Skip to main content

View Diary: Civil gun discussions? Our community is the shelter for each other. (167 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Thank you! (20+ / 0-)

    I posted comments yesterday, which I thought were respectful, yet unfortunately were in support of the 2nd Amendment, with my patient reasoning, citing what I felt was the indisputable the position of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington on the inherent untrustworthy nature of all governing bodies, and my initial comment in the thread received 2 HR's and 1 REC, and being new to this community, but having been an avid reader for almost two years, I found this upsetting. I meant no disrespect, and did nothing that I thought was deserving of such a response, especially since the 2 people who gave me the HR did not even comment on the thread to explain their HR, and even those who did respond, seemed more intent on calling me names like "coward" or "jerk" than actually having an intelligent discussion. I have since questioned my participation in this community given such a response.

    I am a strong supporter of virtually all liberal causes and worked very hard to get Obama elected both in 2008 and 2012. I am not anyone's enemy, and for the record, I don't actually own a gun myself, and I have never personally owned a gun, but I do support the 2nd Amendment: RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, but not because I have any fetish or fear about owning one myself, but rather, because I believe it is a fundamental right that is critical to our nation's ideals and strengths. I believe this should be discussed in respectful tones, without HR'ing people for saying things that you do not agree with.

    •  Well, "Noobie" Welcomes (11+ / 0-)

      Tough week to start jumping in, but thanks to PDNC your safe in here.

      "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

      by meagert on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 05:58:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ahh.... yeah, you could say that again. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Otteray Scribe, fuzzyguy

        And I do appriciate that this tragedy causes immense sorrow and fear, but my feelings on the 2nd Amendment transcend any incident of this nature. I don't trust the government, as a matter of principle. I just don't, and I don't think anyone should, ever.... not fully at least. And this is what I was trying to explain.

        And thank you for the welcome.

    •  Welcome TheFacts101 (8+ / 0-)

      Can I call you TF101 for short :)

      I'm a 2nd supporter as well, don't own a gun either. I imagine yesterday was like baptism by fire, but it's usually not like that. Hang in there.

      "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

      by high uintas on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 06:44:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I didn't see the comments (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Otteray Scribe, TheFacts101

      and HR'ing seems way inappropriate, but if you didn't in some way acknowledge the raw feelings around this event people may have seen them as very insensitive. I tend to be analytical and sometimes I jump in with something that's intended to clarify and if I don't first acknowledge the other person's position they feel trampled upon. Sometimes I have failed to properly consider their feelings and sometimes they just have a particular sensitivity that caused them to misinterpret my words. It happens.
      But I doubt I have HR'd people more than once or twice a year, and only when something is clearly out of bounds. Don't let this experience turn you off; you just came in at a difficult time.

      Stay fired up: now is the time to focus on downticket change! #Forward

      by emidesu on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 06:46:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I provided a link to my comments above (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        emidesu, Otteray Scribe

        but here it is again:

        In support of the 2nd Amendment

        If you are inclined to read and give me candid respctful feedback, it would be well appreciated.

        •  I see a few things: (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TheFacts101, Sandino, Otteray Scribe

          1) your style is a little formal and that can be offputting at a time when feelings are running high. You are clearly knowledgeable but it's almost like you're clobbering people with that at some points. I make that mistake too. And in this particular situation, suspicion runs high that people may only be here to shill for the NRA, especially if the account is new.
          2) It's pretty unusual for a Dem to make such strong statements about not trusting the government. We hate violations of our civil liberties as much as anyone else does, and we do not really like giving over our freedoms, but we have a lot of positive feelings toward the government as well, which I'm sure you understand as a fellow liberal. When someone makes statements in which his fear of government tyranny is prioritized over his concern for dead 6 year olds, it kind of sets people off.
          3) you gave off a real sense of inflexibility. It's understandable, we all have issues like that, but maybe this week isn't the best time to jump in? And using all caps was rather intense.

          Having said all that, the HR's were uncalled for. I think it was just an artifact of emotions running high. We fight around here, we make up, we get over it.

          Stay fired up: now is the time to focus on downticket change! #Forward

          by emidesu on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 08:17:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Here's some more candid feedback.... (4+ / 0-)

          a.  Your oft-repeated pride in your callousness in the face of 20 dead 1st-graders was designed to piss people off, and succeeded.  
          b.  Your tough guy "my hands are lethal weapons" nonsense is pretty typical of a certain kind of wackjob, in my considerable experience of the type.  You might want to lighten up just a tad, Francis.  
          c.  We get that you don't trust the government, any government.  Saying it 20 times doesn't convince us more.  It's also what Republicans who oppose social security and national health care and taxes on "job creators" are constantly telling us.  
          d.  Your repeated "I know you're afraid" is also pretty annoying to many of us.  I don't think we're afraid.  I think we're sick that 20 1st graders were just slaughtered--that doesn't make us afraid.  And we're not afraid to admit it really touched us in a fundamental way--no need to brag about our calluses.  

          Always happy to provide a little feedback....

          To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

          by joesig on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 09:02:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, I cannot take back what I wrote, (4+ / 0-)

            and upon reflection, I guess was feeling a bit defensive of what feels to be misplaced retaliation against a basic right. I repeated myself because I felt like my point was not heard, and I tried to make it clear that my mistrust was a prudent approach, not that I simply distrust the government on all issues. I passionately support single payer health insurance, and am all for taxing the wealthy and investing heavily in infrastructure projects and education, etc. and I am completely against any privatization of social security, or any other republican measures, and don't get me started on separation of church and state, because the Christian Dominionist folks I find especially offensive. As I said above, I am very liberal on almost all issues, except for this one.

            And for what it's worth, anyone's hands can be deadly, with just a little training. The attitude of dealing with danger in a detached manner, that is the hard part. I've survived some harsh experiences, which is not meant as any sort of a bragging, I just have. And this affects you. And I loved that movie.

            In any case, thank you for your brutally honest feedback. I appreciate the candor. If no one is honest with you, you never learn.  

            •  Ah, the start of a long and beautiful relationship (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sandino, TheFacts101

              Anyone who likes Stripes can't be all bad.  Best of luck to you here.  

              And can I point out what does seem to be a bit of a contradiction?  It's the trust thing.  If you trust the government with your health care, and your retirement, and building your it possible the government might be trusted enough for a few relatively minor bits of gun "control", like, say, limiting purchases to one a month, or ending the private sale exemption, or maybe even something crazy like limiting armor piercing bullets or the sale of .50 cals designed to bring down airplanes?  Is it possible to trust just a bit?

              To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

              by joesig on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 09:45:40 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I trust the government to a point, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Otteray Scribe

                and the 2nd Amendment is where there is a line in the sand for me. I trust social services administration to provide a service, sure, why not, but that is not in the same league as trusting police to tell law abiding citizens what firearms they can have. Please tell me that you see that there is a profound difference between those two areas of trust.

                I do not grant the government any rights when it comes to firearms with respect to law abiding citizens. I want the populace to be armed and dangerous, so dangerous that any government official will think twice before attempting to impose any sort of a tyranny against the populace.

                Don't get me wrong, I will engage in a civil approach on all measures in dealing with problems, and I do not personally advocate violence as a solution, my point is for there to be an armed populace merely as a deterrent, this is all. If there is an armed populace, I firmly believe that no violant uprising will ever be necesary, because no despot would ever attempt a tyrrany against an armed populace. Never happen. That's my point. "Talk softly, but carry a big stick."  

                •  I think this is a game for you. Unfortunately. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  No rights for the government regarding firearms when it comes to law abiding citizens?

                  So, fully automatic .50 cal machine guns are ok?  

                  Non-registered dealers buying and then selling hundreds of guns a month (because they "changed their mind" about owning for personal use) is ok?  

                  No need for gun locks or gun safes, even when children or mentally unstable family members share the house?  

                  How about armor piercing and exploding rounds? All ok?  

                  And the biggest piece of your nonsense is that you don't own a gun yourself, supposedly: which tells me you don't actually believe what you say.  If I say I believe voting is important: I vote.  If I say owning guns to fend off an untrustworthy government is important: I own guns.  

                  Enjoy your time at DK: you'll annoy many, and change no minds with your absolutism, but you'll have a pretty good time.

                  To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                  by joesig on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:47:10 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Let me take this in parts (0+ / 0-)

                    Firstly, I do not own a gun, no, but I would like to, if I had the funds. Or if I felt the urgent need, then I want to make sure that I can, legally. I do not at present, but I will someday purchase one when I have discretionary funds. I am trained in fighting, and I do know how to use fire arms, and I have used them, and I am not gonna engage in any bragging about my life, but suffice it to say, I am not an ordinary citizen. (And please do not insult or attack me for describing myself in this superficial manner. I prefer to keep my personal life out of this. Please respect this.) And, although I do not personally own one, no, I do have friends and family who own guns. But the point is, I want an armed populace, period. Yes, I am inflexible in this, but so were the founding fathers, hence they encoded this into our constitution. Please try to remember this when you criticize me for being "inflexible." Consider: are you "inflexible" in your commitment to the Separation of Church and State? Are you? Because I am. So, similarly, for those (law abiding citizens) who desire to own a gun, they should be allowed to own one, Period. If one does not desire one, then I respect that, and I do not believe that respecting a person's personal desire on this subject negates my views on the necessity of allowing by constitutional law an armed populace.  

                    Secondly, there already is a law regarding "FULLY AUTOMATIC MACHINE GUNS" which was enacted about 50 years ago .... so if you are asking me if I feel we should repeal that law, no. Of course, this leads to the question of where I draw a line in the sand. Well, let's look at the text from the 2nd Amendment:

                    SECOND AMENDMENT TEXT

                    "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."

                    This passage stats: "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

                    Not infringed, is the point. I admit that I error on the side of allowing for as much freedom as possible. Let me be clear, I am not paranoid or afraid of the government, I just believe in principle that no government should ever be fully trusted. This is a principle I have. Prudence. I am advocating for a healthy intelligent reservation of granting any governing body unilateral trust. This is all. Can you not see the wisdom of that prudent distrust? Can you not see that the founding fathers shared that same prudent distrust, and that it was specifically because of their prudent distrust of all governing bodies that they penned the 2nd Amendment... along with the other checks and balances in our government's constitutional charter? Isn't it a fact that the founding fathers felt that the greatest danger to freedom was from the abuse of power by the government itself? Isn't this a fact? Can we at least agree on this one basic fundamental truth and that it is inherent to the charter of the US Constitution? Can we?  

                    Please try to put aside the tragic events of gun abuse and objectively consider this one question: Can we ever fully trust any government?

                    John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington, said NO!

                    I say NO!

                    This is not paranoia, this is wisdom from studying history and understanding how governments must work. This does not make governments evil, no, but it just means that we must be ever vigilant and never fully entrust the government, and most especially, we must never entrust any governing body to disarm the people. Look, if I felt that a government could be fully entrusted, I would vote for disarmament in a heartbeat, but I just don't. I think that gun control advocates are engaging in wishful thinking, mistakenly believing that government can be fully trusted, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, evidence that they blindly blatantly ignore. There is a line in the sand here. And, I realize that republican tea party wackos voice an extreme distrust of government on all issues, but that is not what I am saying here. I do not share those irrational illogical fears, (and so please do not group me with them) but I do council prudence in this one area. Just this one. And, again, remember, so did our founding fathers. I think some liberals are deluding themselves if they think the government can be fully trusted on all issues. Yes, on most issues, but not all.

                    The focus of gun control advocates is always on protecting people from gun abuse, and I appreciate their fears due to the abuse, and I share those same fears, I assure you, but they seem to completely ignore the wisdom and intent (on this one issue) of our founding fathers' which was driven by prudent distrust of all government. They, and the majority of folks here on Daily Kos, seem to have completely forgotten this, which, as I said in another comment, I find rather ironic, since it is the Liberal community who have been the most diligent in voicing concern over the abuses of power of the government. Why would you trust a government to disarm a populace when you know full well that that government is already abusing its powers.

                    Need I mention issues which I am sure you well know: Started a war under false pretenses? Indefinite detention?
                    Guantanamo? Drone Strikes? Torture? Targeted Assassinations? Patriot Act? Repealing of Habeas Corpus?

                    Need I go on?

                    Why have they forgotten or ignored these? Why?

                    Well, I think I know why. It's because of fear. Fear makes people blind, all too often. I have seen it in my personal life, and I am seeing it here on Daily Kos. I know the signs of fear all to well.

                    And, for the record, I get why a government sometimes needs to do these sorts of things to protect the people, like taking out Bin Laden, etc. but I think it is clear that governments, by their very nature, are capricious. And, I know I am repeating what I have written several times now, but please be honest: don't you see the truth of this?

                    Unfortunately, since the NRA folks are typically right wing republican idiots, usually evangelical Christian fanatics filled with their delusional and frightening "holy war" end-of-days lunacy, and even though they obviously do support the 2nd Amendment, they rarely voice the pertinent issues in an intelligent way that reflects my own sentiment and spirit. And, since I saw Daily Kos folks writing diaries on this subject with a fervor that seemed one-sided and unchecked, I felt it necessary to comment here on Daily Kos to explain why some liberals (who agree with you all on most other issues) actually do support the 2nd Amendment, and that we do so for reasons that I felt that liberals would appreciate, and I believe, should agree with. Fortunately, I had created an account a few weeks ago, because I felt like I might have something to say here, but I had only really used it to post a cute cat~dolphin video and an RIP comment on an IGTN diary.

                    But here, since you asked, these are my views....

                    I am in favor of background checks to determine if a person has a criminal record.

                    I support gun locks and guns safes. I even support the notion that we might benefit from people being required to take a class in proper safe gun use and safe secure storage. Yes. People take driver's test to drive cars. This seems prudent, and does not seem to infringe on a person's right to drive.

                    I am uncertain of my position on "armor piercing" bullets, although my understanding is that this law is also already in place, and upon reflection, I don't believe I would vote for repealing it, no.

                    Lastly, please don't dismiss my position as "nonsense" ... I believe I have been nothing but respectful of you and your views, and I have even been deeply appreciative of your candor. This can only be the beginning of a long relationship if there is mutual respect. I taken time away from my responsibilities to explain the other side of this issue, which seemed lacking on Daily Kos. I felt during these past 2 years that the discussion here has been very helpful to the Democratic Party, and turn, to democracy itself, and for this I am sincerely grateful. But, in all candor, I do not think I have the time, patience for childish insults and name calling, or maybe "thick skin" ... to play here much longer, but I absolutely will continue to read, and I will always be a fan.

                    •  Interesting. (0+ / 0-)

                      First, as you probably know, the Amendments, by definition, were not "encoded" into our Constitution.  They were added later.  Clearly the Founding Fathers chose not to add a Second Amendment-like right into the actual Constitution.  It came 2 years later.  

                      And you're completely consistent in your inconsistency.  You're not an absolutist on the 2nd.....finding it completely acceptable whatever exceptions happen to be carved out at the moment--no fully automatic weapons (rifle or pistol), no sawed-off shotguns, some registration but not complete registration or purchasers.  There's no guiding principle there, just adherence to the NRA position.  Why isn't the same fully automatic rifle the military uses be ok for a well regulated militia?  What's the principle?  

                      And I am curious about the source of your extreme deadlines.  After all, you brought it up...not anyone else.  If you make a claim, back it up, while remaining anonymous if desired. Are you a UFC fighter, the master of Dim Mak the death touch, a disciple of Kwai Chang Caine?  

                      Are you familiar with the concept of straw man arguments?  When you argue that liberals, or this site, seek the confiscation of all is complete nonsense.  No one serious is proposing that.   Many of us, including people like me who own guns and actually made their living with guns as part of their tool belt, want smarter restrictions and tougher regulation.  I'm a believer in the 2nd Amendment, just not in the idea that it's the only amendment that matters, and that any restriction on guns is a violation of our Constitutional protections.

                      To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                      by joesig on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:19:31 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You've made assumptions (0+ / 0-)

                        I never said that I support the views of the NRA.... in fact, if you will reread my last comment, I thought that I just said that I thought they were idiots and did not reflect my views.

                        I am expressing my views as to why I support the intent of the 2nd Amendment and what that intent was.

                        "encoded" "written" "articulated" "represented" "enshrined" .... choose whatever word you prefer, the intent of the founding fathers remains the same.

                        I have not been inconsistent, you never asked my specific views until this morning, hence this evening was the first time I gave specifIc positions. My focus in my comments was and is to advocate for us all to remember the intent of the 2nd amendment and why it is there. We can add restrictions, and background checks, etc .... but there will always be abuses. Can we mitigate them, yes, and we have, but only to a point, and that is my point, namely, to keep things in perspective. There will always be abuses. There is always danger and with that danger, tragedies occur. This is a sad reality. Perspective.

                        It's good that you have trained, please do not dishonor mine. I have shown you nothing but respect here.  

                      •  and you are incorrect (0+ / 0-)

                        some people are advocating for complete ban.

                        •  You're all over the map. Not sure this is helpful. (0+ / 0-)

                          Look, to me, it seemed like you started out with a complete absolutist position: 2nd Amendment above all, callous towards death of children because RKBA is essential, never ever ever trust the government, implied no controls or restrictions.  

                          At this point, you say we can add restrictions and background checks and limitations on types and numbers of armaments.  You've just put yourself in agreement with 99% of DK, with the exception of the very very few calling for a complete ban on ALL  weapons, as opposed to just assault rifles.  Your new reasonable take is in complete opposition to your previous absolutist take.  Which is good, in my humble opinion.  I've never seen anyone on this site advocating for complete and unquestioning trust in the government or even the president--you're arguing against a straw man.

                          I am curious what you studied, and your perspective and experiences regarding personal violence.  

                          To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                          by joesig on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 09:46:46 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  And to me, you have been inconsistent. (0+ / 0-)

                            You have been respectful in one moment, and completely disrespectful in another. Whereas, I think I have been entirely consistent in my dealings with you and in here throughout my comments, and I have been nothing but respectful to you and to others. I, however, do not feel I have been accorded the same respect that I have given. I have been called immature names on this site for merely stating the harsh reality with brutal candor, and my points have been ignored, resulting in my feeling the foolish need to repeat myself. And then, in a laughable observation, I am criticized for repeating myself, yet we both know that I would not have felt the need to repeat myself, if my points were heard the first time. And now you want to interrogate my background, after I already expressed the respectful desire to leave my background in superficial terms, and you do so with a mock tone of civility, yet we both know that your aim is now merely an ad hominem attack to discredit my points, but since my points stand on their own, regardless of my background, this is a pointless endeavor, and one that dishonors the accord I have given you. In short, you have lost my respect.

                            Here is the entirety of my position:

                            I advocate for a tempered perspective. This is all.

                            I have said my piece.

                            Good day, Sir.

                  •  and no, this is not a "game" for me (0+ / 0-)

                    Please give me a little more credit than that.

        •  Feedback it is, then: (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sandino, Sharon Wraight

          In the comment you linked, you said "it is the armed populace that holds that line."

          That is a fantasy, plain and simple. The combined military power of the US exceeds any armed force in the world, let alone a bunch of citizens with pistols and rifles.

          It is fine not to trust the government, but simple firearms are not going to be much of a challenge for the US military to deal with, should you decide on armed resistance. In most cases, the local police could handle it, with some backup from the national guard if needed.

          The government can be resisted, but that takes the form of protest and political action, not lock and load.

          •  As I just posted above (0+ / 0-)

            The point of an armed populace is as a deterrent, because no despot would ever attempt to impose a tyrrany against an armed populace. And with regards to the hypothetical scenario, if such a tyrrany were to occur, and if a violant uprising were to arise, given our cultural ideal of freedom and justice, I highly doubt that the entire military and the entire police would side with the tyrrany and blindly follow orders, so whose to say which side would have superior fire power. It would be bloody, and both aides would experience far more damage than any woiod want, and given this fact, only somone fighting for freedom in the face of tyrwnny would be willing to raze those stakes. Again, I want an armed populace because I believe only an armed populace will prevent the need for such a tragic future. And I completely agree, that civil approaches protesting the government is the only solution to civil problems. However, against an unarmed populace, those problems can become uncivilized brutal tyrrany. The US government already does things that border on this, but their hands are always tempered, because at the end of the day, they know that the populace is armed. Yes, the government can crush any single isolated incident involving an armed group of individuals, in normal times when the government has the moral high ground and is deemed legitimate by the general populace, but in the unfortunate situation of a tyranny, and the populace deems the government de-legitimate, resulting in an entire population rising to reject a militant police state tyrrany, wherein significant factions of that military force sides with the populace, (because they are their brothers and sisters and friends) then the force that the tyrant government would be facing would be massive and pervassive, and they would thus be unable to deal with the conflicts permeating an entire nation rising up in defense against police brutality. 

    •  With a handle like 'the facts 101' (0+ / 0-)

      You should acquaint yourself with the history and language of the 2nd amendment, rather than the NRA abridged version that removes the words well-regulated militia, and ignores the plain language and context that makes the RKBA a right of states to raise militias independent of the federal government.

      Between the condescending name and the fact-challenged tirades, I can see why one might assume you were a wing nut troll.

      •  Okay, you don't like my tag, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        and you are basically calling me a "wing nut troll" ... so if you want me to leave, just HR my comments and be done with it, and I will get the message and leave, but I don't appreciate the name calling and I don't appreciate criticisms about what I felt was an innocent spur of the moment whimsical selection of an innocuous name. And here I thought this was a safe diary from this sort of insulting childish abuse.


        "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."

        The way I read these words, and not because of any NRA propaganda, but because of the words themselves, is as follows. 

        * This is the right: 
        A) "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

        * This is the reason for the right:
        B) "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," 

        FACT: "security of a free state" is the reason ... and the enemy of that "free state" was, is, and always shall be, the government itself.

        HISTORY 101
        Let's remember the context within which this text was written, and by whom, namely, the colonial founding fathers who had just engaged in a violant overthrowing of a tyrannical government, therefore, what was formost in their mind when they wrote and signed this document was to make sure that the populace was armed to protect against a tyrannical government, which, in those days, meant muskets, but today, means whatever weapons are available today. I think the intent of those words are clear and plain, and I don't need any NRA propaganda to see this. 

        Just The Facts 

        •  Just a bit more history, then (0+ / 0-)

          There were also resentful natives who had been ousted from their lands and sometimes felt inclined to try to take it back by force, and there was That Other Country Up North which had remained loyal to the "tyrannical oppressor" (George III wasn't any such thing - just a damfool with very bad advisors and very poor judgment in picking ministers). Oh yes, and That Other Country had beaten off our attempt to invade and conquer, and there was a not unjustifiable suspicion that they might want revenge.

          So yeah, there were reasons over and above mistrust of their own government why the 13 States might want "a well-regulated militia".

          If it's
          Not your body,
          Then it's
          Not your choice
          And it's
          None of your damn business!

          by TheOtherMaven on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 12:22:19 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  "Over and above" is open to debate.... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Who's to say which is prominent and which is not, but what we do know is that all facets of the trilateral nature of our government was forged by an axiom of checks and balances, with the clear and expressed intent being: the prevention of abuse of power by any despot ruler, and thus it is clear, i believe, to all fair minded individuals, that the right to bear arms was also primarily to ensure against government tyrrany.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site