Here is the statement by the Nevada Republican Senate candidate, Sharron Angle, whom her opponent, Democratic incumbent and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, claims is "out of the mainstream"-
‘Our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government,’ Angle told conservative talk show host Lars Larson in January. ‘In fact, Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that’s not where we’re going, but you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies.’
Out of the mainstream? This would come as shocking news to the Founding Fathers, compared to many of whom-Jefferson for one-Angle would appear quite moderate.
I know its fashionable nowadays for Democrats to want to focus on the "regulation" and "militia" clause of the 2nd Amendment, but the fact is, if you are a law-abiding citizen of the United States, you are automatically a member of that state militia, according to the constitution, and you are duty bound to supply your own weapons, including standard rifles and/or sidearms-in other words, handguns. In order for you to have them at the ready, you must do just that-have them where they are immediately available at a moments notice. That would be your home, place of business, etc.
What is the reason for this? Let's put it this way-it doesn't have a damn thing to do with duck hunting. We fought a rebellion against the British for a reason. Actually, for quite a number of reasons. We won, and in our constitution, the urge for us and our elected representatives (you know, what Democrats and Liberals call "leaders")to guard against "all enemies, foreign and domestic" actually means something. In other words, exactly what it says.
If our elected politicians put themselves in the position where they can legitimately be viewed as a domestic enemy of the people, then up to a point, yes, that is the fault of the people who voted for them, but more to the point, the onus is on them, once they are in office, to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States. If they fall short of their duties, and they become tyrants along the lines of King George and the old British Empire-or worse-then they have only themselves to blame for the potential consequences.
I don't know everything about Sharron Angle. Perhaps in some regards, she is as radical as her opponents claim she is, although I tend to think that what you are hearing about are examples of Democrats twisting words and taking them out of context. For example, I don't believe for one minute that Sharron Angle wants to impose a new kind of Prohibition on alcohol.
I should also point out that, as someone recently told me, the NRA is supporting Reid, who has actually prevented gun control legislation from reaching the floor of the Senate. This is something that neither Dick Durbin nor Charles Schumer would be likely to do should Harry Reid lose his re=election bid, and yet the Democrats manage to maintain their majority status in the Senate.
This is all something that is worthy of consideration. But one thing is a definite fact. Sharron Angle's views on the 2nd Amendment might be, in our modern era, "out of the mainstream". If so, that's a shame, because her views on the 2nd Amendment are exactly what the founding fathers intended.
