Quote Originally Posted by GiftedPlacebo View Post
This is my first post on this forum. I finally decided it was time to stop lurking and become more active both on the forum and community in general. I've been growing increasingly frustrated with the rhetoric in the news lately, and vented into something I ended up posting online. I'm posting here in case people can use any of it as inspiration in their own letters, or in debates they have with grabbers...

As I watch and read the news of impending gun control legislation, I find myself wondering why some amendments are subject to weakening while others are not. There is a debate raging with reference to the extent gun ownership should be restricted or magazine capacity limited. What would be the reaction if the debate was over an amendment other than the 2nd? What would be the acceptable limitation on free speech? What if Congress decreed that 25% of speech was now illegal? What if 25% of all news articles were simply redacted? Or, the 3rd Amendment only stood for 20 days of the month, but 10 days of the month government agents could enter your house and you must feed them, clothe them and let them have their way with your wife and daughters as pre-Revolutionary English soldiers did?

If infringement of the 1st, 3rd, or any other of the Bill of Rights is unacceptable, why then would infringement of the 2nd be acceptable? When we declared our independence from England, we declared our rights to be unalienable. The 2nd Amendment stands as testament to the people's right to resist oppression, to resist tyranny, to resist usurpation by government. Rights exist without inscription upon parchment, without the blessing of government, but as an inherent part of all free people. These rights were recorded, not granted, for posterity in that document. To infringe upon such a right is to infringe upon the very definition of a freedom.

I’ve heard all manner of interpretations regarding the 2nd Amendment. Even the most elementary evaluation of the Bill of Rights reveals an underlying tenor that rights exist to resist the natural progression of government toward tyranny; rights recorded, not granted, for posterity.

Some may scoff at the idea that tyranny could ever rise in America. In a country founded on the principle of liberty, with the mightiest military the world has ever seen, how could a tyrant gain power here? How does it happen anywhere?

Stalin. Mao. Caesar. Mubarak. Pot. Salazar. Chavez. Hitler. Khamenei. Kim Jong-il. Kim Jong-un.

The “how?” is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it can, and has, happened throughout the course of history - even in our lifetimes. Do I expect to take up arms against my government in my lifetime? Absolutely not. Do I expect my kids to? Absolutely not. But, should the need arise, am I willing *and able* to do so? Yes. We often talk about the 3 branches of government, and how they are supposed to keep each other in check. Rarely do we mention the 4th influence that keeps government, as a whole, in check - the armed populace.

At question today is the right to defend one's self from harm, be it immediate physical harm or the harm of a remote ruling tyrant - a right which predates the firearm. From the time the first cave man raised his fist or rock in defense of his possessions, he was exercising his natural rights. The 2nd Amendment is simply a representation of an already established right of man. There is no negotiation of natural rights, they are non-negotiable. The negotiation of rights is a tactic used by those who would usurp power over us. Let us not retreat on the 2nd Amendment, lest we find ourselves defending against assailants, or tyranny, with only a rock and our fists.
stop lurking and keep posting...very good read/post!