While it must be conceded that the individual citizen could not hope to defend him or herself against local and federal law enforcement dressed in military gear, armed to the teeth with armored vehicles and weapons of mass destruction, shouldn’t Americans at least be able to protect themselves, their families and their homes against criminals?
Well, I guess the way you've set things up, John, there's no argument. Can we at least not march in straight lines on the plain of battle? I suppose asymmetrical tactics, including covert individual acts of resistance, or the fact that gun owners outnumber our keepers don't enter into the argument.
We see your theory playing out right now in the Middle East. Do you have an "exit strategy" for your army of domestic occupation, and how well do you think it will be received by the growing number of Americans who don't even want our military fighting overseas?
As George Mason declared, “To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” While Congress can, of course, reasonably regulate certain types of weapons such as assault rifles, banning law-abiding citizens from having handguns in their own homes for self-defense or owning hunting rifles goes far beyond anything the Framers contemplated.
"Of course"? Really? Why, John? Where do they get the authority? Just what do you Rutherford wonks think the Second Amendment is for if you say it's OK to withhold the single most common and necessary infantry battlefield implement from the Citizen Militia?
You started out real good there, John, had us all primed. And then you ended up so...so
neocon. You got everybody following you and then led them to a conclusion of appeasement and defeat.
I see
you established your organization to "defend people who were persecuted or oppressed without charging them for such services. The Rutherford Institute exists to ensure that people are treated fairly in the courts and are free to express themselves without fear."
Why not prove how wrong I am about you, John?
Why not defend
Wayne Fincher and thereby defend the right to keep and bear militia-suitable arms for all of us, as well as our right to argue Constitutional matters before the courts in our own defense?
