Search found 1 match

by McKnife
Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:30 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: what senate rule change could mean for 2nd amendment
Replies: 45
Views: 5542

Re: what senate rule change could mean for 2nd amendment

The Annoyed Man wrote: You're right, in that the republican party is partly to blame....Lord knows....but I think that democrats have done far more damage to the Constitution over the years than republicans have. The biggest republican blunder: the Dept of Homeland Kabuki.

But the 2nd Amendment isn't dead. Infringed upon....yes. But dead, no. I don't own "black rifles" because I'm enamored of the type. I own them because they are militia rifles, first and foremost. Yes, I shoot them for fun. Yes, I dress them up like Barbie Dolls. But that's not why I own them. I already have accurate hunting rifles and shotguns. I already have pistols for self defense/concealed carry. I already have a pump action shotgun for things that go bump in the night. But I own AR type rifles (and M1As, etc.) because they are militia rifles. . . .because I am a member of the unorganized militia (10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes). I don't advocate for going to war against my government, but that is the reason we have a 2nd Amendment, and I am prepared for the possibility that my government might go to war against me.

That those states and municipalities behave unconstitutionally does not make the Constitution invalid. What it does is make the politicians who passed those laws traitors and criminals. They will have their reckoning some day.
Hear, hear!!! :txflag:

Return to “what senate rule change could mean for 2nd amendment”