<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.24.1">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>
On Sat, 2008-11-08 at 17:55 -0500, Tina Gasperson wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 4:28 PM, David McGlone <<A HREF="mailto:d.mcglone@att.net">d.mcglone@att.net</A>> wrote:<BR>
><BR>
> Who in the world would need an AK-47 other than the military anyhow?<BR>
<BR>
I recently came to a realization about this whole 2nd amendment thing:<BR>
it is precisely because the military has these things that it is vital<BR>
that citizens are legally permitted to have them as well. It may sound<BR>
"out there" at this point in time to think that the military would<BR>
ever overtake the citizenry, but it is certainly not out of the<BR>
question if things ever head in that direction. That, I believe, is<BR>
the point of the 2nd amendment.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
I wouldn't narrow it to simply defending against a military takeover. <BR>
<BR>
My 5th & 6th graders have been studying the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well as other patriotic documents such as "The American's Creed". The Declaration, for example, states: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government," <BR>
<BR>
The National Archives website also states the following regarding the "Bill of Rights": <BR>
"During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens."<BR>
<BR>
Herein lies the importance of the 2nd, 3rd & 4th amendments. According to the Declaration of Independence and Constitution I, as a human in general and a citizen in particular, have the right (one might even argue obligation) to defend myself, my loved ones and my property even from my own government and it's military. <BR>
<BR>
When I enlisted in the Army I swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against enemies, both foreign and domestic. Despite the fact that the military decided I was medically unfit for service, I still swore that oath and will abide by it. I do not believe it too far fetched to consider the possibility that I might needs defend it against the very government of this nation. Each year sees an ever increasing amount of power being grabbed by the government as an institution. Now, I pray it never comes to that. <BR>
<BR>
However distasteful such a concept is, it is this exactly this which caused the founders to ensure the right of citizens to arm themselves. While the modern day assault rifle may not have been invented in 1789, weapons of war and defense were different from hunting weapons. The founders did not limit which types of weaponry the citizenry were allowed to carry. The could have excluded handguns. They did not. Our founders wanted a well armed and well organized citizenry which would be ready to defend itself against any attacker (be they Redcoat, Blue or Green). <BR>
<BR>
So, while I do not currently own a hand gun or assault weapon, I support the Constitution of the United States of America and take to hear the lessons our Founders learned.<BR>
<BR>
<TABLE CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0" WIDTH="100%">
<TR>
<TD>
<PRE>
--
Jason P. Franklin
Christian/Husband/Father/Missionary
Westwood Bible Fellowship
<A HREF="mailto:pastor.jason@westwoodbf.com">pastor.jason@westwoodbf.com</A>
</PRE>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>