It is at once tragic and outrageous that an ill and evil person (yes, "evil" - there are plenty of mentally ill among us who do NOT kill children) was able to walk into a school and, unopposed by any meaningful force, methodically kill 20 children and various other adults.
I was stunned, but not surprised. And I mourn for and with the families who lost those they love. And I, with so many others, take comfort in knowing that those little children have been received into the bosom of the Lord.
Before the facts were fully known, the anti-gun forces in media and in Washington were churning out their propaganda. And one of the conversations that continues today is the analysis of the "need" Americans may or may not have for military-style weapons.
Today I will avoid discussing the weapon and will focus on the right, given by Nature and Nature's God and enshrined, ensured and protected by the Constitution of the United States of America to defend one's life, the lives of one's loved ones, and one's property by keeping, bearing and using arms.
The Second Amendment says, "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."
That's the whole amendment. I'm not going to talk about who the "militia" is and who the "regulators" are. Just read the Third Amendment and review the Quartering Act for some clarity.
The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
That's the whole amendment.
Those rights are ones our founders believed derived from God and that Government had a sacred obligation to respect and protect.
The idea that the right to keep and bear arms ensured by the Second Amendment can somehow be limited, restricted or defined on the basis of "need" is absurd.
We seriously entertain discussion among the Wizards of Smart about whether or not any American NEEDS a 30-round magazine or NEEDS a rifle with a pistol grip or NEEDS to shoot bullets as fast as she can pull a trigger.
NO one wants to take away your grandpa's single-shot 20 gauge, or your dad's bolt-action deer rifle he bought when he got back from Viet Nam! Heavens! We're not talking about weapons that have "LEGITIMATE" uses.
No. We're talking about weapons that are bad for society.
How is that line of thought different from saying that one is free to write a newspaper editorial as long as it is uplifting, enlightening, and in no way criticizes the President of the United States? Or how is it different from saying that one can post online any video they want to, as long as they don't show policemen arresting someone? Or how is it different from allowing someone to subscribe to any magazine they like, as long as it doesn't depict "immoral" or "depraved" acts or images?
Imagine the discussion in Congress about newspaper editorial columns and personal blogs. Imagine the conversation in Congress about Maxim Magazine. Does an American really NEED to compare George Bush to Adolph Hitler in a newspaper? Can't she simply rely on Congress or the Supreme Court to discover his genocidal plans and impeach the man? Does an American really NEED to post the video he shot when he was pulled over for driving 29 mph in a school zone at night? Shouldn't he realize that the act of recording a traffic stop might interfere with the officer's ability to perform his duties? Does any American really NEED to see pictures of half-naked women? Really? What's going to happen if they don't?
Yet these expressions are fervently defended by the most ardent anti-gun activists as "rights" that are "guaranteed" under the lauded "First Amendment".
NO one wants to keep you from writing a newspaper column or keeping up a blog! We're not talking about making everyone get "Guideposts Magazine" in their home! We're not talking about "LEGITIMATE" speech, here.
No. We're talking about speech that is bad for society.
You may wear your ratty little Che Guevara tee-shirt down to Starbuck's because you have the sacred right to make a statement. If you want to idolize a mass murderer, you can do that. Hell, you may even go on TV tonight and use your First Amendment right to pontificate about the virtue of taking away everyone else's Second Amendment right.
I'll do you one better. I carry my pistols and keep my rifle and high-capacity magazines ready because I have the sacred right to do it - and God forbid they may be useful someday in stopping a bad man who is hellbent on hurting me or my family. And as long as I use my Second Amendment right, you can rest assured that no one will take away your First Amendment right.
Let's see your tee-shirt do that.
I was stunned, but not surprised. And I mourn for and with the families who lost those they love. And I, with so many others, take comfort in knowing that those little children have been received into the bosom of the Lord.
Before the facts were fully known, the anti-gun forces in media and in Washington were churning out their propaganda. And one of the conversations that continues today is the analysis of the "need" Americans may or may not have for military-style weapons.
Today I will avoid discussing the weapon and will focus on the right, given by Nature and Nature's God and enshrined, ensured and protected by the Constitution of the United States of America to defend one's life, the lives of one's loved ones, and one's property by keeping, bearing and using arms.
The Second Amendment says, "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."
That's the whole amendment. I'm not going to talk about who the "militia" is and who the "regulators" are. Just read the Third Amendment and review the Quartering Act for some clarity.
The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
That's the whole amendment.
Those rights are ones our founders believed derived from God and that Government had a sacred obligation to respect and protect.
The idea that the right to keep and bear arms ensured by the Second Amendment can somehow be limited, restricted or defined on the basis of "need" is absurd.
We seriously entertain discussion among the Wizards of Smart about whether or not any American NEEDS a 30-round magazine or NEEDS a rifle with a pistol grip or NEEDS to shoot bullets as fast as she can pull a trigger.
NO one wants to take away your grandpa's single-shot 20 gauge, or your dad's bolt-action deer rifle he bought when he got back from Viet Nam! Heavens! We're not talking about weapons that have "LEGITIMATE" uses.
No. We're talking about weapons that are bad for society.
How is that line of thought different from saying that one is free to write a newspaper editorial as long as it is uplifting, enlightening, and in no way criticizes the President of the United States? Or how is it different from saying that one can post online any video they want to, as long as they don't show policemen arresting someone? Or how is it different from allowing someone to subscribe to any magazine they like, as long as it doesn't depict "immoral" or "depraved" acts or images?
Imagine the discussion in Congress about newspaper editorial columns and personal blogs. Imagine the conversation in Congress about Maxim Magazine. Does an American really NEED to compare George Bush to Adolph Hitler in a newspaper? Can't she simply rely on Congress or the Supreme Court to discover his genocidal plans and impeach the man? Does an American really NEED to post the video he shot when he was pulled over for driving 29 mph in a school zone at night? Shouldn't he realize that the act of recording a traffic stop might interfere with the officer's ability to perform his duties? Does any American really NEED to see pictures of half-naked women? Really? What's going to happen if they don't?
Yet these expressions are fervently defended by the most ardent anti-gun activists as "rights" that are "guaranteed" under the lauded "First Amendment".
NO one wants to keep you from writing a newspaper column or keeping up a blog! We're not talking about making everyone get "Guideposts Magazine" in their home! We're not talking about "LEGITIMATE" speech, here.
No. We're talking about speech that is bad for society.
You may wear your ratty little Che Guevara tee-shirt down to Starbuck's because you have the sacred right to make a statement. If you want to idolize a mass murderer, you can do that. Hell, you may even go on TV tonight and use your First Amendment right to pontificate about the virtue of taking away everyone else's Second Amendment right.
I'll do you one better. I carry my pistols and keep my rifle and high-capacity magazines ready because I have the sacred right to do it - and God forbid they may be useful someday in stopping a bad man who is hellbent on hurting me or my family. And as long as I use my Second Amendment right, you can rest assured that no one will take away your First Amendment right.
Let's see your tee-shirt do that.
Posts
