Second Amendment is ‘tyranny insurance’

Anderson and Smith, you crack me up! If you think assault rifles are going to stop government soldiers with RPG, mortars, and other forms of tactical weapons from taking over the US, then you are crazier than I thought. The literal interpretation of the Constitution is your problem. There are all sorts of Constitutional ways to limit which firearms and weapons the general public can obtain. Courts, include the Supreme Court, have upheld bans in the past and I'm sure they will in the future. Take your conspiracy theory and try again.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

They're call drones, F-16's, Black Hawk Helicopters, etc. Your claim that the second amendment is 'tyranny insurance' is hogwash. Keep drinking the kool-aid

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Jeff, consider this...The government decides to throw the constitution out the window and go door to door to take guns away. How many members of the military will stand against this and refuse to comply? I would guess a very good portion. You go ahead a blindly follow the leader and continue to think that all things come from the government and we have no choice but to do what the government says. See where that gets us.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WT, maybe you don't follow the news very close, but our president has seen fit to start shutting down our F-16s and give them to other countries. If you don't believe me ask someone from the 132d FW out of Des Moines. Little by little he keeps weakening us, and you have to have people to use the weapons you mention. The military is not going to blindly follow Obama and turn on its own people.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

I think the Zombie Apocalypse everyone keeps talking about isn't really the undead, but just Obama Sheep.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Not sure why it posted without permission, but oh well. The best news is the number of sheriffs and other law enforcement on record saying they will refuse to violate constitutional rights. We need them on our side. The few loony voluteers to collect guns will have about a 3-minute life expectancy. I think the assignment will become not so attractive. This is not Germany, France, England, or Australia, it's America, and we can get together and do it again.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Constitution not to be taken literally? Are you kidding me? Jeff, your plan would be to mortar every neighborhood? Doesn't sound very ecologically sound to me. See, we don't have to take out every huge weapon, just the communist behind it. Look down the street at the number of houses, then look on state maps and check out the number of towns. Geez, that's whole pile of mortars, but nearly every home has guns. Good luck.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

You people need to get your news from someplace other than Fox and the NRA. Paranoid lunacy abounds in Sentinel land!

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

I think YOU need to re-evaluate your news sources. Are yours balanced? If you think CNN is balanced THINK AGAIN. As for me, we can't get FOX NEWS on our leftist cable so kind of hard to point at that.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Thatcher the whole truth to the loss of F-16's at the 132nd in Des Moines is they're being replaced by drones. A more cost effective alternative. Drones are the wave of the future.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

"soldiers with RPG, mortars, and other forms of tactical weapons"

**Soldiers**, are the most important part of your statement. Do you really believe that soldiers will follow what would be seen as an illegal order from Obama? the other thing is that the democrats in general are decimating the US military as fast as they can. They always do. All you have to look at is the Carter and Clinton years...

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

"The literal interpretation of the Constitution is your problem"

It appears jeffkvb1 and WTF123456 have no constitutional problem with a **literal interpretation** when it comes to free speech...

Why is that? How can someone be such a fervent backer of one amendment, yet p1ss on different one?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Blue it is my belief the Constitution is a living, breathing, evolving document. Applying the literal interpretation of 1787 to present day, in my humble opinion, is short sighted at best. Technology, threats, environment change. Arming a militia with muskets against natives, France, Britain etc is completely different than the world we live in today.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Soldiers will not turn on their own people like this. No jet, tank or piece of military equipment is any good at all without an operator and several support people.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WTF, spoken like a true textbook liberal with this "living, breathing" garbage. Heard that all before. The crafters of the constitution were far smarter than that, and knew full well many things would change, but principles would not. I don't take rights of privacy, abortion, or separation of church and state LITERALLY, because none of those are in there. The 2nd Amendment by contrast is IN YOUR FACE. So if you defend free press as only protecting quills, I'll believe bearing arms only means muskets.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

"it is my belief the Constitution is a living, breathing, evolving document."

Well friend, you are mistaken. The Constitution is the law of the land. Should you wish to change it, fine, go for it through the proper channels. Until such time, there is "no living, breathing" entity.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WTF123456, what does arming a militia, France and Great Britain have to do with today?

Possibly you should consult with a **English** professor to tell you that the "well regulated militia" and "right to bear arms" are in fact TWO different clauses or sentences. There are TWO complete ideas put forth in that one sentence.

The Founding Fathers were far smarter than liberals and progressives give them credit for.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

So, I did a quick review a Merriam-Webster( I hope they're not considered a liberal dictionary) which gave the definition of militia as "a body of citizens organized for military service." What good would this civilian body be without arms? How quickly could arms get to a militia if needed? Indeed, our Founding Fathers were very intelligent. My **English** teacher in high school taught me to read critically. You know, putting ideas together to come to a conclusion of what the author(s) are trying to say. Still waiting to see how the second amendment, in this day and age, is insurance against a tyrannical government.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

That's easy WTF. All you have to do is picture life under the government if there was NO second amendment.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

"is insurance against a tyrannical government"

It is insurance because A) the US soldiers will NOT fire on their fellow citizens and B) as long as the individual citizen has a weapon, tyranny cannot be brought upon them.

Yes, I know you will say that the FBI fired on citizens at Ruby Ridge and the ATF fired at citizens in Waco. But those were both single instance occurrences.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Such nastines. Try to be more civil with each other

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

From CNS News:

Many law enforcement officials have written letters to President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden voicing their concerns over what they believe is an effort to infringe upon the Second Amendment.

In New Mexico, 30 of the state's 33 county sheriffs have reminded state lawmakers that they are under oath to support the U.S. Constitution, and that includes the Second Amendment.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

cont,

CNSNews**** previously reported that 28 of the 29 sheriff's in Utah sent a letter to President Obama stating that they will not enforce any new gun laws they believe to be unconstitutional.

A host of Oregon sheriffs have said that they will not comply with any new unconstitutional gun regulations.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Blue- Sheriff Grayson Robinson, who's deputies responded to the Aurora shooting said it best “Public safety professionals serving in the executive branch do not have the constitutional authority, responsibility, and in most cases, the credentials to determine the constitutionality of any issue,". So you're saying it's an attack on the Constitution for any new gun regulation, but it's okay for a sheriff's department which laws they are or are not going to enforce? Something smells fishy.....

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »