I’ve been advocating for the Right of The People to keep and bear arms for decades now. After the Sandy Hook shooting, I was in a discussion with somebody on Google+. They were attempting to come up with a “common-sense gun safety laws”.
After a couple of days going back and forth, they asked “Well, what law would you propose?”
“A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
He didn’t reply.
Regardless of what anybody tells you, the supreme law of the United States is the Constitution, as amended. It is not a document locked in amber, nor is it bright, transient dots on a display, it is the bedrock of our country.
It is difficult to modify, there have been only 17 amendments since 1791 when the first 10 were ratified. That is a very stable foundation to work from.
The problem that leftest have with The Constitution is that it is too stable. It does not progress as they would like to see.
If it doesn’t progress, then it must be thrown out. According to them.
So we have endless arguments about “well regulated”, and “being necessary” means it is a collective right.
They modify the meaning of the words so that they can twist the foundation of the Constitution. I fear for our grand children. They will have to depend on the translations of others to know what our Constitution actually says.
Consider this for a moment, how many times have you heard or heard of somebody saying that the King James Bible holds the words of Christ?
I promise you, it does not. Jesus Christ did not speak English. I can’t tell you what he spoke, it is not relevant.
My point is that most people cannot read the original Bible because we don’t read that language. I can read some Latin. I know others that can read ancient Greek. Those scholars are few and far between.
Words have meaning. Leftists don’t care what the meaning of a word is. They choose the meaning of the word as they want it now. Which can change in 10 minutes, or less.
So the arguments always start from the same place: How can we get away with breaking the law?
In Heller, the Supreme Court said that the Second Amendment protects the core right of self-defense.
So for 22 years we had people breaking the law because their needs were more important than the law. Justified by saying they weren’t hurting “the core right of self-defense too much”.
They were breaking the law, and they knew it. They knew it then, they know it now.
Shall not be infringed? Well, it isn’t too much. YES, it is too much. You are breaking the law every time you infringe on my Right to keep and bear arms.
A machine gun isn’t an “arm” under the plain text of the Second Amendment? Why? Because it isn’t used for self-defense.
Is it an arm? It is a firearm. This makes it an arm. FULL STOP.
We must pass an assault weapons ban, universal background checks, and red flag laws. — Kamala Harris
Comments
6 responses to “Why Do They Start By Wanting to Break the Law?”
yall need to repeat this to everyone you run across- firearms are the ONLY tool blamed for its misuse- an inanimate manufactured tool has no blame.
We the People have been fed a constant lie- “slippery roads” caused the “accident”, “if we ban guns there will be no more gun violence “ news never points out the HUMAN who misused a tool. liberals are afraid of We the People being armed. “common- sense”is a parrot word just like “unprecedented” (🤢🤮) a word used by liberals who have zero common sense. ask those who wish to “ban guns” why they refuse to ban those who misuse them. ask them why congress in 1996 past a federal law making it a felony to possess firearms on school property when murder is already a felony.. the stupid is deep.
In the Progressive Elite world, only the State, that they control, may use violence to achieve it’s Agenda. We, the People may not resist the State, if We do, the State may use whatever means necessary to compel compliance.
Our Founders understood this concept. They obviously disagreed.
When they say they ‘only want to ban assault weapons’, in IL a prop replica lightsaber is considered an ‘assault weapon’ because it has parts based from real guns.
They say ‘but they were banned for 10 yrs’. When you point out that, no, they really weren’t, only a few cosmetic features, they move the goalpost some more . Usually to skewed stats about ‘school/mass shootings’.
They are inherently dishonest and their only goal is to ban guns. For everyone except the elite, that is.
They do not dislike ALL guns, just the guns YOU have. Theirs they like just fine.
“If it doesn’t progress, then it must be thrown out. According to them.”
That is a trait that is common on the left. They will see something that is not perfect, declare it is unsavable, and destroy it to rebuild with “perfection…” For some reason, they cannot conceive of incremental improvements, instead of wholesale replacement.
As to the restrictive gun control laws, they are the product of lazy people. (And, leftists are lazy for the most part.) Instead of actually fixing the root cause of the problem (which is hard to do) the go for the easy repair. Your car is making a funny scraping noise? Turn up the radio. See, noise gone.
Germany is following the lead of the UK now, and going knife control. Net result will be exactly the same as we see in the UK. More crime, more injuries and deaths, and the criminals will be in charge.
For nearly 50 years, @Bradybuzz has been fighting for common-sense gun laws, but we must also tackle the Big Lie that makes people believe owning a gun makes them safer — and if that were true, America would be the safest country in the world. (2/2) — Kriss Brown, Brady
If owning guns made America less-safe, then Red States and rural areas — where gun ownership is extremely common — would be the most dangerous areas.
Honduras has restrictive gun laws, and an extremely high murder rate. Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, Nicaragua, Ethiopia … all up there with murder rates, and all with tight gun controls.
The reality they never mention: 50-ish counties in America produce the majority of homicides, and all (or nearly all) of them are urban Democrat strongholds. IOW, if you take America’s homicide numbers, and omit the 10-15 biggest cities — all Democrat-run, with restrictive “home rule” gun laws whenever possible, and revolving-door no-cash-bail “justice” systems that release violent criminals as fast as they’re arrested — our national homicide numbers drop to European levels.
How is that possible, when the non-urban areas are where all the guns are legal?
Maybe, just maybe, it’s not the guns.