Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Second Amendment is ‘tyranny insurance’

January 22, 2013

Surely liberals in the U.S. Senate do not think Minnesotans and Iowans are gullible enough to accept “trust us” assurances that their rights are not being violated. We know better....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(33)

jeffkvb1

Jan-22-13 9:54 AM

Anderson and Smith, you crack me up! If you think assault rifles are going to stop government soldiers with RPG, mortars, and other forms of tactical weapons from taking over the US, then you are crazier than I thought. The literal interpretation of the Constitution is your problem. There are all sorts of Constitutional ways to limit which firearms and weapons the general public can obtain. Courts, include the Supreme Court, have upheld bans in the past and I'm sure they will in the future. Take your conspiracy theory and try again.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WTF123456

Jan-22-13 10:52 AM

They're call drones, F-16's, Black Hawk Helicopters, etc. Your claim that the second amendment is 'tyranny insurance' is hogwash. Keep drinking the kool-aid

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Thatcher

Jan-22-13 10:55 AM

Jeff, consider this...The government decides to throw the constitution out the window and go door to door to take guns away. How many members of the military will stand against this and refuse to comply? I would guess a very good portion. You go ahead a blindly follow the leader and continue to think that all things come from the government and we have no choice but to do what the government says. See where that gets us.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Thatcher

Jan-22-13 11:01 AM

WT, maybe you don't follow the news very close, but our president has seen fit to start shutting down our F-16s and give them to other countries. If you don't believe me ask someone from the 132d FW out of Des Moines. Little by little he keeps weakening us, and you have to have people to use the weapons you mention. The military is not going to blindly follow Obama and turn on its own people.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MadMarine

Jan-22-13 11:09 AM

I think the Zombie Apocalypse everyone keeps talking about isn't really the undead, but just Obama Sheep.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

boomerang

Jan-23-13 2:13 AM

You people need to get your news from someplace other than Fox and the NRA. Paranoid lunacy abounds in Sentinel land!

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WTF123456

Jan-23-13 8:35 AM

Thatcher the whole truth to the loss of F-16's at the 132nd in Des Moines is they're being replaced by drones. A more cost effective alternative. Drones are the wave of the future.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

blue5011

Jan-23-13 9:11 AM

"soldiers with RPG, mortars, and other forms of tactical weapons"

**Soldiers**, are the most important part of your statement. Do you really believe that soldiers will follow what would be seen as an illegal order from Obama? the other thing is that the democrats in general are decimating the US military as fast as they can. They always do. All you have to look at is the Carter and Clinton years...

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

blue5011

Jan-23-13 9:18 AM

"The literal interpretation of the Constitution is your problem"

It appears jeffkvb1 and WTF123456 have no constitutional problem with a **literal interpretation** when it comes to free speech...

Why is that? How can someone be such a fervent backer of one amendment, yet p1ss on different one?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WTF123456

Jan-23-13 11:36 AM

Blue it is my belief the Constitution is a living, breathing, evolving document. Applying the literal interpretation of 1787 to present day, in my humble opinion, is short sighted at best. Technology, threats, environment change. Arming a militia with muskets against natives, France, Britain etc is completely different than the world we live in today.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MadMarine

Jan-23-13 11:37 AM

Soldiers will not turn on their own people like this. No jet, tank or piece of military equipment is any good at all without an operator and several support people.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

blue5011

Jan-23-13 9:13 PM

"it is my belief the Constitution is a living, breathing, evolving document."

Well friend, you are mistaken. The Constitution is the law of the land. Should you wish to change it, fine, go for it through the proper channels. Until such time, there is "no living, breathing" entity.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

blue5011

Jan-23-13 9:19 PM

WTF123456, what does arming a militia, France and Great Britain have to do with today?

Possibly you should consult with a **English** professor to tell you that the "well regulated militia" and "right to bear arms" are in fact TWO different clauses or sentences. There are TWO complete ideas put forth in that one sentence.

The Founding Fathers were far smarter than liberals and progressives give them credit for.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WTF123456

Jan-24-13 12:56 AM

So, I did a quick review a Merriam-Webster( I hope they're not considered a liberal dictionary) which gave the definition of militia as "a body of citizens organized for military service." What good would this civilian body be without arms? How quickly could arms get to a militia if needed? Indeed, our Founding Fathers were very intelligent. My **English** teacher in high school taught me to read critically. You know, putting ideas together to come to a conclusion of what the author(s) are trying to say. Still waiting to see how the second amendment, in this day and age, is insurance against a tyrannical government.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

blue5011

Jan-24-13 8:49 AM

"is insurance against a tyrannical government"

It is insurance because A) the US soldiers will NOT fire on their fellow citizens and B) as long as the individual citizen has a weapon, tyranny cannot be brought upon them.

Yes, I know you will say that the FBI fired on citizens at Ruby Ridge and the ATF fired at citizens in Waco. But those were both single instance occurrences.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

StumpJumper

Jan-24-13 2:52 PM

Such nastines. Try to be more civil with each other

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

blue5011

Jan-24-13 11:10 PM

From CNS News:

Many law enforcement officials have written letters to President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden voicing their concerns over what they believe is an effort to infringe upon the Second Amendment.

In New Mexico, 30 of the state's 33 county sheriffs have reminded state lawmakers that they are under oath to support the U.S. Constitution, and that includes the Second Amendment.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

blue5011

Jan-24-13 11:11 PM

cont,

CNSNews**** previously reported that 28 of the 29 sheriff's in Utah sent a letter to President Obama stating that they will not enforce any new gun laws they believe to be unconstitutional.

A host of Oregon sheriffs have said that they will not comply with any new unconstitutional gun regulations.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WTF123456

Jan-24-13 11:48 PM

Blue- Sheriff Grayson Robinson, who's deputies responded to the Aurora shooting said it best “Public safety professionals serving in the executive branch do not have the constitutional authority, responsibility, and in most cases, the credentials to determine the constitutionality of any issue,". So you're saying it's an attack on the Constitution for any new gun regulation, but it's okay for a sheriff's department which laws they are or are not going to enforce? Something smells fishy.....

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

blue5011

Jan-25-13 8:56 AM

WTF123456, I am saying that a County Sheriff has primary responsibility to the county residents that elected him.

It appears to me, from what little you posted about Sheriff Grayson Robinson, that he is afraid to take responsibility for his actions. That is no leader I would want as my sheriff.

Just can't get it through your head that there are people who believe in the people's rights and what the Constitution states.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

blue5011

Jan-25-13 8:59 AM

"but it's okay for a sheriff's department which laws they are or are not going to enforce"

I pass county deputies all the time on the road traveling over the 55 mph speed limit. YES, they do choose which law they are going to enforce, EVERY SINGLE DAY.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WTF123456

Jan-25-13 10:49 AM

wildthing- law enforcement officials study and train to understand and enforce laws. Not to determine constitutionality of laws. That part is left to the courts, checks and balances.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WTF123456

Jan-25-13 11:04 AM

Blue- My point is that you want to uphold the Second Amendment because any gun control would be a violation of your rights and an attack on the Constitution. But it's okay to ignore the Constitution, when it's convenient, e.g. law enforcement acting as the judicial branch of the government. That reeks of hypocrisy.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WTF123456

Jan-25-13 11:08 AM

By the way an officer deciding not to pull you over for speeding is completely different than an officer deciding they won't enforce because they deem it to be unconstitutional. You see, the world is not black and white like so many people think it is.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

blue5011

Jan-25-13 5:34 PM

"But it's okay to ignore the Constitution, when it's convenient"

As it is written today, "the right to bear arms" is the law of the land. Until the liberals/ progressives/ democrats in Congress change that fact, Sheriffs of this nation have a duty to follow that law. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Get it changed to match your rose-colored glasses, but do it legally.

Secondly, I have looked at the bill Fienstien of California is trying to push through the Senate. I don't think the votes are there...

h t t p : / / w w w . feinstein . senate . gov / public / index . c f m / assault-weapons-ban-summary

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 33 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web