by Jack Lee
The liberals want us to believe that the founders didn’t really want the 2nd amendment, least not as its being applied today. After all, they didn’t face the same gun crimes we face, right? They were living in a time of relative peace and tranquility compared to today. If they knew what we’re up against with all our murders, not to mention accidental shootings of our children, they would have demanded gun control! A lot has changed since the 1700’s!
Reality check: We haven’t changed; people were just as prone to violence back in the 1700’s as they are right up til today. It’s not like there was not gun crime back in the 1700’s, there was plenty of gun crime, so when that 2nd amendment was passed they knew exactly what they were doing. There’s a story from 1775 that was published in the Newburn Gazette in North Carolina and it went something like this, a man with a sword and a pistol attacked and killed several people before he was shot and killed by a number of citizens armed with their own guns, thus preventing an even greater tragedy from occuring. If people in that day reacted like we do today to a mass murder they would have never even considered the 2nd Amendment, would they? But, they knew guns by themselves are not evil or dangerous, the evil resides in people.
Thomas Jefferson had quite a bit to say about gun regulation or gun control. Jefferson denounced gun control! He called it, “A false utility, and an irrational and backwards approach to crime prevention that is only going to make matters worse.” That may not be word for word, but it’s pretty close.
Jefferson declared that, “Gun control laws will only disarm those who are neither determined nor inclined to commit crimes.” His logic was why would a person who is prepared to violate the most sacred code of humanity, murder, be inclined to respect a lesser code, not to possess a firearm? But this common sense argument has not stopped the liberal agenda from making use of every crime or crisis to pass more and more regulation, which has only aided the criminals while disarming the victims. Unarmed citizens are easier to attack and it also makes us more dependant on big government for our security. But, as the saying goes when seconds count…police are just minutes away.
Gun regulation is caused by a panic reaction to individual incidents and have little effect on overall crime.
Case in point is the Stockton school yard shooting by transient Patrick Purdy with a mock AK 47 rifle with a high capacity magazine. Shortly afterward the terrible event California banned such weapons, declaring them “assault weapons” with no practical application or use beyond that of the military. They argued these assault weapons only belong on the battlefield. Which brings up, what exactly is an assault weapon and should we ban all things found on a battlefield?
The liberals have tried to define an assault weapon, but in reality any weapon or any object used to assault another is an assault weapon. So if you are going to ban a gun for being an assault weapon, where does it stop? Almost anything can be used to assault! Liberals have no answer to this. In fact most of them who voted for the assault weapon’s ban are completely unfamiliar with guns and how they can be used. During a quiz some of those gun grabbers were unable to explain the very components they said should make the guns illegal, like a folding stock, a barrel shroud, a flash hider or a quick release clip button. They were simply clueless, yet they passed the law banning assault weapons! And here’s the kicker, the assualt weapons ban does not even cover those automatic weapons used on a battlefield! Now how dumb is that?
Liberals think the 2nd Amendment has outlived its purpose, but if this is their litmus test, it fails to be logical. And if all it takes is a crisis or major incident to usurp our Constitutional liberty, what’s next? Maybe we should eliminate our 4th Amendment too? Let police search wherever and whenever they want! We would be so much safer if they did. Hey, if you’ve done nothing wrong what have you got to hide? Hey the 5th Amendment is another problem lets get rid of that one too, it’s more efficient if the cops can beat a confession out of a criminal, right? Jury trials should be unnecessary too (6th Amendment), these are just criminals, we know they did it. There are all kinds of things in the Constitution we could get rid of in order to be more secure and safe from criminals! But, we don’t do that because you can’t eliminate one freedom without taking something away from all our freedoms. It’s like knocking over a row of dominos.
So we’ve kept our Constitution intact and we’ve tried to apply the spirit of those amendments to an evolved technology today. For example there were telephones to be tapped in the 1700’s, but we have wire tap laws thanks to the 4th Amendment. So when liberals start arguing that back in the 1700’s they only had muskets and today we have more powerful weapons and they need more regulation, it’s a false argument. The Bill of Rights has expanded based on evolving technology, but we must protect the spirit of the original intent. So why should our right to bear arms not be expanded with our evolving technology?
The Supreme Court says the 2nd amendment covers all weapons that can, “be carried on one’s person and are of the type that would be commonly used for a lawful purpose.” Therefore an illegal assault weapon should have something about it that makes it particularly appealing to criminals and useless to legal gun owners. No such thing exists within the definition of this state’s assault weapon ban.
These are not machine guns we’re talking about; these are semi-automatic guns that can only fire one bullet with one trigger pull, that’s all. Sure, they look like military weapons that fire on full automatic (machine gun), but that’s all – they just look like a bad weapon. So are liberals really trying to ban something based more on its looks than anything else? If that’s it, then watch out because that opens up a whole lot of things that might look scary or cool, depending on your point of view. The liberals have relied on the public’s confusion between military weapons and the so-called assault weapons they seek to ban. This is blatant dishonesty in exchange for the public’s support.
Before I close, you’ll note that I have not used any statistical data. The data I could quotes strongly supports my position on our right to keep and bear arms, but it’s boring. What I wanted to bring you is ridiculous arguments liberals use to defeat the 2nd amendment. If you really want the stat’s just ask…I’ve got em!
Bottom line: Liberals (most democrats) are not very liberal when it comes to gun ownership in fact they’re down right irrational and narrow minded.
Jack?
You’re wrong.
The LEFTISTS want to take our guns away.
Those great liberals that wrote our Contitution knew the only way to keep the security of a free state was through firepower. They worte that AS their reason for writing the second amendment!
It isn’t about hunting
It isn’t about home security
It’s about freedom!
God bless the Liberals who gave us the second amendment!
So using your logic, should we also have the right to arm ourselves with a bazooka gun? How about hand grenades?
Should the law just say that any weapon that a criminal can acquire illegally, must also be available for common citizens to acquire legally?
Joe, thanks for comments.
Joe it is not my logic that you question here, The logic you question belongs to the founding fathers – I just happen to agree with them.
The items you brought up, a bazooka and hand grenades are not addressed in my article nor the 2nd amendment. That was a red herring – a non issue. The right to keep and bear arms as defined by law and in my article belongs to the Supreme Court, it’s their definition not mine. If you read the article carefully you will find the part where the Supreme Court has defined what you can legally carry as a firearm and its is very broad, but not too broad and it doesn’t cover the items you mentioned.
Quentin I know this definition of leftist verses liberal runs contrary to your personal definition, but the term liberal is applied to those on the left, leftist and liberal have become interchangeable.
The people who are grabbing guns have described themselves as liberals and leftists and their supporters define themselves as liberals and leftists, what can I do? I’m merely trying to focus on those who would grab our guns. If its any consolation, we can agree they have hijacked the term liberal. But, please don’t disregard the story over this fine point. Lets be united for a common purpose…freedom.
The left today, most of whom have not read much about our founding prefer the dictionary definition because it makes them look wonderful (superior). From Websters:
marked by generosity, bounteousness, openhandedness : not stinting *a liberal giver* *a man of liberal nature…
…not narrow in mind : BROAD-MINDED, OPEN-MINDED b : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional or established forms in action, attitude, or opinion *a man of liberal views who would not mind making significant changes in the social or economic structure if he felt it was for the best* *liberal in his interpretation of his duties as a governor* *theologians, even the most liberal, will rally to the defense of theology A.L.Gu*rard* c [French lib*ral, from Middle French liberal] : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism *the liberal theory of progress M.Q.Sibley
The dictionary goes on to mention the liberal thought that inspitred our founders but none of today’s liberals don’t reflect the ideals of our founders.
Quentin’s dedication to the subject suggests a calling…perhaps he could restore the word to it’s original meaning but only if he could convince the liberal progressives among us.
Re Jack Lee’s: “Bottom line: Liberals (most democrats) are not very liberal when it comes to gun ownership in fact they’re down right irrational and narrow minded.”
Precisely. The same applies to “progressives”, leftists, Marxists, and Socialists. All of which have become synonyms for liberal.
The only liberals left (in the quaint and now defunct meaning of that term) are what are now called conservatives.
Of course, the (current) liberal definition of a conservative is a narrow minded, racist, bigot. Which, coincidentally, just happens to be the terms Quentin Colgan has used to describe Tea Party activists and others with whom he disagrees. Funny how that works.