Does Harry Reid reject the Standard Model of the Second Amendment?Today's Gun Rights Examiner column notes it ain't about jack rabbits or pork.
Yes or no?
...And, assuming they don't agree with the message Harry Reid approved, it's a question NRA ought to insist on him answering, as long as they're still considering him to be eligible for their endorsement. Getting that answer before giving their backing is something we gun owners ought to insist they ascertain. [More]
Also attend rallies in New Mexico and North Carolina, and a picnic in Connecticut.
Share the link?
2 comments:
Seen the photos of the MASSIVE Tea party demonstration in Searchlight, Nevada, home town of Harry Reid?
He's right to be ... well, anxious.
After this ad, he should be even MORE anxious.
Find profanity in the following post. Then let me know so I can remove it so Examiner will accept my comment Part II. My last effort was simply "I give up". That too was refused by the profanity filter.
It is historically obvious that most of the founding fathers and the folks who ratified the first ten amendments to the Constitution supported the right to keep and bear arms. For what purpose(s)?
Armed insurrection against the government established by the Constitution? Unlikely - The framers and those who ratified that Constitution believed it to be as close to perfection as they could make it. Otherwise, why did they choose to define the act of treason in Article III section 3and not create an exception in the Bill of Rights?
To provide that all citizens be able to provide their own arms in the event the calling out of the militia became necessary? Without a doubt - The National Guard did not exist and the idea of standing armies was repugnant to the early Americans. The first line of defense for the new nation was the militia.
For personal protection? Again, without a doubt – There were no organized police departments. People were for the most part responsible for their own safety, accepted that fact, and did not expect government to wipe their collective noses for them. Wicked people who prey upon the defenseless existed in the 1700’s just as they do today and assistance was not immediately available, just as it isn’t today.
Providing food for oneself and family? To some extent – In the 1700’s, depending upon a person’s financial status as well as upon that person’s locale, the use of firearms and/or traps determined whether that person and his family were to survive. The same holds true today in a more limited aspect. Today the over whelming majority of hunters are sports hunters, however there are still those who depend upon hunting for their very sustenance.
Actually, very little has changed. There is still a need for the right to keep and bear arms and to be left alone by government and others who would denigrate that right.
[W3]
Post a Comment