KIT, The only serious objection I have to your post is the implication that our Constituion could only be threatened, to the extent it would be necessary for the citizens to take up arms in violent resistence, by what you describe (incorrectly I might add) as socialist-elitist govt. Do you know what a socialist-elitist IS?
This, of course, is a ridiculous implication. We would be much more likely, in my opinion, to have to take up arms to fight a far right- wing govt. that has defiled the Constituion using the threat of "terrorists" or whatever as their excuse/justification. You know ,take away or Constituional freedoms as a necessary measure to "protect us from terrorists/socialists/commies/armed gay militants/ Martians or whatever sounds the scariest to the average citizens at a given time. Other than that I have to agree with you for the most part. On Jun 28, 3:43 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > Fred, > > I am not sure where you are going with this, and I read your message in > another post; something to the effect that the government should restrict > folks from bringing firearms (I think you referenced a bazooka) to a > baseball game.....Or something or other. > > You have literally been brainwashed by far left extremists who don't like > our Constitution, especially the Clause that allows for Americans to defend > themselves. The Second Amendment has worked just fine throughout our > History, and has proven to be one of the reasons that we continue to remain > a vibrant, free Nation-State. > > I strongly encourage you to go and read the Federalist, as well as the > Anti-Federalist Papers, both of which supported the language contained > within the Second Amendment. > > There were three major reasons for placing and documenting this unalienable > right on paper: > > 1. For Americans to be able to protect their homes and personal affects > from domestic threats, to include, thieves, rogues, bandits, wildlife, axe > murderers, etc.; > > 2. For Americans to deter any acts of aggression from foreign invaders; > but most importantly, > > 3. To insure that our government was kept in check. > > This third prong is the part that folks like Chuckie Schumer, DiFi, Babs > Boxer, Maxine Waters, Bella Pelosi, and a host of other confused > socialist-elitists who have an Anti-American agenda cannot stand, and wish > to see done away with. > > In other words, if the government has a tank, then I should have the right > to have a tank. > > There should be no restrictions on any law abiding citizen from owning > whatever firearm he so chooses, it has nothing to do with hunting, it has to > do with deterrence!! > > On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Frederick <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > [image: Right to Bear Amrs.JPG] > > > > Right to Bear Amrs.JPG > 450KViewDownload- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
