In response to:

Liberal Says 2nd Amendment Meant to Give State Right to Bear Arms

bhoniker Wrote: Dec 23, 2012 3:38 AM
The other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights are individual rights, setting limits on government power. Why could anyone believe that the second amendment is different?
anderson659 Wrote: Dec 23, 2012 4:10 AM
The second amendment by any historical record was meant to deter the tyranny of government , criminals, and for defense.

The founding fathers knew criminals and depraved individuals could easily come to power. As has happened now.

Weapons in the hands of citizens is the best deterrent to a criminal government. Without the second amendment, there would be no real first amendment, or the protection of the voting booth.
Rich L. Wrote: Dec 23, 2012 11:09 AM
Exactly, anderson! That is why the wording of the 2nd Amendment states that owning and carrying of ARMS shall not be infringed. They used the terrm arms, not guns, to mean that as weaponry advanced, the people should be as well armed as the government. They did not choose words lightly and for all the uneducatable leftists and even InternRoy and the toadlicker, look up the meaning of infringe or infringement.
hmiller Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 6:57 PM
What arms did our Revolutionary Army carry with them? Any cross bows per chance? how about brass canons? Did their guns have rifling or clean bore? And so forth. It was 1790 !!!

Wendy60 wrote: The neoconservatives are the reason why Boehner is not putting up a fight. The neocons do the thinking for the Republican leadership on all matters of strategy and morality in politics. Boehner wouldn't take a dump if the neocons told him not to, and if they told him to do so, he would strain for hours. Neocons want tax increases, because paying higher taxes is a sacrifice. Neocons believe that the little people have to be forced into sacrificing for the "collective self," i.e., the state, because that is the only way to preserve the social order. What they...