outsider's view on 2nd

[6shootercarry]

Thank you, I actually just finished reading the whole thing, I found it very interesting. I have to admit to a little bit of vanity here and say that I feel a little proud that I seem to have come to the in essence same conclusion without the benefit of being familiar with and or taught about it from childhood.

It also made me a little upset because obviously much has been done infringing on the second amendment and you can't help but wonder how this could have happened (and for the love of cheese, I am not suggesting any aggressive recourse here, I am simply partaking in an educated dicussion).

I guess what should be done is to continue to educate the people on the issue, calmly and rationally, and maybe eventually improve the overall situation for the law abdining citizen.

How this happened is easily explained by one term; COMPROMISE...

The RIGHT should never have been infringed upon. There are those that talk of compromise as the means to get back the freedom and the essence of the RIGHT, but that talk leads us all to a place where one must give to receive...

Why should any man/woman compromise what they have by GOD GIVEN RIGHT? Ironic how those who were not taught the Constitution from early childhood, seem to see it this way. As it was written simply. Needing no interpretation... I had this same discussion with a Swiss gentleman I worked with at another company. Very enlightening. My coworker who is from Belgium, sees it the very same way.

Perhaps what is being taught here needs to be re-examined...

We have tried the approach: "calmly and rationally, and maybe eventually improve the overall situation for the law abdining citizen." to no avail... It's really time to just say ENOUGH, I will not Comply... And see where that takes us...

America is my home and that of my children, and I will not allow the comforts of it to be stripped away...

[bigrebnc1861]

I am German but have lived in the US for 12 years now ... when I read dicussions about the 2nd, a few things occur to me:

A militia of the time was comprised of normal citizens comming together for the purpose of defense. It was not a state armed or state organized militia, much less a federal affair.

I have read some left oriented people arguing that the founders surely could not have envisioned assault rifles or the likes. That is true, but neither could they have envisioned most of anything else that would nowadays be considered "normal" equipment for an armed force. What they seem to have had in mind was for the militia was to be armed with contemporary arms.

Does it sound crazy to arm normal citizen with automatic assault rifles? Maybe, but I may point out that every Swiss citizen does compulsory military service in the Swiss army. When that stint in the army is finished he goes on reserve status and HAS TO take home his assault rilfe complete with ammo. My Swiss friend showed me his in his closet years ago and while I would have chosen a different make and model (the Swiss favor ruggedness over portability, it was heavy as hell) it still was an eye-opener. So do the Swiss regularly make the news with shootouts between neighbors hosing each other down with automatic fire? They do not.

What conclusions one might draw from this is up to the esteemed reader but I think it's worth thinking about.

In my opinion you are no longer an outsider if you have been here as long as you said you have been then you are one of us. Welcome home.

[jg1967]

In my opinion you are no longer an outsider if you have been here as long as you said you have been then you are one of us. Welcome home.

Thank you, that means something to me.

[bigrebnc1861]

Thank you, that means something to me.

"tips hat"