So right now a great deal of people are talking about gun control. I would like to first immediately put forth that I support gun rights and responsible gun ownership in general, for multiple reasons. I'm not going to go into them tonight. My point tonight is that the United States Constitution is NOT one of those reasons.
Read it.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Someone today said something about putting "limitations" on the Constitutional Amendments. That was the last straw that ended up creating this post.
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow ordinary people to keep the equipment necessary to engage in WARFARE and paramilitary actions. I'm sorry, but hunting, sporting, and even self-defense from petty criminals are NOT explicitly covered. Hand guns, having limited direct military application, are not explicitly covered. No one needs to limit the Second Amendment because it is already limited. It does not say "...the right of the people to keep and bear Any Arms They Want." It even has the word "regulated" right there.
"REGULATED." IN THE CONSTITUTION. IN 1789.
Trying to twist the meaning of the Constitution to suit your own agenda is a game for liberals. Don't do that.
Using over-simplified sound bite arguments, though, is a game for Faux News. Don't do that either.
I'm sorry, but educated liberals know what the Second Amendment actually says. You guys talking about it over and over again has zero effect whatsoever on the people pushing for tighter regulations, and using it on the masses who have never bothered to look it up is simply unethical. Plus the whole thing makes you look ignorant. I'm sorry, but it does.
So PLEASE, whenever discussing gun control, don't use bad arguments. It discredits you, doing more harm than good. You know much, much better arguments. Use those instead.
EDIT for everyone pushing gun bans: No, the Constitution does not explicitly protect hand gun ownership, but it DOES protect military-spec equipment such as fully automatic assault rifles, with room for conditions. The whole national dialogue just seems ironic to me.
A) I'm excited about the fact that you don't want to limit constitutional amendments.
ReplyDeleteB) Even CURRENT United States Code defines two separate entities of "militia"...you have the "organized" militia, consisting of the National Guard, State Guard, and other governmental bodies...and then you have the "unorganized militia", which is essentially men our age. Congrats, cuz. According to the government, YOU are the militia!
C) Handguns are an essential part of any military arsenal. Our military designation is currently "M9", it's the Beretta Model 92 in 9mm. It is used as a backup when the battle rifle runs out of ammunition, or for when the enemy gets within close quarters. Prior to the adoption of the M9, we had the M1911, and even before that we had an old-school revolver...after, of course, old cap&ball revolvers when we got rid of the old black-powder single-shots.
D) I'm glad that you think I have the right to possess a full-automatic rifle. If you could only convince the BATFE of this, I'd have it made. As it stands, they won't let me have any better than a semi-auto rifle....
D)