Gun Control: A War Not a Conversation,

Tails of the Gun

A 2nd Amendment Thought Experiment Here's a simple thought experiment regarding the 2nd Amendment. What do you think the U.S. would be like if we didn't have it? [...] Furthermore, we live in what is called an “agency state.” Loosely written laws give government bureaucrats the power to set rules and regulations that have the effect of law. We've seen government departments like the EPA, staffed by environmental radicals, running amok with their regulatory power. Probably no federal government agency is innocent of bureaucratic overreach, some more than others, which is why the country is choking on 'laws,' many of which people neither know of nor can understand. What would Europe look like if it had a Second Amendment? Would the people in the various countries of the EU have lost their national characteristics and rights to make their own laws to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels? What does this have to do with the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership? Simple. Most office-bound bureaucrats, left-wing judges, and government elites are not exactly prime examples of virile American manhood. Quite the opposite. When you think of this government class, which is predominately male, a picture of a feminized metrosexual springs to mind, especially the higher up you go in the hierarchy.  This point is this. In the back of their minds, even if it is buried at a subconscious level, these people fear an armed citizenry. An armed citizenry puts a check on how far and how fast the government class dares to push its progressive agenda by unconstitutional means. True, the 2nd Amendment by itself has not completely stopped the unconstitutional drift to the left, but one has to believe it has prevent what could have been from being what is. Without the check of a 2nd Amendment, how bold would those who hold government power would be? Some real possibilities: Perhaps home schooling would be illegal; many aspects of political correctness might be weaponized by bureaucratic 'law'; unapproved speech might be criminalized; racial quotas might be more prevalent; web sites like the American Thinker, Drudge, etc. could be curtailed and talk radio muffled. Read more: So I'm thinking ... does it do any good to make this argument anymore?  When the audience (certainly this one) are in total agreement from the get-go, and the other would rather eat dog turds than entertain this argument?