[burzum]

Yet again these newspapers ask the wrong questions. You don’t need an AK-47 to go hunting or to protect your house. But you do need one to protect yourself from your government. When people CAN own AK-47s and the like, the government will be nice and pacified. When that right is taken away we will see more Ruby Ridges and Wacos.

The government that fears that its people could get ticked off and decide to violently overthrow the government (perhaps with heads on pikes) is a government that is going to tread lightly. A government that doesn’t fear that can do anything it wants.

[CowboyConservative]

You are correct But before I say any thing else please I never have nor will I ever call for or condone the use of violence against a governmental body!
If you read the writings of the founding fathers Hamilton etc. the reason there is a Second Ammendment is because they knew an armed citizenery would keep a government from becoming oppressive. The first shot fired in the Revolution was because the British were trying to “disarm” the colonists. Liberals have a very unconstitutional agenda they love control. The only time they care about crime rates is when they can use a horrible crime to push their agenda and that alone, as in the removal of firearms from the people. Remember armed citizens are free citizens unarmed citizens are subjects open for control.

[mad_as_he$$]

The Second Amendment is not so much about the right to shoot as it is about the right to shoot back.

Richard Quigley, 1943-2007