posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 02:50 PM
I recently read an article on gun issues of current presidential candidates. It said that one of the candidates basically considers gun rights to
secure hunting and target shooting only. This concept got me thinking about the nature of the second amendment and how people view things today.
The 2nd Amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed."
While many people argue on behalf of the Militia as opposed to the individual, or the meaning of infringed as a case against regulation in any form. I
do not intend for this topic to go into that aspect of things. Instead, I want to focus on the security of a free State.
I have always viewed this statement to provide for the defense by individuals against an aggressive government overstepping their constitutional
authority. It is clear however, that this statement would be considered radical by 'intellectuals' and the MSM. I don't think that they disagree
that the idea that the government could be corrupt. For some reason though, when it comes to military and police action inside the US, the groups I
previously mentioned and people in general tend to accept things assuming it must be legal or else they wouldn't have done 'it.' More so, the idea
of people having to defend themselves from an abusive government by force seems laughable and never conceivably necessary by the same group.
Under the present state of the Union, I cannot see any scenario that would warrant an offensive attack on the government, but I can see situations
where the constitution and rights are completely ignored, force used and the need for individuals to defend themselves from an aggressive US force.
What are your views on the 2nd amendment as pertaining to defense against government abuse?
Why do you think that 'intellectuals' and the MSM seem to laugh at the idea of civilian defense and an aggressive government?
[edit on 16-6-2008 by Wolf321]