...I believe that anyone who claims the Second Amendment speaks to "militia" rights can't seem to grasp that all of the other amendments apply to individual rights... I agree. We each are militias of one, to borrow the US Army's current recruiting slogan. Collective rights, starting with those conferred by judges and journalists on two people seeking the privilege of marriage do not exist, no matter how much hot air and ink is expelled in their defense. Neither is the right to keep arms a right to anyone but those who as individuals who agree to defend their lives and liberty alone or in voluntary groups.
If you feel you've been subjected to a form of McCarthyism here, please pardon our manners, but in any second amendment-defending on line forum, it's considered proper etiquette to debate the finer points of patriotism with passion and significant amounts of peer pressure. We're losing our God-given right to self-defense one caliber, one state, and one judge at a time. If you care as much as we do, even if you don't always agree, you'll forgive us and point your rhetorical sharp edges outward.
Those who want to call me a troll for those last three words can piss up a rope because they're just looking for a fight.
We know who is looking for a fight. It's the elitists in the VPC, HCI, and their lackey media barons, politicians and civil "servants." We learn codewords for their positions and tend to lash out at them when we even think we've heard them.
There's still time to lash rhetorically. It's worth arguing on line about these things because we have a Republic to save.
If you feel you've been subjected to a form of McCarthyism here, please pardon our manners, but in any second amendment-defending on line forum, it's considered proper etiquette to debate the finer points of patriotism with passion and significant amounts of peer pressure. I've been coming here without posting long enough to think it is a site about a broader range of issues than just guns. What annoyed me was the rudeness with which one poster in particular decided that since I was refering to one very specific element of an article--the irony that 60 Minutes suddenly has such respect for police, because they're talking about taking AWAY guns, as opposed to their usual "evil cops" position--he could simply lie about me. That ain't cool.
But back to your more meaningful post. The MSM's wholesale buying into the handgun control philosophy speaks to a much larger problem, which is the easily disproved idea that guns are these relics of frontier days. Forget the tons of data available, just look at the blatant contradiction of a media telling us at all times that law enforcement and military personel are abusive and rougue, and that we should only trust THEM with the guns. They simply IGNORE that second amendment, as if it is as casually tossed aside as prohibition, when citizens having access to self-protection of their property and lives is one of the most important rights we have. They seem to believe that if all the citizens lost their guns then somehow we would live in this magical society without violence, and somehow the criminals would have no access to weapons, and would just give up B&E's and rapes and muggings and stalkings.
On the one hand the MSM tells us to beware of the police, even though the police are the ones who protect them; on the other hand, they tells us we shouldn't be taking care of ourselves even though we can't trust the police. I guess they must believe in the power of prayer after all, because their loopy vision of a world with no guns = a world of no violence is one big ol' fairytale.