Chicago to Supreme court .. "we cant hear you"

MrYenko · 07-03-10, 10:58 PM

The 2nd amendment doesn't reserve your right to own a hunting rifle or self defense weapon, although those types of weapons are included in it's coverage. The 2nd amendment is a direct check on the power of the government.

A free man with a rifle is a man that does not have to submit to anyone. He can choose to submit, for any of the reasons argued above, such as community stability, etc. But in the end, he holds his freedom in his own two hands. An armed citizen cannot be forced to do something against his will, such as submit to unreasonable searches, comply with laws that violate his basic rights, etc. A reasonable man will submit to all sorts of infringements on his freedom, getting along to go along, so to speak. But at the core of it, an armed man is a free man. He has the choice.

The Warsaw ghetto uprising was fought by a handful of starving Jews with stolen bolt action rifles, and next to no ammunition. They held off a trained military force several times their own size, which was battle hardened, and armed with the latest weaponry, including crew served machine guns and artillery. Imagine what could have occurred if those same Jews had been similarly (or better) armed in the late 1930's, before they were herded into ghettos, and worse. Instead, they ascribed to the typical European viewpoint that complete freedom is an impossibility. A myth. This next statement wont make me popular, but they ALLOWED their government to do what was done to them. Very few fought back. THAT is what the 2nd amendment is for.

And to this day, it scares the willies out of totalitarians who try to usurp power. Nothing is more effective at guaranteeing freedom than an armed populace. Nothing is more effective at guaranteeing eventual tyranny than relinquishing rights to the government, no matter how minor.

07-03-10, 10:58 PM	#20
MrYenko Watch Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 30 Downloads: 54 Uploads: 0	The 2nd amendment doesn't reserve your right to own a hunting rifle or self defense weapon, although those types of weapons are included in it's coverage. The 2nd amendment is a direct check on the power of the government. A free man with a rifle is a man that does not have to submit to anyone. He can choose to submit, for any of the reasons argued above, such as community stability, etc. But in the end, he holds his freedom in his own two hands. An armed citizen cannot be forced to do something against his will, such as submit to unreasonable searches, comply with laws that violate his basic rights, etc. A reasonable man will submit to all sorts of infringements on his freedom, getting along to go along, so to speak. But at the core of it, an armed man is a free man. He has the choice. The Warsaw ghetto uprising was fought by a handful of starving Jews with stolen bolt action rifles, and next to no ammunition. They held off a trained military force several times their own size, which was battle hardened, and armed with the latest weaponry, including crew served machine guns and artillery. Imagine what could have occurred if those same Jews had been similarly (or better) armed in the late 1930's, before they were herded into ghettos, and worse. Instead, they ascribed to the typical European viewpoint that complete freedom is an impossibility. A myth. This next statement wont make me popular, but they ALLOWED their government to do what was done to them. Very few fought back. THAT is what the 2nd amendment is for. And to this day, it scares the willies out of totalitarians who try to usurp power. Nothing is more effective at guaranteeing freedom than an armed populace. Nothing is more effective at guaranteeing eventual tyranny than relinquishing rights to the government, no matter how minor. __________________ Audentes fortuna juvat