Some wonder why there are others of us out here on the frontier who are in favor of common citizens (hunters AND non-hunters) being allowed to carry weapons of self-defense. Here’s a video which gives part of the rationale for why we think this is a grand idea.
The video is a portion of the testimony given by Suzanna Gratia-Hupp before a congressional committee. Suzanna was eating in a restaurant with her parents when a man drove his truck through the front window, got out and started shooting. She had a gun, but because of a law forbidding citizens from carrying weapons, she had left it in her car. Consequently, both her parents were killed by the gunman. Listen to what she says.
HT: Jeff Meyers
I have no doubt whatever, with the number of gun control bills recently in Congress and with the anti-gun disposition of Obama’s radical attorney general, that this administration is seeking to make the Second Amendment null and void. I dont know if they will “manufacture’ some crisis to enable them to do this or if they will just exercise raw dictatorial power, but make no mistake, they mean to disarm us.
The question is–what are we willing to do about it?
I’m convinced they will most likely use a crisis–manufactured or not–to do so, claiming it’s required and is the “only way” to secure “freedoms” and guarantee the American-way.
It’s also the same jargon of crap every government with the same “aura” of leadership as ours, has employed in the past.
Just look at the spending bills and other ignorant legislation they passed in a fury of rush and hurry for the same reasons. Obama promised to spend less and haraunged the Bush legacy for driving us into the ground with War bills, but Obama’s done more spending in 6 months than the entirety of 16 years of Bushism.
And people still beg him to do more.
Listening to those two guys at the end made me realize something. The Second amendment gives the people of this country to keep and bear arms. Nowhere in the constitution is the GOVERNMENT given a right to keep or bear arms.
Xhavan
The post-enlightenment definition of the state is that it has a monopoly on coercion. State’s don’t need constitutional enumerations for what goes without saying.