In response to:

The War Between the Amendments

Ken6565 Wrote: Jan 17, 2013 12:36 PM
The point of the Second Amendment is that an armed citizenry is one that cannot be subjected to tyranny. When that amendment was passed, it was not at all clear that a republic would last. That's why Franklin, when asked what sort of government they had given us, answered, "A republic; if you can keep it." The history of the world is full of republics that were eventually brought to an end by tyrants.
alexandercarlyle Wrote: Jan 17, 2013 1:29 PM
those who think their right to bear arms is for hunting and protection from thugs is only wrong because the thugs that no. 2 protects you from is the thugs in d.c. ( if the government fails to protect the people then the people have the right to disband the government, by force if nesseccary) no guns in the hands of the standing militia (you and me ) equalls tyranny.

The horrific Newtown, Conn., mass shooting has unleashed a frenzy to pass new gun-control legislation. But the war over restricting firearms is not just between liberals and conservatives; it also pits the first two amendments to the U.S. Constitution against each other.

Apparently, in the sequential thinking of James Madison and the Founding Fathers, the right to free expression and the guarantee to own arms were the two most important personal liberties. But now these two cherished rights seem to be at odds with each other and have caused bitter exchanges between interpreters of the Constitution.

Many liberals believe there is...