July 23, 2012 9:59:30 AM
The Second Amendment: 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.
The recent massacre in a movie theater in Aurora, CO, has all the Liberals and anti-gun nut crowd slobbering with joy because they have new "ammunition" to use in railing against privately owned firearms.
First of all, the Constitution expressly forbids any laws restricting private ownership of guns or the right to carry and use them. Gun laws do not make society safer, and countless data support that position.
Colorado is one of the states where citizens are "allowed" to legally carry guns to protect themselves, so why wasn't anybody in that theater able to pull out a legally carried gun and return fire? Because the theater has signs in place forbidding patrons from carrying guns on the premises, that's why. Being law-abiding citizens, they dutifully left their firearms at home or locked in their vehicles. That made a madman the only person with guns in that theater. Would even one legally armed citizen have been able to change the outcome of that massacre? we'll never know, but I'm betting yes. Even though the shooter wore body armor, being a coward he would most likely have turned and run at the risk of being shot himself by one of his intended victims. When I see a sign on a business that forbids legally armed citizens from patronizing that establishment, I spend my money elsewhere. I don't want some criminal to be the only person armed in there.
The op-ed in Saturday's Washington Post got a few things right, although I doubt they realize it. Paragraph three reads "There's something else senseless though, and that is America's gun laws." BINGO! "Gun control" laws are touted as being supposed to make society safer, but they have had the exact opposite effect.
In paragraph five it says "There is no rational basis for allowing ordinary Americans to purchase assault rifles. They're not necessary for hunting, and they're not needed for self defense." In paragraph seven it says "Yes, the Second Amendment protects a citizen's right to own a gun, but it does not preclude reasonable regulation for public safety." Let's examine those two points.
First of all, assault rifles are capable of fully automatic fire. Rifles designed to look like assault rifles are not assault rifles, and should not be confused with them for political or any other reasons. The semi-auto versions are excellent hunting weapons, and many military veterans like them because they trained with them and many used them in combat. As far as using "assault rifles" for home defense, read the Second Amendment again. That is exactly what it is talking about: defending one's home against all invaders, foreign or domestic, whether it is a looter during a riot or a member of a foreign army that has invaded the USA. The last part of the Second Amendment does preclude "reasonable regulation," and precisely for public safety.
In paragraph eight the writer opines that "We don't expect this massacre to lead to more sensible laws." Neither do I. The only sensible thing to do is to make all laws restricting the rights of the people to keep and bear military-grade firearms null and void. They should be immediately wiped off the books, forever. They only make it easier for murderers to commit their atrocities, and harder for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves.
Our members of Congress and every state's legislature seem to think they are above the very laws they write for "us." They are more important than we are and exempt themselves from many laws that restrict our rights. Anti-gun Senators carry concealed guns in the halls of Congress, and some violate financial laws that keep "us" from profiting as they do. They are an elite class, in their own minds, who rule over us unwashed peons because they know better than we do what is good for us.
Paragraph nine was just one sentence: "US gun laws make no sense."
Amen! They never have and never will. The Second Amendment states a very obvious fact, conveniently overlooked by our "betters" who write laws. Think about it. "...,being necessary to the security of a free State,..." Those who wish to disarm American citizens have an ulterior motive, and that is to remove freedom from all Americans. When the government is the only entity allowed to have weapons, you have-slavery of the masses; a dictatorship; an oppressive government.
If our representatives really wanted to do something constructive about the crime rate, and especially murder, including massacres such as this recent atrocity, the solution is simple. First pass a law that says anyone guilty of a crime involving a gun shall be put to death within thirty days. No excuses; no mentally disturbed, no religious bull dung; no mentally challenged; no nothing. Even the dumbest person can understand that if you kill somebody, you get killed in return.
Second, make gun ownership not exactly required or mandatory, but the freedom and right it is intended to be. No wanna-be-killer, no matter how deranged, is eager to face an intended victim who just might kill him instead. Besides, an armed society is a polite society, and our country has been much too impolite in recent years.
Washington Post, put this in your pipe and smoke it.
1. Our View: Breaking old stereotypes DISPATCH EDITORIALS
2. Lynn Spruill: Another charrette LOCAL COLUMNS
3. Ask Rufus: The origin of 'Mississippi' LOCAL COLUMNS
4. Jaime Stiehm: House members sit to move America NATIONAL COLUMNS
5. Editorial cartoon for 6-24-16 NATIONAL COLUMNS