In response to:

Protecting Obama’s Right to Bear Arms

daunhin Wrote: May 12, 2013 9:30 AM
Ransom, your answer to Dick4260 is incomplete. It seems that Dick4260 forgets that owning a car and driving that car are privileges, not unalienable rights. The right to protect one's self from government is, however, unalienable. A major means to protect that right is through the ownership of weapons - aka guns. I believe it was Jefferson who said something to the effect that citizens should not fear their government, but rather, government should fear its citizens. Citizens uninhibited ownership of weapons capable of overthrowing the government will cause the government to fear its citizens. Do we fear our government or does it fear us?
evie10 Wrote: May 12, 2013 10:31 AM
"the most frightening words: I'm from the government, I'm here to help".
daunhin Wrote: May 12, 2013 12:48 PM
I would think even more frightening words would be: "I am the government; I own you." That, evie, is tyranny.
Michael in the P/R of ATL Wrote: May 12, 2013 10:03 AM
I agree with your statements about the intentions of the 2nd Amendment, but I have never been comfortable with the notion that government grants me some privilege to drive. This Republic's founding principle is liberty, so in my mind, I have a right to drive until I abuse it -- rather like my right to defend myself.
daunhin Wrote: May 12, 2013 12:44 PM
While I am for as limited a government at all levels as possible (government is only to be used to maintain a modest civility among its citizens), I do not see that driving is an unalienable right; it's a luxury. Luxury items are earned through various means. Is riding a horse - our means of transportation before the automobile - a right? No. One must first break the horse then learn to ride it. Therefore, it is also a luxury and a privilege. Walking, however, is an unalienable right.

RyanM wrote: “Not since the poilus surrendered to Hitler in 45 days has an opponent backed up so much talk with so little fight."

Give me a break. The French took a million casualties during the 1940 campaign. They lost not from a lack of will to fight, but to incompetent commanders who saddled themselves with an obsolete doctrine. - GOP Fairy Tale: We Came, We Saw, We Surrendered

Dear Comrade Private Ryan,

Eh, the French lost 50,000-85,000 killed and about 120,000 wounded in the Battle of France, not even nearly close to the million you claim. A million and...