Do you defend the Second Amendment?

I'm with her...

David good for her, good parents!

I just hope that she hasn't brought needless attention to herself that might put her at risk, SPC David S.. Otherwise, good for her!

While I'm not a Trump supporter, I definitely support her right to to bear arms, and pose with them.

Smart and beautiful!

"Very", I'll stop there, Yes

Well, you asked for “more detailed reasoning” so this might be a bit longer than usual. Let’s see…
There are a couple of points in your note that require comments.
The first is the one concerning the person that tried to have the young lady arrested for expressing political sympathy for a particular candidate and for supporting one of the components of the Bill of Rights. Let’s just think about that a bit.
Someone expresses their support for a particular candidate or a current administration.
Someone expresses their support for a component of the Bill of Rights.
And SOMEONE decides that this is intolerable and attempts to get the person arrested.
Now… you can insert any name of any candidate or any administration in the first point. And you can insert any component of the Bill of Rights in the second. But it seems to me that anyone deciding that this is intolerable is a totalitarian… plain and simple. They can be communist, or fascist (which are both variations of socialism) or anything else, but they definitely are totalitarian (in other words, they are firm believers in dictatorship – which implies the absence of rights for individuals). They clearly condemn free speech (especially in a society where even the burning of the national flag has been determined to be "free speech"). And this young lady is clearly exercising her right to free speech by expressing her support for the right to bear arms. So anyone wanting to truncate her right to free speech has to be a totalitarian who abhors the expression of any sympathies whatsoever for anything that is NOT whatever the dictatorship sanctions.
It is clear that the person (or entity or organization) trying to get her arrested DOES NOT ACCEPT the fact that we live in a Constitutional Republic. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. And in the particular Constitution that we (the US) have, there are certain rights which have been defined as belonging to the PEOPLE. Not the STATE… as in every other constitutional document before it, but to the PEOPLE. Because the US Constitution was the FIRST constituting document in known history to establish rights as belonging to PEOPLE and not the state (whether in the form of a monarchy, dictatorship, or whatever).
Since that person (or entity or organization) does not understand that, they feel they can use FORCE to shut down ANY opposition to their specific beliefs, opinions or world views, regardless of how stupid, backward, idiotic or asinine their views, beliefs or opinions may be. The resort to the use of force is common among the stupid, the insecure, the fearful, the spiteful… all characteristics which are abundant in totalitarians (and socialists, since socialism is the economic theory that justifies totalitarianism).
The second point pertains to whether one should support the defense of the Second Amendment (of the Bill of Rights) or support its repeal. Let’s look at the Forefather’s reasoning for the Second Amendment and determine whether it makes sense or not.
The fundamental premise of the Founding Fathers was that the most fundamental RIGHT that a man (generic meaning here, folks, as in “human race”) MUST have is a RIGHT TO LIFE. The logic is fairly simple. If you have no right to life, then anyone, at any time, can kill you (or you can kill them) and that’s the end of it. This is obviously a recipe for chaos. So the ultimate moral criteria that the Founding Fathers used was LIFE. That is your most fundamental right. If something supports the continuation of life, that’s good. If it doesn’t, that’s bad.
From there, they went on to establish that “man” (generic again) has a RIGHT to the fruit of his labors (which sustain and improve his life). This was rather clear also. A man that does not have a right to the fruit of his labors is a slave, and can not live as a man.
As a side note, although the Founding Fathers were forced to compromise in the short term in exchange for establishing the first nation in the history of the world that had a constituting document that established rights as the property of man, they left in the Constitution the essential ingredients for the eventual destruction of the institution of slavery.
The right to the fruit of one’s labor obviously has a logical consequence: the RIGHT to PROPERTY, and this also was enshrined in the Constitution.
Now, to be clear, the concept was that you have a right to life and a right to property… but so does everybody else. You can’t go around taking people’s property claiming you have a ”right” to it. So another logical consequence of the right to life and right to property (knowing that among the human race, sufficient “unsavory” types come along who don’t want to work and prefer to steal), was the right to DEFEND your life and your property. And to insure that you could defend your life and property with whatever the current “state of the art” was, they chose to use the general term “arms” to describe what you could defend yourself with.
As another side note, you’ll sometimes hear some ignorant fools state that “the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant, because they approved that when flintlocks were the reigning technology. Now, with the advances in “arms” technology, we need to “prohibit and control”. That argument is as stupid as saying that “the 1st Amendment is no longer relevant, because they approved that when most people couldn’t read and publishing was a limited dissemination exercise. Now that we have the internet… and twitter… and blogs… and cameras, we have to “prohibit and control” things like pictures of healthy, beautiful young ladies who have a message or idea they want to communicate to others.” Advances in technology do not alter FUNDAMENTAL principles of freedom and rights.
Now, the Founding Fathers ALSO knew that the GREATEST threat to freedom and rights came from… … … GOVERNMENT. They had seen this throughout history, and they knew that America would not be an exception. This is why the created a CONSTITUTION providing rights to the PEOPLE and LIMITING the “rights” of government. To the extent that you LIMIT the rights of people and INCREASE the “rights” of government, you create the environment for dictatorship and totalitarianism.
If you believe that this “can not happen here”, then wake up and start looking around. We’ve ALREADY had “totalitarian mission creep” happening in practically every agency. The parasitocracy will use every available opportunity to increase its reach and power. We have people who would have a hard time holding a job as grocery baggers in uniform imposing their will on travelers at airports (even though their own tests reveal THEY MISS 96% of weapons and explosives infiltrated onto airplanes by testers). We have EPA goons who will haul you off to jail if you get “caught” in the “crime” of catching rain water in a barrel. And the list can go on and on… but this narrative is already too long as it is.
If the Founding Fathers were to wake up and see what we have today, not only would they NOT recognize the Constitutional Republic they created, they would probably arrive at the conclusion that this kind of oppression of the citizenry merited an out and out insurrection. These were people who objected to “taxation without representation”… when the tax was 3%!! The different government structures today take over 50% of the fruits of your labor… for your own “benefit” of course.
But let me not get off subject. If we want to be a “free country”, the road to follow is NOT limiting citizens rights or expanding the power of government. We need to respect life, we need to respect property and we need to respect our right to defend BOTH against the predators that invariably appear to take and steal what they didn’t work for. And the biggest monolithic predator is government. The Founding Fathers understood this. This is why they wrote what they wrote. It’s called the Constitution. And if there is any doubt as to the intent behind it, take a look at the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers.
If our educational system had not been subverted and degraded by Fabianism advocates/socialists, more people would know about the Constitution and the related documents, and a lot of this nonsense from leftist ignoramuses would be laughed off. But we are where we are.

Dear Abby -
I have to take my firearms in as they are defective. After 22 years, 6 months and as of this post 7 days, they have not shot up a school, mall, or other gatherings. My guns have not held up a bank, store or other entrepreneurial enterprises. I even tried to get them to scream racial epithets but they just won't do a damn thing. What does it take to get them to do all the hateful things I hear everyone else's guns do?
Sincerely - Killess in San Jose

Give her an A+

Every day to every LIBTARD that makes a stupid comment.