If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
HAVE GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES DISREGARDED THE BILL OF RIGHTS?
by OPOVV, ©2013
(Jan. 9, 2013) — To cut to the chase, the Constitution’s Second Amendment is as much as “crossing the line” as it is about anything else. It’s an “either/or” proposition: there’s no ambiguity nor “interpretation,” and this is how it works.
The way the system is set up, there are checks and balances put in place so the Constitution can’t be trashed. But what if the three branches of government all break down at once and the Constitution is totally ignored? What then? And what is the meaning of the Constitution in the first place that has a separate heading about weapons to protect it?
The words “Rights” and “Freedom” are interchangeable; they’re synonymous. The sole purpose of the Constitution, the only reason why it was written in the first place, was to define the limits of the government over the people.
When the government, for whatever reason, disregards its limits, it is not only the Right of the people, but their Duty, to correct the situation. It is reasonable to assume that after ALL avenues of redress have failed, that the threat of an armed insurrection be implemented against those who have caused the harm in the first place. Deadly force is the ONLY option left to secure the foundation of the Constitution if the offending parties refuse to relinquish power.
Who in his right mind would desire Tyranny over Freedom, Slavery over Civil Rights, and Repression over Freedom? What sort of intellectually-challenged individual would strive for additional censorship, book burnings, hampering religious thought over mind control, or a philosophy marketed as a panacea for each individual’s woes?
Certainly the victims of the recent mindless slaughters are to be mourned, those who died in theaters and schools, but those atrocities have no bearing on the validity of the Second Amendment’s purpose to protect the Constitution, to protect the Rights and Freedoms for all of America’s citizens by the only means left to dispose of the people who would take away the People’s Freedoms.
There are those who wish to deny the Freedom of Speech, and those same people want to eliminate the very means to insure the Freedoms of the First Amendment.
The Second Amendment is not about hunting for the sustenance of the appetite; no, the Second Amendment is to protect the sustenance of the mind.