Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts
I just can't get behind a ban on armor piercing bullets. I know the military could wipe out anyone with ballistic missiles, and what not. I don't care. The idea of the 2nd amendment was to protect the people from a corrupt government. That's a big deal to me. Call it, Mr. Flopnuts' insurance policy. So, no. I can't get behind this.
One reason we've not fallen, at least fully, into a tyranny is because the people are armed. Can't say that for other countries, eventhough we're moving in that direction more.
Federalist No. 46, Madison confidently "contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as 'afraid to trust the people with arms.' He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of 'the advantage of being armed....'" ( Wiki-there are quotes by Framers commenting on how the kingdoms of Europe had disarmed their people.)
...and remember, the newly freed slaves of the south were disarmed by the Southern states.
Before you read the “Outside The Lines” report, consider this:
Taping the opposing team’s sideline still isn’t banned; only taping the opposing team from the sideline is illegal.
Also remember this:
Taping the opposing team from the sideline wasn’t banned until 2006, yet the report cites examples as far back as 2000. ~NESN