Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a
redress of grievances.
A well regulated
militia, being necessary to the security of a
I’ve never
been to a war protest before. But, before
Amnesty International became a moral joke, I’d been to a few free so and so
rallies. They were pretty dumb when I
look back on it. Because, even though
I’m sure I went to a Nelson Mandela one I can be pretty sure that we had zero
effect on his release…and more he’s turned out to be less than thankful for the
support he’s seen the world over during his long imprisonment. Hardly, the ‘wonderful’ man that AI made him
out to be.
I hear
everyday more people saying, “We have the right to stand here and protest the
war. We are using our constitutional
right of free speech and assembly to voice our opinions to the President.” But, I’d bet dollars to donuts that more than
80% of these same people would be for a law that banned guns. I find this hypocrisy insulting. The argument that the anti gun crowd offers
us is simply this:
The second Amendment was
written when the stability of the nation was still in flux and that a standing
army was really just an army of conscription, albeit, willing conscripts, of
the people. Therefore the military and
the safety of the nation were the people themselves. Guns now find themselves in the hands of the
type of person that abuses the Constitution not enforces it.
Fine, but
there is certain flaw in the logic of this argument. One is the idea that ONLY the second
Amendment was written in the time of instability. Since we know this not be true, we must
assume that the remaining texts of the Constitution were written at the same
time as the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights, therefore all the texts
were written during this time of instability.
Because the hinge of the antigun crowd is this ‘time’ issue of national
‘emergency’ then couldn’t the same be said for the remaining rights afforded
us? For example, the first amendment
insures our right to free information.
That is, information that is allows to be expressed by free men. Could we not also assume that this Amendment
was written to insure the stability of a weak and new nation? That the writers were trying to keep those that
would destroy the nation from cornering the information market and therefore
swaying public opinion?
What about
free speech? Could it be that the
writers were helping to keep people free by allowing them to not be afraid to
talk freely? The same goes for peaceably
assembly.
Now,
assuming the anti gun crowd is correct, then can’t the same be said for the
first amendment? That words and assembly
only find themselves in the hands of those that abuse the Constitution? Couldn’t it be said by this same crowd that,
we have ‘evolved’ to such a point where we think the same and anyone who voices
a ‘free’ opinion is only doing to so to instigate public rebellion. Or that people that assemble are only doing
so to abuse the freedoms afforded them to instigate open rebellion?
If the
antigun crowd is correct and the second Amendment is old news, then so to is
the first and it too should be scrapped.
Do you see the error in the logic?
What would be the point of having any amendments then? And we haven’t even begun to broach the idea
that the second Amendment makes the first possible. Through protection of foreign invaders and
more importantly, from reformists on the inside.
As for this
argument that only the criminals have guns.
That’s sensationalism at its worst.
Statistically speaking 1 in 50 persons owns a gun, legally. Yet 1 in 10k person’s commits a crime and the
numbers dwindle further when we are talking about violent crimes involving
weapons. Check with the FBI’s website.
They keep track of all these number.
They have to; it is how they get their kudos.
What it all
really boils down to is fear. It’s about
the same fear as most of everything thing else that is wrong with the
world. Those people fear death, so they
ban it the best they can. Yet it keeps
finding its way back into the world. No
amount of law can stop it. No amount
emotional hand wringing can cause its end.
Face the world and you’ll see two camps:
those afraid and those who aren’t.
Though both sides have their extremists it is clear that neither side
understands the other….and what I can’t understand is that those afraid do not seem
to realize that when the bombs begin to fall who on their side will defend
them…and with what? Their destruction
will have been their own fault. But what will they say of it? "It wasn't our fault! We tried to change the world! We tried to evolve the world, but the barbarians didn't want it!" And through their cowarice and insanity will claim that it was the fault of the rest of the world to not understand what it was they were trying to do for 'everyone's' good.