The Bill of Rights is not a quaint relic of the 1700’s

0
269
SHARE

Isn’t it stunning how liberals can so vociferously defend all forms of speech under the First Amendment while so resoundingly renounce and seek to limit the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment?

Liberal hypocrisy aside, our constitutional guarantees for both of those two amendments come from the very same place, the Bill of Rights, which was necessary for the very formation of our nation. Without the first ten amendments to that glorious document and the assurance provided therein, the Constitution itself likely would never have been ratified.

Even former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice fell into the liberal trap of guilt and remorse following the tragic loss of life from the Parkland Florida shooting when she called for consideration of a host of limits on the rights of lawful gun owners.

Of course, lightweights like former Congresswoman Gwen Graham also weighed in arguing that voters and elected leaders must choose between children and the NRA. Leave it to Graham to try to both capitalize on the deaths of 17 people while simultaneously reducing the argument to a national gun rights group who had nothing to do with the tragedy.

Sadly, Ms. Graham and people of her ilk fail to realize that the argument is about freedom and protection, not guns and certainly not the NRA. The right to keep and bear arms is not guaranteed by the NRA, but by the supreme document of this land.  If Democrats don’t like this guarantee, there is a process by which to amend the constitution and it is not done by name-calling, complaining and whining.

No words can express the deep sadness we all feel for the victims and their families for the tragedy carried out by a mad man. Nothing can right that wrong. But ignoring the liberties granted to us by the Constitution and conjuring up drama by denouncing an organization show the short-sighted failure of liberals to appreciate freedom earned by the blood of patriots they neither understand nor appreciate.

Even the stunning revelations that these deaths could have been avoided had law enforcement acted quicker and paid closer attention to prior threats do nothing to lessen the sting of this horrific tragedy. These killings shake our souls.

Only the shooter committed a crime.  Only the shooter should be blamed. 

Gun rights advocates should not fall into the trap of blaming law enforcement for this shooting any more than gun control advocates should blame guns. Both may have played a limited role in the dreadful scene, but only the shooter committed a crime. There is one man to blame for this tragedy and Nikolas Cruz will most assuredly pay for his crime.

The simple fact is that in free societies, human beings will never be 100% safe from violence.  This is so because we are human, and humans are an unpredictable species. Guns are an easy culprit to blame, but inanimate objects like guns, knives, cars and nails do not kill people.  People kill people, and people are where the focus for solutions and greater protection must lie.

Liberals try to blame an object, while renouncing objectification.

Banning handguns was the target of the left in the 70’s, but liberals like to make good theater, so they have now focused on semi-automatic rifles, even giving them a dastardly name, the “assault rifle.”  Their drama and their use of guns to rally their base is deplorable, but this is the world we live in today where politics for politics sake takes precedence over country, good public policy and respectful civil discourse.

The truth is, no matter what we ban, the only people who will use banned instruments for bad deeds will be criminals. Stunningly, it is lost on liberals that most people using freely available instruments for crimes are criminals. The acts committed by these whack-jobs are already illegal, so a reaction to make them even more illegal by banning the instrument of their evil and expecting a different result is foolish on its face.

Liberals know that guns are not the only things that kill people. They don’t care, they want to control people lives and guns are one of America’s greatest symbols and expressions of freedom. Control guns, control minds.

Instead of looking at the glorification of weapons, guns, killing and the desensitizing of death brought by Hollywood’s liberals and the gaming industry, picking on guns is the approach because conservatives like them. God forbid that liberals consider the dangers of the First Amendment!  Suing Glock is much more fun for the left than attacking their liberal elite check writers in Hollywood.

Logic and history tells us that banning guns, even semi-automatic rifles, won’t stop lunatics from killing. Criminals will use whatever they can get their hands on: airplanes, automobiles, knives, fertilizer and pipe bombs, to name a few.

Banning guns might even lead to more lethal measures and objects, given the readily available instruction manual for mass killings called the Internet. Regardless, banning guns, even semi-automatic rifles would do little to nothing to change their availability to the scum that use weapons to kill.

Even if all guns were banned, criminals and psychopaths don’t worry about breaking the law and are creative enough simply to find other means than guns to carry out their carnage, like the bombs used to attack the Boston Marathon, thus relegating any gun ban to a punishment of the innocent.

Unless we all want to use plastic knives for our meals, organic fertilizers for farming, stop flying and driving for travel and instead ride horses, perhaps we ought to stop with the banning and start focusing on the types of people who commit these crimes and determining how to get them help or at least how to stop them before they shoot.

Banning guns would, however, prevent honest, law abiding citizens from the pleasure of shooting, the ability to protect themselves from harm and eliminate a constitutional guarantee intended as a deterrent to governmental tyranny, which are all part of the reason the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights.

Facts and history matter

Yes, a healthy fear of government as well as the ability to defend a nation, not hunting, are why we have the Second Amendment.  That wise and healthy fear of government was founded in a newborn nation that had an extremely limited federal presence. Today’s federal government would strike fear in even the most ardent federalists of their day, so much so that at least one scholar has recently stated that we “have abandoned our founders.”

To see Facebook comments, please log in via Facebook