Comments on: A Triumph for Individual Rights

By: Martin Berrow

Martin Berrow — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 04:29:31 +0000

There are 2 huge things that the gun control people do not want to hear. First, and this is like fingernails on a chalkboard to them, is the 25 year comparison of crime in Morton Grove Illinois, vs. Kennesaw Georgia. If you don’t know about the contrast of these 2 cities, I suggest that you study them. Morton Grove outlaws ALL firearms, and Kennesaw requires every household to own a firearm for capable individuals of course. Every single year, Kennesaw’s crime is down, and Morton Groves is up. And mind you, Kennesaw is very, very close to one of the most violent cities in America…. Atlanta. Funny, how the word gets out about the fact that if you have the capablity to shoot back, it isn’t fun anymore to rob & rape & assault folks. The other ominous glaring fact that totally unravels the gun control freaks is that statistic wherebyÂ on every single day in the United States of America, literally thousands of violent or potentially violent crimes are thwarted sometimes byÂ just the mere presense of a firearm, without a shot ever being fired. Martin Berrow

By: Dave Hardy

Dave Hardy — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 03:15:06 +0000

As some of the professors in my documentary observe: perhaps in theory it is possible to commit genocide against an armed population. In practice, it is sufficiently difficult and risky that it has never been tried.

By: james huggins

james huggins — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:53:35 +0000

To Ms. Grant: A point well made. It has been estimated that the victims of genocide in the 20th century alone number in the tens if not hundreds of millions. Nearly all were disarmed by their governments ahead of time. It’s amazing that the institution that wants you disarmed is often the one who lines up to kill you. Can’t happen here? Why not?

By: Barbara Grant

Barbara Grant — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 22:58:09 +0000

http://www.secondamendmentdocumentary.com/

At this link, information on a recently-produced DVD documentary on the right to arms, in which many American legal scholars are quoted as stating that the right is individual, not collective.

Also interesting is the idea that the right to arms is crucial in preventing genocides.

By: james huggins

james huggins — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:43:09 +0000

To claim that the Second Ammendment is for “the National Guard” doesn’t hold water. At the time of writing of the Constitution there was barely a standing army, let alone a national Guard or Reserve. In fact, the founding fathers weren’t big supporters of a big standing army. It was too expensive and too likely to become a tool of an out of control central government. You know, like we have now. The Militia were the male citizens. Since nearly all Americans were armed they were expected to protect home and hearth on their own. I am amazed that judges have overturned the DC gun ban. The lawyers of the left will gather like flies to fight this and if they get it to the Supreme Court will likely win. At this point with the decision from those champions of the left, the Supreme Court, they will turn on the rest of us. For the Federal Government to get the complete control over the population that they have been aiming for these many years they must disarm us. The type of citizen who is a legal bearer of arms is much more unlikely to go along with governmental control than the average sheep out there who claims to be an American.

By: Eric Zucker

Eric Zucker — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 14:09:31 +0000

So today the Supreme Court thinks the Second Amendment means precisely what it says and they used original intent as their guide. I wish that they would apply the same standard to the rest of the document–especially the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.