After the Colorado theater shooting and shifting into high gear after Newtown, liberal politicians have been pontificating over the Second Amendment, and the role of guns in society. We have heard a lot of talk about why people needed to be able to hunt with more than one bullet at a time, and silly notions like "the deer doesn't shoot back". That sort of talk misses the point entirely. The right to bear arms is the last line of defense against tyranny. It's not just the right to hunt. The Second Amendment is fairly simple. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." To be clear, the militia is not regular military. The militia was comprised of farmers, blacksmiths, and every day men who went about their daily lives and brought their own guns with them to do battle when the need arose. The amendment says this is for the "security of a free state." The 1828 dictionary and other historical documents of the day tell us that a state is an independent nation. The 2nd Amendment was in place to remind the newly formed federal or general government that each state's citizenry would be armed and ready to defend themselves should the need arise. If people want to have a real discussion on the second amendment, then it needs to be an honest discussion about the government's ability for tyranny, and not about hunting. You may believe that protecting yourself from government is ludicrous. But not only do citizens have the power to elect their leaders, but also the power to protect themselves—violently if necessary—from tyranny. And the founding fathers knew plenty about government tyranny. Maybe the reason we aren't having honest debate about guns in this country—or the Second Amendment—is because we aren't honest about why those guns are protected in the Constitution in the first place.
I'm Jim Cameron. Let us hear from you.