As of this date, there are still more writers who condemn the use of firearms for sport, defense and hunting than those who accept this Constitutionally acknowledged RIGHT!
I do not know how Americans seem so ready to turn their backs on a Right which seemed so important to the Founding Fathers. I can only presume that America has become so smug about ourselves that they don't think we have anyone against whom we need to defend ourselves.
Because we think all men are created equal, and we give them guns to prove it.
It seems trite to assume that the "911" events were dismissed: Did nobody notice that if our country was not essentially disarmed, those terrible deaths of Americans would not have occurred if (for example) the passengers on American Airlines Flight 11 had been armed .. or even if the odds were that they might have been armed? They couldn't defend themselves against box cutters!
Today, the 911 tragedy is nothing more than a "Trip Ticket Tour". where for $100 (more or less) you can see all the sites where Americans died.
Is this what our country has come to? A place where you can relive the places where innocent Americans have died? I wait with bated breath for a tour where you can visited the incinerated bodies of Americans who died upon that day.
Not. That's disgusting!
It seems to me that the Second Amendment is not about hunting.
(Not an original observation, I agree.)
It's about preserving our freedom .. preserving our freedom from a tyrannical government (which was the original priority of our ForeFathers), but also from those outsiders who resent our freedoms and who would seek to undermine them.
Not all of which are aliens; many native born Americans are fearful of those Americans who own and use firearms. (Or box cutters.)
They think we are wild men.
They assume that we are fearful and would use our guns irresponsibly. They do not accept that we think we are at least as sane as they are, and perhaps more responsible because we are prepared to use our meager firepower to defend those who are unwilling or unable to defend themselves.
There is a story ( which I personally disbelieve) that at the onset of WWII, someone in the Japanese High Command was presented with the suggestion that Japan should open the festivities by invading America's. The senor Japanese general waived the plan on the basis that: "Oh, HELL no! Americans are all armed, and we would face armed Americans behind every rock and tree with guns!"
Aprophycal, to be sure; but not entirely unrealistic.
The might of America is with its laymen.
Those gun-nuts (and the Second Amendment) who are so despised by the Liberal Left are perhaps our First line of Defense.
Forget the U.S. Army, and the National Guard.
They are all-too-organized, and everyone has access to their names and addresses. And besides, they are not "on the scene" when violence begins, when it is disorganized, when they have not yet established full control over their victims.
But their purported victims are there, and if prepared ... they can dismantle even a planned attack if they have the will, the conviction and the firepower
No, America's "First Freedom" (however you may despise them) are the individual; the man with a gun, who has no qualms about defending his country ... and is likely to be the man who is most effective.
He has no name. He exists on no roster of "Military Member". He's just Joe Schmo from Tipalo.
He is The Minute Man; the guy who our forefathers expected to defend his country 200 years ago, ... not because he should, but because he can.
You may not like him; maybe stuffing a chaw in his cheek; or he may be a Corporate CEO; but he's an American with a gun, and someone who knows how (and when) to use it.
If and when we really really, really need him, he's there.
Like it or not.