FOLLOW US

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.”

Banning guns, yes, even semi-automatic rifles, would deprive law abiding citizens from their constitutional right to keep and bear arms and that would be intolerable.  For those like Condi Rice who think the Second Amendment is a quaint relic of the past, we can only ask why and if it is, why are the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments not in the same category?

The inconvenient truth here is hard for liberals to reconcile and conservatives must fight the trap liberals lay for them with their limited choices of ways to deal with these tragedies.

What people like Gwen Graham will never accept is that guns are about freedom and they are a part of our guarantee of it. Totalitarians and liberal fascists understand this as banning guns is their first deed upon assuming power as it enables the government easier control of all aspects of people’s lives.

There are lessons to learn from the past. Hitler knew that banning guns was a great way to start his quest for a totalitarian Third Reich.  

Greater firepower is no greater reason to restrict the Second Amendment than the Internet is a good reason to restrict the First

Liberals will argue that the Founders meant “muskets,” not pistols or semi-automatic rifles when they considered the Second Amendment.  This argument is an insult to our history and the great men who wrote our nation’s founding documents.

Gun technology has certainly advanced since the Bill of Rights became the law of the land, but let’s take a look at the advancements in the right to associate and speak relative to guns and the advances of technology related to the First versus the Second Amendment.