First of all, I can’t believe Americans are even discussing the right to bear arms. If people are too thick-skulled to read the Constitution in a rational manner, that’s their problem. I don’t have a reading problem but I do have limited tolerance for liberal idiocy.
I love liberals who claim the Second Amendment only pertains to hunting guns. Um, no. Our founders wouldn’t have wasted their time protecting our rights to hunting guns. That was a given. Plus, if they wanted to protect hunting, they would have said something like, “the right to have a gun to shoot dinner shouldn’t be restricted”. I don’t think the inclusion of the words “Militia”, “free State”, “keep and bear Arms”, and “shall not be infringed” is accidental in any way. I have a law degree and a law license but it doesn’t require either of them to read the simple and plain meaning of the Second Amendment. And for my liberal friends who shout “no means no” when it comes to rape, “not means not” when it comes to infringing on my Second Amendment rights.
I also love liberals who say the Second Amendment only applies to muskets and other “period” firearms. If that’s their logic, then the First Amendment only applies to hand written documents penned with a feather dipped in an inkwell or documents printed on old-school printing presses. If you liberals truly believe the Second Amendment only applies to black powder and other old-school guns, I don’t want to hear a single one of you yapping about your First Amendment rights when it comes to email, documents written on computer, or anything you publish on the Internet. Same goes for anything you say over the telephone.
The final liberal idiocy I will mention here is the idea that “Militia” only applies to government run millitaries. Seriously? Do liberals truly believe that? I guess they skipped out on their high school government classes. Our founders wanted to escape tyrannical government – they didn’t want to create one themselves. Again, if they meant only the government run military would be armed, I am relatively certain they would have written it that way. Our founders knew darn well the average citizen deserved the opportunity to protect themselves. I also think the founders wanted it loud and clear, the government shouldn’t be in the business of picking winners and losers by choosing who should and should not be armed.
I think, bottom line, we’re facing a standoff between those who believe rights are inherent simply by being alive. I’m one of those people. I don’t believe the Constitution grants us rights. I believe the Constitution simply memorializes those rights and then protects them from infringement and encroachment by the government or others. Liberals, on the other hand, believe it is the Constitution document itself which grants rights. Rights which they believe can be taken away simply by editing the document.
I don’t think our founders planned on the liberal interpretation. Our Constitution was signed not long after our Declaration of Independence. Reflect a moment on these words found in the Declaration:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .
That is not the mindset of a group of people saying, “if it ain’t in the document, it doesn’t exist”.
It’s not hard to understand what the Second Amendment means. Our Constitution was written by founders inspired by earlier documents and philosophies. Peruse the Magna Carta and the intent of that document to see the stance against tyranny. Consider the writings of John Locke. Contemplate why the authors of the Constitution opted for a President instead of a King. Reflect on why they established a republic instead of a pure democracy. Look at the Constitution itself and it’s emphasis on federalism. It’s not hard. Seriously, you people should have paid more attention in class when your teacher taught you about our Constitution.
Liberals want to take away or (at a minimum) restrict inherent rights. Conservatives recognize the inherent flaw in the liberal desire to do so. I side with the Conservatives on this issue. I will never understand why liberals want to voluntarily forfeit their own rights and infringe on mine, against my will, for a false sense of security – a modern day 30 pieces of silver.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Gun laws don’t prevent crime. They just constrain and infringe on the rights of the lawful citizens. Criminals will always find a route to obtain guns whether those guns are legally owned or illegally owned. If they can’t find guns, they find other weapons. I highly doubt there will soon be a movement to outlaw knives, baseball bats, pencils, cars, rope, and fists . . . but who knows how far liberals are willing to go in eviscerating our inherent rights and simultaneously converting a huge number law abiding citizens into criminals with nothing more than a stroke of the pen.
Dear Esteemed Member of the Criminal Community:
We want to assure you. Many of us in Washington, D.C. are working quickly and expeditiously to improve the safety of your work places. We are working every day to make sure you can do your jobs safely and without concern. Those 23 executive orders are just the start. We have individuals throughout our agencies and in our legislature actively putting together more and more regulations and laws which will keep you happy and healthy.
For those of you who perform your jobs in or around public schools, we are pleased to confirm they are working very closely with us to assure you the safest possible work environments through the implementation of “Gun Free Zones”. We are hopeful this progress will result in an ongoing reduction of the number of on the job injuries you receive.
As you are aware, we are thwarted at every turn by hateful members of the vast right-wing conspiracy who want nothing more than to assure you encounter armed resistance resulting in damage to your person. Do not worry. We will stop at nothing to end their heartless attempts to derail our efforts. Like our dear leaders before us, we have even used sweet, innocent children to further our cause. Do not be concerned. We promise you we will not do anything to actually improve their safety because that would mean a potential increase in your work place injuries. The media is on our side. Nothing can go wrong.
We take inspiration from Chicago, the shining beacon on the hill, as the example of how gun control makes your lives easier. We know many of you have already moved there because of the safety you experience when performing your criminal endeavours. We have a dream that one day every city, suburb, and rural area of the USSA will offer you the same protections.
Do not be discouraged by the states, localities, and law enforcement officials who will do everything in their power to stop us in our tracks. We will not be halted. We will not be dissuaded. We are a force to be reckoned with. We won’t even let the Constitution stop our efforts.
We also intend to improve your work place safety through a few key pieces of legislation and regulation. By restricting gun ownership and usage, these laws and regulations will immediately convert millions of law abiding citizens into criminals. By spending more time finding and prosecuting those individuals, our government paid law enforcement personnel will have less time to interfere with your work. Yes, it is true, nothing is too good for you, dear criminal. All we ask in return is that you continue to elect us to these powerful positions and make large cash donations to our cause. We are here for you.
Very truly yours,
Your liberal, progressive, socialist, communist and fascist friends in Washington, D.C.
In my heart of hearts I am a Libertarian. I believe the government has one purpose and that purpose is to govern. My definition of govern means to make sure the people are protected from each other (that does not mean to protect them from themselves) and to make sure there are adequate government resources to achieve that goal. I support a military focused on protecting us. I support protecting our borders. I support fire departments. I support laws against murder, robbery, rape and other things. In general, I support the things which help us maintain calm and order.
I do not support government telling me what to eat, forcing me to get a license to marry the person of my dreams, telling me whether or not I can own a firearm, or preventing me from finishing my basement b/c the new building code regulations are too expensive to fulfill.
Do I believe the Democrats have gone way too far in meddling in our lives? Yes. Do I think the Republicans have gone way too far in meddling in our lives? Yes. Do I think we need a lot less “two party” and a lot more Libertarianism? Yes.
Does that mean I am going to vote for a third party candidate on election day? NO.
Here is why. Right now our country is more or less divided when it comes to elections. Divided means split into two halves. Those halves aren’t necessarily equal, but our country is more or less split down the middle. You have Republicans and Democrats. The problem is we’re not really divided. We’re actually broken down further. In between the two big slices of the pie, there is a “third party” which is actually a collection of other political parties which make up a smaller portion of the whole. There are well known political parties in the “third party” such as Independent, Libertarian, Environmental, Tea Party, Communist, and Socialist. There are also less common parties such as Justice, Prohibition, and Labor. The problem with this “third party” is it makes up too small of a fraction of our population to get the traction needed to beat one of the big two.
Note: Before you start sending me emails about my “division” comment . . . depending upon how you look at parties (by registration or by voting) you get difference percentages. In “dividing” the country I based it primarily on the election outcomes for POTUS races which is arguably “divided” in most election years. Yes, I recognize in 1992 Ross Perot had enough votes to make it not a true “division” between the two major parties.
That’s not to say people from other parties can’t win an election. They do win. There just isn’t anyone from any of those other parties who gets the air time necessary to get the required votes in a POTUS election to win. It’s a unfortunate fact.
I have lots of Libertarian friends who are adamant about voting for their candidate. I applaud them for wanting to stand proud and send a message. They are correct. If they don’t vote for their candidate, they’ll never get traction.
After contemplating the options in this particular POTUS election, I have decided, no matter how much I believe in the Libertarian ideals, I cannot bring myself to vote for that candidate in this election.
SHOCKING. I KNOW.
Let me tell you why. This election has the potential to tip of the scales in America one way or the other. Not only are we split between Republicans and Democrats; we are also split between makers and takers. We used to be a nation of mostly makers. Now we are a nation where almost half are takers. We are becoming a welfare state. I honestly and sincerely believe, after this election, if the wrong person makes it back into the White House (and you know who I’m talking about) there will be nothing standing in the way of takers overtaking the makers.
Once the amount of people taking becomes more than 50% of our country, the takers will be empowered to take more and more from the makers. The takers will be the majority and they will win every future election we hold. People living off the government have will have no incentive to vote for smaller government or less government intrusion in their lives. We are already a country riddled with socialist programs which are failing. Imagine that administration, with no need to worry about reelection, going for broke (both figuratively and literally). Imagine a minority of makers having to support a majority of takers. We’re almost there.
Romney was correct. How can a candidate who believes in smaller government and cutting programs garner the vote of individuals who are fully or even partially living off the government? The number of people willing to put the needs of the country ahead of the needs of themselves is shrinking rapidly. I feel like I’m one of a dying breed.
Why am I telling you this? Because I ardently want every Libertarian to get behind Romney. Not because I support everything he stands for or agree with everything he has done in the past. I want every Libertarian to vote for Romney because I honestly believe if Romney doesn’t win, the scales will tip and there will never be a chance to put a Libertarian in the White House. Libertarians believe in smaller government. Libertarians have the same challenges getting the “takers” to support their candidates for the same reasons Romney has challenges getting the “takers” to support him.
If this election results in the current administration returning to the White House, it will be “game over” for those of use who are makers and those of us who support smaller government. Libertarians and Conservatives will never have another bite at the White House because too many votes will have been bought with our tax dollars via entitlement programs. Just look at the food stamp numbers and unemployment under the current administration. Just look at the growing infringement on our individual liberties.
As much as I love Libertarian ideals, there is no Libertarian candidate for POTUS who has the votes necessary to win the race. I’d rather see Libertarians vote for Romney if for no other reason than to (hopefully) have a chance in the future to run a candidate who can garner the votes necessary to be the man or woman to make it to the top.
Until that time, I don’t want to see the opportunity for the election of a true small government Libertarian forever sidelined by the takers. That is why I am voting for Romney and that is why I think you should vote for him, too.
I don’t know who created this, but it’s fantastic. I’d do a little editing if it was mine . . . but the intended message hits it home loud and clear.
The fairy tale goes something like this . . .
Once upon a time, a big, black, scary-looking semi-automatic assault weapon lived in the deep dark woods. Every day, he would prowl the paths looking for victims. One day, a sweet, innocent, dainty little girl with a posh red-hooded cape happened along carrying a basket full of organic, grain-free healthy goodness for her ailing grandmother. The big, black, scary-looking assault weapon shot the girl. The end.
It’s a fairy tale the pro gun control lobby loves to tell. However, it’s just a fairy tale. The big, black, scary-looking assault weapon is an inanimate object. It does not live in the woods, it does not prowl, it does not shoot. Only a person can live somewhere, do something, and pull a trigger.
I could just as easily rewrite their fairy tale and replace the antagonist with an aluminum baseball bat, a finely crafted carbon steel steak knife, or a pair of fists. However, those other antagonists don’t make for good media coverage. They aren’t as scary looking as a rifle with lots of extra black molding and a pistol grip. Those other antagonists don’t elicit an emotional response.
Here’s how the fairy tale should go . . .
Once upon a time, a person was walking in the woods carrying an assault weapon. He came upon a group of bird watchers in a clearing searching for the Red-whiskered Bulbul. He pulls his weapon, aims it towards the bird watchers, and prepares to do the unthinkable. One of the bird watchers espies him at a distance aiming the weapon. The bird watcher notifies the others of the man with the weapon. The man with the assault weapon opens fire. One of the other bird watchers pulls out his legally owned self defense weapon and ends the confrontation immediately. An untold number of lives are saved and everyone spared an early death lives happily ever after. The end.
However, if the gun control lobby gets its way, that man with the legally owned self defense weapon wouldn’t be armed and the tragedy would have unfolded with a large number of lives lost. Every time I hear about these massive shootings in gun-free zones I can’t help but think how differently things might have ended and how many lives might have been saved had there been one hero in the crowd who knew how to shoot and was armed to do so.
I have lots of friends who used to be anti-gun but who at one time found themselves in a precarious position. One of them was the victim of a break-in. One of them was mugged on a city street. One of them had a friend die in a shooting. They all now own a gun (legally I might add). They realize how owning a gun and being prepared can help you rewrite the ending of the fairy tale. They no longer are willing to be victims. None of us should be willing to be victims. The gov’t shouldn’t be writing the end of the story for us good guys.
When tragedies happen, and they inevitably do, there is always a bandwagon of individuals who rush to the podium to demand more laws. Harsher laws. Broader laws. More oppressive laws. In the emotional aftermath of tragedies, particularly ones where innocent people lost their lives, the general public are prone to throw themselves onto that bandwagon – pitchforks in hand – demanding that “something be done”. Since it is impossible to resurrect the victims and undo the hideous acts which caused their deaths, the only option for many appears to be “batten down the hatches” to make sure it never happens again. When a killer uses a gun, the gun control supporters burst through the woodwork and start the hysterical accusations – “guns are the cause of all this violence!”, “if it wasn’t for guns, this wouldn’t have happened”, “we need to get all the guns off the street”, “we need to make sure only police have guns”. The demands go on and on. Each one more warped with emotion than the one which came before.
Unfortunately, whether the gun control pundits like it or not, inanimate objects don’t kill people on their own. A car must be driven (or otherwise operated or maintained improperly) to cause a death. A knife must be wielded or positioned intentionally to cause a death. Yes, a ladder can slip . . . but a person placed it. Yes, a pencil can puncture a hand . . . but it does not, in and of its own accord, jump from a prone position and stab someone. Can an earthquake bring a house tumbling down, causing deaths? Yes, of course. Acts of nature happen. However, a gun being fired is rarely, if ever, an act of nature. There is always a human being involved.
A gun is just a tool. Just as a pair of scissors, a hammer, a tire iron, a broken bottle, and a chair are tools. Weilded for evil purposes, any one of those items can be used to cause death. The list of things a human being can chose to use to cause a death is without limit. Human beings are crafty individuals. Cars, poisons, snakes, dogs, bows and arrows, screw drivers, sticks, spears, rocks, pipes, wires, ropes. All of them are just tools. Nothing more than inanimate objects. Yet, every time a gun is used, the gun is the item to blame.
Every day, innocent people lose their lives in car accidents. Unfortunately, I’ve known a few myself. In those circumstances nobody saunters up to the podium demanding all cars be outlawed. We don’t see media pundits swarming the microphones to demand cars be removed from the streets to keep everyone safe. Yet, have a gun be used to cause death and the “hot topic” button is pushed. Media outlets flash the news across the screen, “reporters” parade a series of gun control advocates before the TV audience to speak their minds and give their warnings, and talk show hosts ask the government “what are you going to do to make sure this never, ever happens again?”
Unfortunately, politicians can’t really do anything to make sure it never, ever happens again. To make absolutely sure, the government would need to lock everyone up under 24/7 surveillance. I can only hope most politicians see this as a draconian measure or at least, at a minimum, too costly to implement. So ,instead, to assuage the outraged populace, look proactive, and hopefully score future votes; the politicians do what they do best: pass more laws.
We already have laws on the books which say murder and manslaughter are illegal. These laws are pretty unnecessary if you ask me. Most people already know it’s wrong to kill someone. However, they are on the books to deter murder by saying 1) we as a community will not accept this as a legal act and 2) if you do it and we catch you we will punish you. Unfortunately, even these most basic of laws don’t actually PREVENT murder. At best, they only deter. Ask any police officer you know. If laws worked, they’d have nothing to do. Also ask them the ratio of crimes they prevent to crimes they address after the commission. Police don’t prevent most crimes. Particularly murders because most of them are committed where people cannot see the act.
These basic laws (don’t murder, don’t commit manslaughter) are enough. However, when people are in an emotional turmoil they don’t think logically. They start demanding more laws. They want the government to go further. They want to government to not only constrain the bad people. They now want to constrain the good people. This is because the people demanding these new laws (usually liberals in my experience) view every good person as a potential bad person. In their minds, only by restricting the rights and freedoms of all people will be government be able to guarantee safety and security for all.
However, here’s what happens when you restrict gun ownership beyond just the bad guys. You create a new class of people. You create victims. Individuals who have been unarmed and who can no longer defend themselves from the bad guys. Don’t get me wrong, if we could pass laws which would actually prevent crime, I’d be all behind it. However, theory and reality don’t jive. Laws don’t prevent. Laws don’t protect. Laws only deter.
I had a phenomenal law professor who is one of the most brilliant people I have ever met. I had him for both criminal law and white collar crime courses. He showed us a bell curve. On one end of the curve were the 100% guilty. On the other end of the curve were the 100% innocent. In comparing the standard of evidence in a criminal case compared to a civil case, he showed us how the standard in a criminal case is significantly higher. The intent of the higher standard was to make sure innocent people were allowed to remain free, i.e., not be punished or go to jail. EVEN IF that meant letting some guilty people go. He argued, it was reprehensible to constrain the freedoms of the innocent just to make sure no guilty individuals were allowed to go free.
I think this is the stance we need to take with gun control. If the gun control lobby gets their way, the rights and freedoms of the innocent will be constrained. Since no law ever stopped a determined criminal (if they did we’d never hear of a rape, murder, or shoplifting case) we need to make sure no more unnecessary laws are passed which only serve to disarm the good guys. In fact, it would be a good measure to also repeal all of the unnecessary, freedom-restricting laws which are already on the books.
These mass shootings seem to happen in gun-free zones. I would much rather see the good guys take down the bad guy and save as many lives as possible. Unfortunately, the good guys are the only ones who obey the laws and in gun-free zones the good guys have been disarmed. Leaving the bad guys to mete out terror until their ammunition runs out. It’s time to re-evaluate gun laws and rearm the good guys in all locations.