In Defense of the 2nd Amendment

Unlike the cats, who only want a meal, the opponents of private firearm ownership truly will not rest until ALL guns, of EVERY type have been outlawed.


It is thought that President Obama is likely to introduce his plan on Tuesday, January 15, with guidance from Vice President Biden, who was chosen by Obama to lead the administration's effort to develop gun control measures to prevent another Newtown gun massacre from occurring. 

Meanwhile, the nation’s attention is being focused on guns and gun ownership. To say that the way in which the attention is being focused, and the specific issues on which it is focused is flawed would be a profound understatement.  

One position being voiced, would, if adopted by the defenders of the 2nd Amendment, do more to undermine it than to uphold it. That is the idea that “some guns are bad”, or that “some guns should only be available to government”, or that the discussion should focus on “needs”, not rights. Because this position, in its various forms, concedes the argument to the gun-banning crowd, it would have the same effect as all other appeasements have had throughout history: it just encourages the other side they can achieve complete victory.

Here's what is wrong with banning guns, types of guns, or specific guns. 1. Rights are rights, not needs. 2. As a practical matter, only the law-abiding gun owners would be affected by any new law, and the guns we may own are not a threat to anyone, anyway. The argument against a ban thus occurs on two levels:

1. Moral and ethical: the right to bear arms is a natural right, the curtailment of which constitutes a prima facie injury to those who choose to exercise it.

2. Pragmatic: banning certain weapons, or types of weapons would not keep criminals from possessing and using them.

On that point, it is quite pragmatic to argue that we who do not commit crimes should have access to the same level of weaponry that is available to criminals.

This all gets very silly, when one considers that the opponents of private firearm ownership are exactly that: opponents of private firearm ownership. For each weapon, of any type, they will present an argument--of sorts--why "no one needs to own one".  Like big cats on the African plain, they pick off stragglers by separating them from the herd.  Today it's military-style weapons; tomorrow it's "powerful" handguns; pretty soon, it's that old single shot .22 squirrel gun your grandfather got when he was 10.

Notice the "herd" has shrunk to the point it is totally defenseless.  Unlike the cats, who only want a meal, the opponents of private firearm ownership truly will not rest until ALL guns, of EVERY type have been outlawed. TO THINK OTHERWISE IS TO MAKE A DREADFUL MISTAKE.

Beyond that, they are part of a larger group that has as its goal rendering the Constitution and all of the Bill of Rights irrelevant. As our President said before the 2008 election, what bothered him about the U.S. Constitution was that it is largely a document that places restrictions on the government. For many of our opponents, that makes the document "seriously flawed"-- so much so that it cannot be fixed by amendment, it must, instead, be treated as a "living document", until every part of it has been re-interpreted, stood on its ear, and until its meaning is the opposite of the original intent. "Animal Farm", déjà vu.

The only sane position to take is to oppose—vigorously oppose any new restrictions on gun ownership.


This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Matt January 14, 2013 at 02:53 PM
Nancy, Great job. Very well written. Your articulation of the slippery sloap we are on in this Country regarding the Constitution was great!!! I am looking forward to some of the other positons people are going to take in the comments on this blog. Thank you for a great article.
Gary January 14, 2013 at 03:55 PM
I agree completely. I would like to add that I find it disgusting that someone suggests that I should compromise with people who blame innocent people for the deaths of those kids... just so the "crisis wouldn't go to waste". I am getting very tired of negotiating away my rights and my children's future to people who blame me for every disaster that happens. No more compromises with these people.
Bringin' Down Briarwood January 15, 2013 at 07:10 AM
RE: " ... only the law-abiding gun owners would be affected by any new law, and the guns we may own are not a threat to anyone, anyway." In case you missed it, you might want to look up who the guns were registered to that killed all those poor Newtown kids. As far as I know, she was law-abiding. But I know, Nancy, don't let the facts or what's left of your soul get in the way of your disgusting stump speech.
Eric Grenier January 17, 2013 at 03:36 AM
In 2001, on a WBEZ program titled "Slavery and the Constitution", Barack Obama said that the Constitution "reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day". He had already explained that the "fundamental flaw" was that "[t]he Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the framers," and that the framers did not "see[] it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth." The gross mischaracterization of this quote is consistent with the even greater mischaracterization of those who merely ask for restricted access to assault rifles and high capacity ammunition magazines that, together with a madman, facilitate mass killing. They don't want to rewrite the Constitution. They don't want to take away the right to gun ownership and self protection. That's like arguing that imposing speed limits is the first step in taking away private cars. Yes, the Constitution hasn't changed, but the weapons have. A reasonable, responsible society often compromises when it comes to ensuring the needs of both the individual and the common good. In so preserving the rights of all, our Constitution does its job when it's used not as a hammer to prevent "slippery slopes" but rather as a framework for reason.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »