[Glenn E. Meyer]

The problem with the argument that the 2nd Amend protects our liberty is that we have not seen it actually do such in many cases. Not to insult folks but many of the classic gun culture have been quite supportive of many infringements of the liberties of citizens as those have clashed with a controlling social conservative world view.

It has been cultural change, legislation and the SCOTUS that have moved against the tyrannical impulses of social conservatives.

However, I believe that privately owned arms to act as an ultimate buffer against such oppression and potential genocidal actions. The history of genocides usually indicates that they are carried out against folks who can't defend themselves. Thus, I advocate that minorities and those not of the social conservative ilk should consider that they might have to defend themselves. Certainly, we have evidence of that in the African-Amercian community. The controversial actions of the Black Panthers (which social conservatives went nuts over) indicated that they used the 2nd to say no more.

Gays actually point to the Stonewall rebellion (a somewhat violent action) as the start of their movement to get out from under the social conservative oppression.

Thus, if we look for success - we don't see it in the classic gun world's stew of tin foil conspiracies or now popular cry to take our country back. You lost the election because of failed president - get over it. Have better candidates who are competent and not anti-intellectual, anti-science, morality controlling potential tyrants who really just want to make a buck for big firms.

Despite the wailing and lamentation - current gun rights are important as a last bulwark against a right that would institute a world view that is antithetical to liberty.

But, most changes today can be instituted by the electoral and judicial process. Stewing about armed revolution or how the 2nd brought major increases in liberty just are not true. I received the right not to be discriminated against on basis of religion because of the electoral and judicial process. I did not see one classic member of the conservative gun world rise in rebellion so my mother could get a job denied her because of religion. In fact, most of that group, in those times, would probably support the discrimination.

To conclude - I think that the gun carry was not an effective means of communication. Signs saying we support the 2nd Amend by large numbers of polite folks probably would work better. But we know the gun world isn't much for that. Organized demos are chortled about but don't come off. The NRA works more effectively and law suits like Heller work much better.

The 2nd and arms of the civilian are important to large groups of us as a last bulwark if we went the way of something like Reich. But the claim that the 2nd has brought about liberties in a major fashion isn't true now.

If this was too politcal - I should be scolded but I was trying to dispell the rash of cliches that are posted without real analysis of the claim.