In response to:

The Complex Truth About the Second Amendment

Jugjock Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 9:55 PM
This is the same progressive explanation that I had to listen to for nearly eight hours in the Colorado State Capitol Bldg on Monday during the legislative hearings on HB-1229 which proposes to require background checks by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on the private sale or transfer of firearms. In those hearings, Representative Daniel Kagan explained pedantically to us simple citizens that, "There are no absolute rights in the Constitution. There are only reasonable rights." Obviously, Rep. Kagan, and his constituents, are far more able than us simple folk to best determine what the definition of reasonableness is. From my own readings and research, I prefer a definition of the 2nd amendment on only one level -
Jugjock Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 10:08 PM
- the highest level, that of the citizenry having in their possession sufficient and comparable weaponry to discourage politicians and their agents from unilateral confiscation of personal property (plunder) under the rule of law. It is not burglars and muggers that I fear now, it's my government. This is a sad situation, and one that I fear will not end well.

The debate on gun control lately has been going like this: Liberals propose various restrictions on allowable firearms, acceptable owners and approved ammunition. Conservatives exclaim, "Second Amendment!" And the debate, at least in the mind of the latter group, is over.

The Second Amendment, they believe, is not just one important provision of our basic government document. It's the first and last word on the subject of firearms.

Viewing the proposals offered since the Sandy Hook massacre, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., concludes the supporters intend "to completely GUT our Second Amendment rights." The Utah Sheriffs' Association warned President Barack...