A serious question about the 2nd Amendment.

[HBARleatherneck]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act

1913 Fed was created. Terrible day, and terrible results to this day.

[Ronin13]

Wasn't that about vote fraud?

Yep, and oh look, BHO did the same thing (you can't deny it)... where is the subsequent DOJ avoiding the investigation? And where are the people screaming foul play on the Obummer Administration?

[Byte Stryke]

Wasn't that about vote fraud?

That was about a tyrannical and oppressive government overstepping their bounds and infringing on the rights of the people.

[theGinsue]

1913? Is this because this is when the nternal Revenue Service begins to levy & collect income taxes?

[blacklabel]

That was about a tyrannical and oppressive government overstepping their bounds and infringing on the rights of the people.

Sounds familiar.

[Melvin]

I must confess this was not my question. It was posed to me by a friend in Australia who sits in frustration diligently following what he calls our "complacent decent into subjugation". Having lived through a mindless gun grab over there, he is very sensitive about this subject. I told him not to worry. One day the light will go on. ( I hope)

[blacklabel]

The second amendment's purpose is to allow us to defend ourselves against tyranny of all kinds, not just being disarmed.

[Melvin]

The second amendment's purpose is to allow us to defend ourselves against tyranny of all kinds, not just being disarmed.

I know that. That was not the question. The reason for the question was if you are not willing to defend the very thing that affords you the tools to defend all else, doesn't that render you defenseless? You see The Founding Fathers were wise enough to recognize the perfidy that is inherent in the nature of man. Thus they realized there was only one way to keep the playing field reasonably level. However there was absolutely no way for them to ever conceive of a day in the future where unborn generations would shrink from the job of defending the country from the enemy within. They could legislate much, but intestinal fortitude was not on that list. I know of no other country where citizens have been handed on a platter a set of guaranteed rights and method to defend those rights yet all they want to do is talk it to death. In the entire history of mankind, no tyranny has ever been talked into defeat.

[josh7328]

Damn well said.

I know that. That was not the question. The reason for the question was if you are not willing to defend the very thing that affords you the tools to defend all else, doesn't that render you defenseless? You see The Founding Fathers were wise enough to recognize the perfidy that is inherent in the nature of man. Thus they realized there was only one way to keep the playing field reasonably level. However there was absolutely no way for them to ever conceive of a day in the future where unborn generations would shrink from the job of defending the country from the enemy within. They could legislate much, but intestinal fortitude was not on that list. I know of no other country where citizens have been handed on a platter a set of guaranteed rights and method to defend those rights yet all they want to do is talk it to death. In the entire history of mankind, no tyranny has ever been talked into defeat.

[spqrzilla]

The Battle of Athens (Tennessee, not Greece)

This is the answer to the OP.