“Is your life worth protecting? If so, whose responsibility is it to protect it? ... How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours, when you will assume no responsibility yourself?”

Dam you have done it aagin, OUTSTANDING quote!! YOU sir are a freeman, you sir have the light of freedom in your heart and mind.

In a representative republic, the representative can only do (or represent) that which the sovereign can do. "That no citizen of this state shall be compelled to bear arms, provided he will pay an equivalent, to be ascertained by law" (Tennessee Constitution Article I, Section 28) Preservation of life is a personal responsibility from the individual conflict to a national state of war.

The right to bear arms and defend one's own life and property is not a privelege, it is a right and an obligation. And when the Hillary's and Obama's of the world seek to trample this right they should be ejected from their posts of public representation.

We do it all of the time. As some men go about their various chores they appoint or hire security. Even Armies post sentries while the others sleep or relax. Where the heck is this guy coming from. The big news for the haters of "the state" Uncle is making a 12 billion dollar profit from Citigroup, the 700 billion dollar bailout may in the end cost Uncle 25 billion.

The news for lovers of "the state" is we can't all afford private security. That's why we love Smith and Wesson more than a meddlesome and controlling bunch of self serving politicians. LOL

Waffler, how in heaven's name did you go from Armies posting sentries to bailouts? With your quantum leap from one point to another in mind, I will liken this to the personal responsibility of those reaching into other persons pockets via the government and not taking care of themselves. However, if you have read my previous comments on the subject of redistribution of wealth by the government, you know my concern for those that cannot take care of themselves such as children, the aged, the infirm and the mentally and physically disabled. Getting back to the above quote, when you read the last quote in today's email you will find the sound reasoning behind "the Right To Bear Arms", by Sheldon Richman. I particularly commend "Liberty-Tree" for these excellent quotes. Being armed insures the American citizen is able to defend him or herself against personal attack and also to fight back when Tyranny looms. These quotes are the ammunition we may all use when defending our rights to keep and bear arms.

Carol, to help you understand people like Waffler and Reston, read "The Liberal Mind,The Psychological Causes of Political Madness". Easy to find on Amazon. Liberalism is truly a mental defect and this book helps to explain why.

The scourge of this country is the mental attitude of hate which is supported by many on this blog - hate, greed, and fundamentalism from the far-right has always been used to divide communities. Liberalism is not your enemy, you are your own enemy, as your thoughts and actions dictate. Us Liberals feel pity and sorrow for your afflictions and hope that your wounds heal gently before the sword. What is political madness is your understanding of reality. The reel demons who are certifiable are the globalists (The Family, Carlisle Group, Blackstone Group, etc, etc.) who want you to behave exactly how you express yourself - they want your hate and indignation; they feed on it; and, you play right into their hands. The right to bear arms have zilch to do with the reality of what's happening in America today. Now WalMart is part of homeland security - our dear friends who support the Chinese economy under the black banner of a a free market. I just hope you all come to your senses before you rush to the draw where you hide your 9mm. Read Clark's "Griftopian thievery Tea Party ignorance and the disappearance of the American dream" then Parenti's "Capitalism's Self inflicted Apocalypse" and then if you still don't get it, Hedges "The Origin of Americas Intellectual Vacuum" have fun....

There are a lot less irresponsible people within those that will fight for the 2nd amendment rights then there are in those that identify themselves as being responsible trying to destroy the 2nd amendment rights. If you take all the guns away from those that use them to hunt or for protection, you make then unable to defend themselves against a thug that wants to bring harm to them.

Giving up not only the right, but the ability to defend yourself and those you care about, is a mindset of those who would have the government do everything for them and those who will always see themselves as victims.

Actually Robert, the greatest tool of division between peoples is "Multiculturalism" wherein small groups are treated as "special" and above the rest. Which is unjust for the majority and leaves the minorities clamoring for "their" rights. The end result is animosity all the way around... And that comes from the left.

Robert, I don't know where you've been or who you've talked to, to say that liberals are anything but the most angry, short tempered and intolerant people on earth. My experience with liberals has been far less amenable or enjoyable than with conservatives. And, my perspective is almost equally disagreeable to both.

It's not about guns or wealth or speech — it's about POWER.  Regulating the power of the people — making sure they are powerless to defend themselves against those with the most power.  Freedom, independence, individualism — REAL multiculturalism — requires 'empowered' individuals, and together is a force to be reckoned with. 

Socialism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism all require the power to be centralized to the ruling class — banks, governments, and military.  Republicanism inherently keeps power from being concentrated and empowers the individual to be self-determining.  Socialists are ever trying to disempower/disarm those that are not already in poverty (i.e. powerless).  They do not EVER raise up the poor, but merely make them dependents and supporters of the ruling class, always keeping them in enough misery that they will demand from the government they 'do something.'