This is the connection to the fact that there is no such thing as an illegan gun and no such thing as sensible gun laws, therefore.

Powers not granted plants erroneous values in the minds of impartial citizens (brushfires) and they then believe in no conflict and other non-values to the detriment of the country.

What if they come to realize as the founding value at the nation’s inception that the Second Amendment was written to be impervious to due process (short of another amendment, that is)?

What if they come to realize that 2A was written for all time?

Some don’t and won’t because with it comes avoidance of responsibility, the heart of impartiality.

(Don’t get me started, guys.)

Those that advocate and legislate violations of these rights should have their names kept in a database and be dealt with appropriately when the 2nd revoloution comes.

I was remiss in saying that your column is otherwise right on. It is time for us to take the offensive against those who would usurp our rights under the pretense (erroneous at that) of increasing our security.

Keep up the good work!

Will

the Second Amemdment is a trap into which we should not allow ourselves to fall. The right to “keep and bear arms” is one of those inviolate, “unalienable” rights which, as Thomas Jefferson so gracefully put it, was endowed to us by our Creator.

Alexander Hamilton warned against the passage of a Bill of Rights specifically because he knew that it would imply that the Government was “granting” those rights. To use his words from Federalist No. 84:

“They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?”

Hamilton’s objections proved to be most prescient.
He predicted that such a provision would provide “men who would usurp a plausible pretense” for asserting their right to restrict that over which they have no power…precisely what people like Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein are attempting to do.

We must never forget that the right to protect oneself and his property is “unalienable” and beyond the power of the state to restrict. Even an amendment to the Constitution would be a violation of that covenent and grounds for the overthrow of the government.