Conservative lies about the “right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
I am an owner of firearms, as allowed by law. But, I do not believe the Second Amendment provides the right to unrestricted firearm ownership.
The latest tragedy of a mass shooting, resulting in ten deaths, in Boulder, Colorado, is just another reason of why the lies of the Second Amendment arguments by conservatives need to be put in it’s grave once and for all. Americans are fed untruths by gun proponents and gun “rights” organizations, much as the priests tell parishioners what the Bible says and what they are to believe.
There is nothing in the Second Amendment stating that ANY law pertaining to gun restrictions infringes ownership and is unconstitutional. It is the blindness of regular citizens and the lack of their use of common sense that continues to breath life into this belief. Constitutional “rights” are infringed every day. Freedom of speech in the First Amendment does not give a person the right to scream fire in a darkened theater, the freedom of peaceful assembly does not give the right to block roadways, sidewalks, building entrances, or carrying out the lawful (and constitutional) exercise of government, for example.
Plus, the Second Amendment allows for “infringements” on the right to keep and bear arms. No citizen is allowed any weapon they wish to own. Ergo, owning a bazooka, or a machine gun, or a fully automatic assault rifle without a federal firearms license, or a sawed off shotgun (meaning a barrel length under 18 inches long), or a grenade, are all unlawful. It’s common sense. An individual has no reasonable use for any of these weapons and it is the proper behavior of the state and federal governments to enact laws preventing or restricting their ownership. Conservatives and gun rights groups don’t want you to know this, they want you to listen to their preaching only.
It is reasonable to restrict firearms and their ownership. Even conservatives believe this when it aligns with their political beliefs. I don’t see conservatives fighting to allow gun ownership by people with felony criminal convictions or allowing minors to own firearms. It’s their dual standards that allow firearms to be possessed and used that led to the murder ten innocent people in Boulder and eight innocent people in the Atlanta area, and on and on. Why do any of us need weapons that hold 20 or 30 rounds of ammunition in a rifle magazine, or more than 10 rounds in a pistol magazine? How is restricting magazine capacity an infringement of one’s Second Amendment rights? In fact, if laws prevented the ownership of semi-automatic pistols, that law wouldn’t infringe on your right to own a firearm. Revolvers holding six rounds in the cylinder would be legal to possess to protect yourself or your family. If it takes more than six rounds to stop a threat of death or serious bodily injury then I suggest the user is a bad shot and needs time on the range.
Further, the conservative gun rights folks continuously fight to extend the meaning of Second Amendment rights into other areas, such as the right to carry a handgun concealed without a permit and to carry it anywhere, such as the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives (yes lady, I’m talking about you). Yet, concealed carry laws do exist and haven’t been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Laws are meant to protect the people in a society, not to allow crimes to be committed. Would any law have prevented the mass shootings in Boulder or Atlanta? The answer is no. But, had only a revolver been used, the shooter would need to reload after six shots. This would have given people a chance to flee or even stop the shooters. Reloading a revolver isn’t as fast as changing a pistol or rifle magazine. Oh sure, if the shooter has a revolver quick loader and plenty of practice in reloading a revolver with it then it might not change the outcome. However, the huge majority of people do not have this type of training in sufficient amounts to make them experienced experts. I know this is true since I’ve owned quick loaders for revolvers and did regularly practiced with them.
Yet, the conservative lies on the Second Amendment continue and allow such tragedies to happen. Is it altruism on their part to protect the rights in the U.S. Constitution, or is it money and political power that drives their motivations? Personally, I believe it to be the latter. Politicians want the backing of groups like the NRA and the Gun Owners of America to bring them funding for their campaigns and votes to continue their hold on power. I’ve never liked, nor been a member of, the NRA or any gun rights group. They exist only to attack any attempt at reasonable gun control. If these groups didn’t exist, would the majority of the American people demand more laws restricting gun ownership? I’m betting they would. Every mass shooting says yes, we need laws restricting gun ownership, just as much as we need some laws protecting the right to own a firearm.
Conservatives, especially Republican members of the U.S.Congress and State legislatures, are wrong and are supporting evil by fighting against any gun laws in America. Their actions are self-serving. They care not about the people they serve, just the money and power they can get.
All we can do as reasonable, common sense, people is to give the survivors and families of the mass shootings our condolences for their loss and promise them all that we will fight for reasonable laws, like assault rifle and high capacity magazines bans, universal background checks, and waiting periods to receive purchased firearms to help protect America. It is time conservatives grow up.
Until next time
5 thoughts on “Dark Ages of the Second Amendment”
What you “believe” about the 2nd Amendment is wholly irrelevant.
Read the 2nd, it’s perfectly clear protection against any governmental attempt to infringe upon the natural rights of the citizenry, and, it’s not about hunting.
To the chagrin of the anti-gun crowd, many folks on the political left hold the same view as folks on the right.
Your belief is also irrelevant since the Second Amendment does not explicitly state that there can be no gun laws enacted. The idea that you can own what you want in the firearms category is patently ridiculous.
But hey, thanks for commenting.
My understanding is totally relevant, yours remains irrelevant. “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” Text and intent are crystal clear – “shall not be infringed.” In other words, no “laws” can be enacted to infringe on this Constitutionally protected natural right.
I agree. Licensing gun ownership would be a good start but expensive for government control.
There are reasonable laws that can be enacted, have been enacted, that will not infringe on the Second Amendment. Yes, they may be costly – but if it keeps an M2 .50 cal machine gun out of my neighbors hands, I can live with it. I can protect myself, my family and my home with the firearms I do own, so the argument used by the conservatives is pretty much BS.
Thanks for commenting.
LikeLiked by 1 person