In response to:

Why the 2nd Amendment

OneForFreedom Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 9:34 PM
Looking at what has happened with cigarette smokers over the past 40 years shows what will happen if the gun control crowd is given more than an inch. Even an inch is too much. The US Constitution's supremacy clause indicates to me that things like concelaed carry permits should not be enforceable, or required. But, since I'm not the grand poo-bah...
Joseph64 Wrote: Jan 03, 2013 5:39 PM
It's not smokers that the government targeted, but the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry for decades knew the risks of smoking and how addictive tobacco was and tried to conceal that information the public. They should have been punished for that because they kept consumers from making informed choices that might have saved their lives. The campaign against smoking in public is also an attack on the tobacco industry, but an indirect one. By making it inconvenient for smokers to light up whenever they please, they hope to make them reduce their tobacco use or quit entirely. The goal is to put tobacco manufacturers out of business but they can't impose an outright ban because that would be unconstitutional and would not pass in Congress.
Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shootings, said: "The British are not coming. ... We don't need all these guns to kill people." Lewis' vision, shared by many, represents a gross ignorance of why the framers of the Constitution gave us the Second Amendment. How about a few quotes from the period and you decide whether our Founding Fathers harbored a fear of foreign tyrants.

Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed," adding later, "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is...