Here We Go Again . . .

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.


One response

  1. Well said Ms.Diva123!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: