After the battle at Ft Sumner began the Civil war, the Union quickly moved to secure the state of Missouri. One might ask...why not Kentucky or Maryland or Pennsylvania? Because Missouri produced the lead to make ammunition.
This is the first rule of war, trying to cut off enemy supplies and/or capability to wage war. This is why the Japanese attacked ships in Hawaii instead of bombing a much larger target in Los Angelos, San Francisco, or Seattle.
I'm all for anyone with a criminal record or history of mental illness being denied the (fundamental) right of owning a gun.
Isn't that already the law though? How many criminals have registered their weapons? How can anyone logically conclude that making lawful citizens register is somehow going to make the criminal who got his gun illegally more docile?
But that isn't the impetus behind the 2nd Amendment.
The Second Amendment isn't about the right to hunt squirrels, or fight off gangs in the neighborhood, though that would certainly be considered good reason. It is specifically about keeping the government honest, so the First Amendment would always be guaranteed and protected.
As has been said, when the government fears the people, there is freedom...when the people fear the government there is tyranny.
On the surface it looks like they will propose something that sounds reasonable. However, Obama's M.O. (method of operation) is to say something that is palatable and then put something else entirely into the document being voted upon. He knows that average Americans aren't paying attention to the details and when anyone shines light on his crooked plans, the innattentive Dems are going to respond with stupid accusations (instead of checking the facts) and fight for him, dividing us even further from the truth. Not sure why they think any politician can be trusted, but that's another thread.
Those same libs will be surprised when their utopian propoganda has been exposed to the reality of human nature. (Just like the promise that no one making under 250,000k will see their taxes rise). They will also be the first executed when martial law comes, so guys, it's you whom we are trying to save from being exterminated. We'll get by better in the south...
But when the Democrats say they want to take away the Second Amendment (inalienable right) from citizens who have never broken any law, they are saying that we, the people, are their enemies and need to be disarmed.
That is the real issue here. I wonder how many remember that the government was originally intended to work for us?
Our Executive Branch no longer represents the citizens to govern.....or he would govern within the laws created to keep checks and balances and accept the will of the people. No, he has decided that he rules us....by Executive Decree.
And the liberals love it so. Should Obama ever leave office (and I don't think he will without violence) the next President will have a new "mandate" to do as he wishes. If you live long enough to see the end of the Obama Administration, you'll understand why most of us are opposed to a Dictator.
.
This is the first rule of war, trying to cut off enemy supplies and/or capability to wage war. This is why the Japanese attacked ships in Hawaii instead of bombing a much larger target in Los Angelos, San Francisco, or Seattle.
I'm all for anyone with a criminal record or history of mental illness being denied the (fundamental) right of owning a gun.
Isn't that already the law though? How many criminals have registered their weapons? How can anyone logically conclude that making lawful citizens register is somehow going to make the criminal who got his gun illegally more docile?
But that isn't the impetus behind the 2nd Amendment.
The Second Amendment isn't about the right to hunt squirrels, or fight off gangs in the neighborhood, though that would certainly be considered good reason. It is specifically about keeping the government honest, so the First Amendment would always be guaranteed and protected.
As has been said, when the government fears the people, there is freedom...when the people fear the government there is tyranny.
On the surface it looks like they will propose something that sounds reasonable. However, Obama's M.O. (method of operation) is to say something that is palatable and then put something else entirely into the document being voted upon. He knows that average Americans aren't paying attention to the details and when anyone shines light on his crooked plans, the innattentive Dems are going to respond with stupid accusations (instead of checking the facts) and fight for him, dividing us even further from the truth. Not sure why they think any politician can be trusted, but that's another thread.
Those same libs will be surprised when their utopian propoganda has been exposed to the reality of human nature. (Just like the promise that no one making under 250,000k will see their taxes rise). They will also be the first executed when martial law comes, so guys, it's you whom we are trying to save from being exterminated. We'll get by better in the south...
But when the Democrats say they want to take away the Second Amendment (inalienable right) from citizens who have never broken any law, they are saying that we, the people, are their enemies and need to be disarmed.
That is the real issue here. I wonder how many remember that the government was originally intended to work for us?
Our Executive Branch no longer represents the citizens to govern.....or he would govern within the laws created to keep checks and balances and accept the will of the people. No, he has decided that he rules us....by Executive Decree.
And the liberals love it so. Should Obama ever leave office (and I don't think he will without violence) the next President will have a new "mandate" to do as he wishes. If you live long enough to see the end of the Obama Administration, you'll understand why most of us are opposed to a Dictator.
.
It is what it is until it isn't