Jump to content

Bearing Arms

Why You Should Never Trust An Anti-Gunner’s Take On The Second Amendment

Recommended Posts

When it comes to the Second Amendment, you’d think the text would be plain enough. For all the legalese we see in laws today, the Bill of Rights amendments are pretty straight-forward.

If I could go back in time and help influence the writing of it, about the only thing I’d change is the phrase “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” only because I could tell them that future generations would use that as justification to ignore the rest. I understand the meaning well enough, but others don’t.

And when it comes to the meaning of the Second Amendment, you can never trust an anti-gunner’s take what is and isn’t an assault on the Second Amendment.

For example, this past week, the Chicago Sun-Times ran an opinion piece where I came across a claim from the paper about the Second Amendment. The context is within something called 31 bullets, which are a bunch of bullet point of items they want to see enacted in some way.

That’s when I came across this particular tidbit:

With “31 bullets” we have tried to arm young people, and all our readers, with hard facts and a practical agenda. And we have done so, we want to stress, firmly within the strictures of the Second Amendment, always seeking common ground in the moderate middle.

There is no threat to the rights of a gun owners, that is to say, in calling for the inclusion of a trigger lock whenever a gun is sold, as we do in Bullet 2. It is not an assault on the Second Amendment to call for an age restriction of 21 for anybody who wants to buy a military-style weapon of mass death, such as an AR-15 rifle, as we do in Bullet 21.

Let’s break some of this down a bit.

There is no threat to the rights of a gun owners, that is to say, in calling for the inclusion of a trigger lock whenever a gun is sold, as we do in Bullet 2.

Except that every new gun I’ve ever purchased has already come with a gun lock as it stands. All of those run through the action of the weapon, making it impossible to use until it’s unlocked.

I’m sure the folks in Chicago would agree that such a lock should be just as good as a trigger lock, right?

But the problem, and why this is a threat to the rights of gun owners, is that it such a thing would necessitate an end to private sales of firearms. I’d have to go through an FFL holder so that someone licensed could make sure that a lock was provided on a used firearm. It would also drive up the costs for used firearms, many of which no longer have locking devices. Dealers would have to provide those devices at their expense, which would then be passed on to consumers.

Since used firearms are the primary source of quality guns for low-income individuals, this will negatively impact the poor who often find themselves forced to live in bad neighborhoods.

So yeah, it’s a threat.

Now the next bit:

It is not an assault on the Second Amendment to call for an age restriction of 21 for anybody who wants to buy a military-style weapon of mass death, such as an AR-15 rifle, as we do in Bullet 21.

Of course it’s an assault on the Second Amendment. Only a brain-dead wad of chewing gum could really believe it’s not.

Age restrictions mean lawful and law-abiding adults are barred from purchasing a firearm that is available to anyone else. This is discriminatory, and the inflammatory language betrayed the bias about these guns in the first place.

Look, we’re talking about legal adults. They can vote, sign contracts, enlist in the military, and a whole host of other things. They can do these things because we have decided they’re adults. That’s the age we’ve set in stone as the limit. This is when their rights essentially kick in.

Yet now, we have people trying to say that they don’t really get all their rights upon reaching adulthood. While we limit the drinking age–something that’s a topic for another day and another place–we don’t limit their right to vote, to travel freely, or much of anything else. What they’re calling for is the limiting of a constitutionally protected right simply because of someone’s age.

How is that not an assault on the Second Amendment? Pushing someone’s Second Amendment rights away because of their age is beyond ridiculous.

But at the end of the day, that’s what anti-gunners do. They take the idea of your rights, assault them at every turn, then pretend that no such assault actually occurred. It’s why you can never trust their interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Ever.

The post Why You Should Never Trust An Anti-Gunner’s Take On The Second Amendment appeared first on Bearing Arms.

View the full article

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dig what your saying but I'm(were) the pro-gun side there needs no argument it's are God givin right nobody can take it away as are many other issues.I like how you actually understand the difference between in-unalienable rights i hope a slew of left & right hear you talk about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun control is never about reducing violent crime, it is about people and population control.  It is a systematic step by step process with the only real goal being eventual complete gun confiscation and subjugation of the citizenry.  It is about taking away the citizens ability to resist tyranny.  Eventually, the only "citizens" will be the elite who completely control everything and everybody else.  The United States is the only world power that recognizes the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  Once this right is nullified, the globalist elite will then have nothing stopping them from their goal of world domination and rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frustrating isn't it resister....it's not complacency it's lack of caring because everybody has this same thought "I can't change it myself"so they give up i think it's people like you and let freedom ring,fixer,hell even Megatron that makes people see they aint doing it by thereselves...so keep it up keep teaching people it's a thankless job but thanks yaw!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel not only should we fight against more anti gun laws, we should work diligently to remove almost all of them and elect officials that state they will work to remove infringing gun laws.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, The Resister said:

 

While I support what you're saying, I want to introduce laws that will not conflict with our constitutional liberties AND will  reduce gun violence without gun control.  WHEN we do that, there is no credible argument for not repealing some of the more onerous gun laws that we are having to endure.

 

Agreed, as long as it doesn't use the farce of gun control solving violence and doesn't trample any other of our rights.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Resister said:

 

But, even in giving you the bare bones of this issue, I'm long winded.  It isn't an easy topic.  It requires attention to detail and it isn't always exciting.  So, while many people may ignore the hard work part of this, I want you to know that I appreciate your efforts to understand it fully.  Real change never happens among the masses.  Think about it.  Jesus changed the world with a dozen men.  It doesn't matter who believes he was the son of God or not.  He changed the world.  There were a mere 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence.  And, if you look at the other side of the political spectrum, Adolf Hitler started out with a few guys sitting around a table and drinking beer.  He took a country about the size of Texas and almost created an evil empire of world wide proportions.  The longest journey requires you to take the first step.

 

heck yeah bro so much research and I'm still learning it take dedication to this subject...it will only be a handful of us to start but the whole deplorable army will follow(haha)...there isn't away to stop these violent shootings completely i agree it would help to get are country off of depending on drugs and proper mental institutes but I think at this point parents need to discipline there kids then in 20 years or so the crazy might be extinct.id like to continue this conversation but I'm about toast right now.have a great night yaw.!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give me a while I gotta check this out...I've read some of this before I found your right but I wanna research before I comment and make no sense to you your way more educated on this then me.thanks again for the great read and I find it awesome to confirm your theory nd make it a fact(atleast to me)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Who Viewed the Topic

    1 member has viewed this topic:
    GregWrench
×

Important Information

Your Privacy Is Important To Us Learn More: Privacy Policy