@RexRed,
RexRed wrote:“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting,
for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47,
a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”
~Ronald Reagan, at his birthday celebration in 1989.
Right Wing Myths Debunked: Ronald Reagan and Gun Rights
http://thebigslice.org/right-wing-myths-debunked-ronald-reagan-and-gun-rights/
We have as much right to
EFFECTIVELY
and
SUCCESSFULLY defend ourselves
anywhere,
NOT just when we are at home.
We still have our Constitutional Rights of self defense, whether Reagan likes it, or not.
As the US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals put it,
last December, in
Moore v. Madigan:
the place where you have a right to defend yourself
is the place where you are attacked.
If Reagan had the authority to undermine the Bill of Rights,
then I guess we 'd have been in trouble.
The 2nd Amendment was
NOT enacted
to protect the citizen's right to have fun with sports;
it does not apply to possession of baseball catcher's mitts.
One of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment
was to enable the citizens to
discharge their employee,
government (as the Founders had just done with the King
of England [who had also been the King of America]),
if thay saw fit (e.g., if Obama cancelled all future elections
until further notice and used Homeland Security to enforce his decision).
David
