ayep. that oughta do it!
“Any public official, elected or appointed, who either advocates for or attempts to restrict personal ownership of firearms is a domestic enemy of the Constitution”
I agree now what are we going to do with the 45% or so of the politicians who fit that descripton? Pitchforks come to mind.
An outstanding article.
Perhaps the best of all.
Enemy of the what???
Oh, you mean that moldy, old out-dated document sitting in a glass case in Washington somewhere.
Nobody believes in that old thing anymore - just ask any Democrat.
Before the CIVIL WAR...
Dred Scott vs Sanford.
What the SCOTUS thought about gun control in the pre Civil War era.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZO.html
It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished;
and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs,
and to KEEP AND CARRY ARMS wherever they went.
(as you can see, firearm ownership was considered by the SCOTUS to be an INDIVIDUAL right.)
After the CIVIL WAR...
Blacks with guns was so frightning that a new definition was required claiming that the 2nd Ammendment referred to the ORGANIZED MILITIAS only.
Spot on.