David over at The War On Guns has a rundown of exactly how our unalienable rights became alienated.
"Became", not "Will become", "are sure to become", or "Will likely become"; "Became." It's already happening. If you don't believe me, give him a click.
He thinks it's time to get angry. I'm inclined to agree.
Read, link, e-mail, and forward. People need to know about this.
Maybe it's time to dust off that big R word.
The least we can do is prepare.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Even back in 1941, some legislator said, "Remember that registration of firearms is only the first step. It will be followed by other infringements of the right to keep and bear arms until finally the right is gone."
I can accept not allowing me to have a grenade launcher, but try taking my rifle, pistol or shotgun away. Better yet, don't.
My thoughts on that subject are best spoken through a comment I left at SR's site;
--------------
“The right to bear arms shall not be infringed…but rocket launchers aren’t arms…those are more…torsos.”
The original intent of the 2nd amendment was not to keep people armed for personal protection; it was to keep people armed so that they could revolt against a tyrannical government, and overthrow their oppressors as the founding fathers had. Do the people need to have tanks? Probably not. But they should have the ability to destroy tanks via mines, or rockets. Should the people have jets? Probably not. But they should have the ability to destroy jets and helicopters via SAMs.
Allowing the people to carry small arms is of little consequence when you command tanks, ships and jets. It’s a little extreme, but I think it’s the only conclusion one can draw when the spirit of the 2nd amendment is to keep an overly powerful government from overthrowing its people.
A government should fear its people, not the other way around.
I sort of agree, but I still would like to have a tank. You know, for emergencies and such.
Post a Comment