Gary North goes over the history of the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms and explains why it is essential to a free society.
My only point of contention is, Mr. North argues that an armed revolution against central government is not necessary, so long as American citizens still possess the right to keep and bear arms. If that is true, then we got a justifiable excuse to revolt in 1968 with the passage of GCA'68.
Truth is, there are so many local, state and federal restrictions on the Second Amendment that it's basically nothing more than a toothless wolf-hound. In some places in America, this 'right' ceases to exist beyond the borders of your property and, doesn't even exist within your property if that property is equipped with wheels and a license plate. Until it is once again legal for me to walk permit-free, into the tax-funded U.S. Capitol building with loaded, holstered pistol on my belt, I consider the Second Amendment unlawfully revoked by the federal government - along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Am I calling for a revolt? No. I'm saying that the right to defend one's life and property is the most basic of human rights. History has shown us repeatedly that once a government strips its citizens of this right (and it always starts incrementally), all the other human rights eventually get revoked or converted to trivial privileges. Ask yourself why the attitude among riot cops is different at armed Tea Party protests than it is at disarmed Occupy protests?
To quote a line from V For Vendetta: "people shouldn't fear their governments, governments should fear their people."
In Defense Of The Second Amendment by Gary North
