Monday, January 14, 2013

Arguments for gun ownership: The right of rebellion isn’t actually one of them.

Via Don


The renewed debate over gun rights that has followed the massacre of elementary schoolchildren in Newtown, Conn., has included scrutiny over why gun advocates believe they need a right to bear arms. Among the reasons: Many advocates believe that individual gun ownership helps preserve American liberty, making government fearful of trampling on rights of its citizens. If government goes too far, the argument goes, Americans have the right to revolt by force.

Is that argument correct? Or does it belong to fringe gun enthusiasts?

                                                              More @ Herald and News


  1. Sounds like Joel Mathis is an idiot. We don't use it often,in fact we haven't YET!! In fact it seems to me the Founders would of long since used it. Wonder where he got his Facts?


  2. well this old song has come full circle since the 60's. now the shoe is on the other foot.

    Watch the photos for John Kerry's head circled in yellow.

    1. I sent the wrong link before. Right song, wrong video.
      Watch this one. Stop it at 3:45 and look at the annotations at the bottom of who is in the photo.

      Those folks have been fighting the "revolution" all these years while we've been quitely living our lives.
      the shoe is about to be on the other foot!

  3. People who say this kind of crap clearly have not done any sort of research at all. Had he read the Federalist paper #29 he would have read the intent behind that amendment.

    "If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs."

    All line out right there.