Your local library should have the book. If you have the second edition, it includes rebuttals to critics. The second addition may NOT be at your library.
In Federalist Paper 45, James Madison guaranteed, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
Today, it's worse. Turn Madison's vision on its head and you have today's America.
You hit it right out of the park. But how many people have read the
Federalist Papers? I have the complete copy saved on my computer that I will email to anyone who is interested. The second, ninth and tenth amendments have been trampled on in the states so badly, it's hard to define them anymore. At least the way the commie liberals define it.
You are correct, the gun was for deterring tyranny and protection also
of personal property. Also when we have guns we have the right to defend what you say Ditto. Too much is labeled against the law abiding gun owner. One reason he is educated enough when to use his
weapon. Especially when government becomes tyrannical. Criminals could care less. They like anarchy, it feeds there need for greed.
Scott if you take the second amendment on it's merit, I agree but there is a difference between a permit and a license. I license can
be revoked. A permit has no time frame.
In either case, you've crossed the line of believing something to be a right to being a privilege.
Regarding the latter, I encourage people enough to read the works of Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, James Madison, Thomas Paine, etc.
Then again, if you understand what the purpose of the founding of this country was about, you might understand more about why the country is the way it is today.
I'm no authoritative historian, but at least I try and strive to know the foundations of our liberty.
Mike, the sentence "In either case, you've crossed the line of believing something to be a right to being a privilege." is intended as a general statement for those that don't have a problem with concealed-carry permits, and not you specifically.
I understood what you meant. It is a right to bear arms. Along with a well regulated militia. Militia has these days become somewhat of an evil moniker. I'm not a militia man myself, but what was militia in the revolutionary war, nothing but farmers and men from other walks of life, not professional soldiers. My concern with the anti gun crowd is about control, not only over a persons rights, but of an entire nation. Just look back in history, Germany with Hitler, and Russia with communists. The first thing they took away from the citizenry was their ability to defend themselves from all enemies foreign and domestic. I took an oath when I enlisted in the Navy to defend and protect the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The domestic enemy scares me more than any other.
Tyson I will gladly email you the Federalist Papers.
I would like a copy myself, Nasfan. If you don't mind. It is something that I have intended to read for some time now and the opportunity is now at hand.
The nature of government is about control. There are generally two classes of people in that regard, those that don't mind authority and those and rebel against it. I generally view the former as "cattle".
I generally don't care obout "cattle", since I generally agree that those that need to be convinced that liberty is priceless, don't deserve it.
My general concern in relation to government is that a stampede of cattle is likely to trample me and those like me.
What I find highly ironic (and I'm not aware of it ever being brought up in a major trial), is that the U.S. Government is guilty of ALL the reasons we seperated from England to begin with. You can find plenty of historical exmaples. Most are from the Civil War.
My current pet peave is mostly about this part of the "Declaration of Independance"
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
Through years of political manipulation, I see the same intent has occured with the Supreme Court.
Anyway, this course of discussion is probably not contructive to the purpose of this forum, so I will attempt to halt here.
Anyway, good to talk to those who understand the principles. :-)
Another reason "a well regulated militia" can be said to be explicitly stated is that it was NEVER intended for the federal government to have a long standing army. To be very explicit:
Article I, Section 8
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years