If they come for your guns...

[420 racin]

Not taking anything away from our military, but if they are so effective and will wipe us out with choppers and tanks and such, why are we still fighting some camel jockies in Afghanistan after 10 years (I have been to Afghanistan and seen what it is like, though I was not in a combat role) They have old guns, a few RPG's and homemade IED's and have held our great military off for 10 years now. This is because of our new politically correct way of fighting wars. No doubt we could have completely wiped them off the planet by now. My point is if we won't just wipe the Afghan people off the map, you would be crazy to think that the military folks, even under direct order, would fall to to the levels of killing, arresting, seizing, etc.. Americans. The truth is that alot of those military guys will be on our side and will be a part of the resitance. As said many times before by others, I don't want this day to come but it most likely will evetually, and I would rather be doing the fighting for our liberty than my son, so if it happens tomorow, oh well, it just happens tomorrow. No matter what you think, you just better be ready. The next 4-5 years are going to tell the tale.

[Sea-Donkey]

Not taking anything away from our military, but if they are so effective and will wipe us out with choppers and tanks and such, why are we still fighting some camel jockies in Afghanistan after 10 years

Ha. Good point.

[Deltamud77]

Not taking anything away from our military, but if they are so effective and will wipe us out with choppers and tanks and such, why are we still fighting some camel jockies in Afghanistan after 10 years

Ha. Good point.

1. We are fighting them in a very politically correct fashion...one can assume if it meant control over the country, political correctness would necessarily go out of the window; and
2. The same Afghanis also defeated the Russian Army when it was theoretically the second most powerful army on earth.

[mfalkner]

The Afghans will do things that I, and most likely you (I don't know you but...), are not willing to do.

[Po Monkey Lounger]

I agree 100%, without any reservation, with everything this person stated in the article.

These are and have long been my beliefs as well.

There is a proper way to amend the US Constitution, including the Second Amendment. This process is stated in the constitution itself. Any amendment to our Second Amendment right to bear arms would require passage by Congress, a signature by the President, and ratification by 3/4 of the states. Issuance of an executive order does not suffice -- not even close. Such would violate our constitutional checks and balances as set forth in the stucture of the government as set forth in the Articles to the Constitution. Also, constitutional revision by a politically appointed US Supreme Court is not the proper avenue either. Yes, the judicial branch has the power of judicial review, to review the constitutionality of federal and state laws passed by legislative bodies, and executive orders issued by the President. This power of judical review by the judicial branch of government is part of the constitutional checks and balances built into the Constitution. But, the high court does not have the power to re-write the Constitution. Such would make a mockery of the constitutional amendment process and the oath of office to defend the constitution taken by all of our public officials, including Supreme Court justices. I say all of this because the Heller opinion was a split decision.

However, keep in mind that some of the justices that voted with the minority in the Heller opinion are of the opinion that the second amendment should not be applicable to the states (as all our other bill of rights ---first ten amendments--- have been determined to so apply). In other words, they believe that if a city, county, or state decide to ban firearms, then the Second Amendment would not prohibit those governmental entities from doing so. On this one issue, they appear to be state's rights activists. So, if their line of thought ever becomes the majority of the Court, then our Second Amendment rights would truly become under attack nationally, with each state and city able to pass laws taking away your right to bear arms. This leads to the question: what about Mississippi? If it were up to our state to decide, what would prevent our state or counties or cities from passing such laws restricting our rights to bear arms? Well, Article 3, Section 12 of the Mississippi Constitution states as follows:

Section 12. Right to bear arms.

The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called into question, but the Legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.

Thus, at this point, the ultimate "backup plan" for Mississippi would be our own state constitution, which would prevent the state and any county or municipality from passing laws that infringe upon our state constitutional right to bear arms. So, even if the Supreme Court were to rule that the Second Amendment somehow does not apply to the states, but only to the federal government, then we would arguably still be protected. And in so ruling, the US Supreme Court would be saying that the federal government has ceded this issue to the states, meaning that any federal law passed that violated our state constitution would be null and void and unenforceable in the state of Mississippi. This would not help any citizens of states who have no such state constitutional right to bear arms in their home state, but it would help protect the citizens of states who do --- a vast majority of the states. This could lead to armed states and unarmed states. And within those states who have no such state constitutional right to bear arms, armed cities and unarmed cities, and armed counties and unarmed counties ---- much like the alcohol issue.

While I think we are far from a scenario where the federal government could come to "get our guns", I do think that it is good to have this "what if" discussion now, lest there be no confusion or misconception about how strongly many of us feel about our constitutional right to bear arms. An attempt by the federal government to take such unconstitutional action would start a civil war in our county. And I am indeed prepared to defend my rights by whatever means are necessary to the situation, even if that includes the use of deadly force to stop it. And I know that I am not alone --- not even close. And I do hope that those possessing such desires to take away our rights ask themselves these questions: " Am I prepared to die to take away my fellow citizens constitutional right to bear arms?". "Am I prepared to order federal or local law enforcement or the military into battle against our own law abiding citizens in order to confiscate their weapons, placing both the federalized troops/officers and our citizens in harm's way?" And finally, "Exactly who is going to carry out such an order --- our military, who likely strongly disagrees with the order? Or law enforcement, most of whom would likely resign before carrying out such an order? The liberal pansies who want the order carried out, none of whom have likely ever owned a firearm or would know how to use one ---the same ones who don't even know the difference between a semi-auto and automatic weapon and demonstrate their ignorance to us all on a nearly daily basis?". And when they ask themselves these questions, perhaps they will rethink their positions.

Hopefully, my peaceful hamlet in the country that I refer to as "Sharby Creek" --- where clean air, blue skies, quiet evenings, outdoor cookouts and consumption of soothing libations routinely are enjoyed and bother no one else ---- does not have to one day become "Fort Sharby" due to the unconsitutional, tyrannical actions by our own federal government. But make no mistake about it, the "Sharby Creek militia" is ready, able, and willing if and when it becomes time to take the necessary action of last resort.