Guilt/Schmilt. I'm talking about people to be in your revolution The average person hasn't read the Constitution straight through one time in his life . He regards you as some sort of armed nut and you know, if you're willing to kill people over this, you probably are.
The ones doing the killing are the ones violating the constitution. Would you be willing to fight if we talked about repealing the first ammendment?
No, Not on my own. I would certainly object very strongly in every legal way but the reason we HAVE a government is so we don't have to settle these questions in this way. The 1st Amendment is under attack every day. I haven't noticed any of its followers threatening to kill anybody.
No the reason we have a government is to protect the constitution, provide for the common defence and ensure domestic tranquility. The reason we have an armed population is to ensure the security of the free state. Going after the 2nd ammendment does the following . 1. Endangers the free state 2. Ensures we won't have domestic tranquility 3. Craps all over the constitution. By advocating more gun laws you are defecating on the constitution.
OK fine, if you're so anxious to die for your version of the Constitution I sure you can find someone to help. I just hope you don't take anyone with you
It's not about versions of the constitution its about The Constitution.. Anyone not willing to fight for the constitution... doesn't value the constitution. Don't want this fight it's simple. Leave the constitution alone. It's a fight the commies have to choose. It's not up to me.
I would have everyone join a gun club so people can report the nutjobs. In return, I would like to see the end of the NFA.
What would that accomplish. You already have some coverage if you own a homeowners policy and if you are smart a cheap umbrella liability rider. You think criminals are going to be concerned with insurance?
The same everything the GCA's try to do, that being make it as complicated as possible for the law abiding to protect themselves, while the criminals who are not going to follow the way reign terror on the populace.
That makes no sense what so ever, that is unless you consider the criminal to be the victim and the madman to be the law abiding citizen. If so that is some seriously inverted logic and very wrong.
I think you're being purposely obtuse. This is not a difficult concept. The insurance is for the victims of the criminals. It's like liability insurance on your car.