has. If you will review posting history, you will see that any time RP joins a thread discussing the 2ndA, the thread is immediatly derailed and becomes a shouting match between him profusely spouting a view which is almost universally deemed absurd (even by "collective right" proponents), and a whole lotta people pointing out numerous flaws in the argument, which he derides or ignores. This goes on until his arguments are thoroughly skewered, at which points he seems to declare success and leaves to derail another thread.
I have repeatedly tried to draw this problem to the attention of Moderators, who have apparently done nothing.
Back on topic bump!
That is why I posted the article. Nobody questions the broad application of Amendment I while so many try to pick Amendment II apart.
And the funniest thing is that Amendment I has the potential of being much more destructive to the nation as proven by the propaganda of all totalitarian states.