This’ll drive ‘em nuts...
The next time some whiny bitch tells you that the NRA is evil because they stand in the way of “commonsense gun control”, shove the truth up their ass as follows:
Regrettably, the truth of the matter is that it is the forces of gun control who are the ones standing in the way of “reform”. It is groups like the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence and the Million Mom March that are the roadblocks to the policies you seek to implement.
You see, since the “gun control” movement began over forty years ago, the people at the heart of it have had, as their ultimate goal, a complete and comprehensive ban on the private ownership of handguns and the strict restriction of long arm ownership to those whom the government approves.
They have convinced themselves somehow that the second amendment to the constitution is irrelevant. Now, they have had some help. If you view the law as nothing more than what a particular judge says it is, then if you get some decisions that go your way, it is easy to convince yourself that you’re right. U.S. v. Cruikshank; Presser v. Illinois; U.S. v. Miller – these and a few others are the hooks on which the gun control crowd hang their hats.
Now if you believe in the original intent of a law, however, then you are not going to consider these precedents as having any import.
So, it then becomes necessary to see who has the better argument. It is easily argued that both Cruikshank and Presser were wrongly decided viz. the 14th amendment and Miller said nothing about the meaning of the second amendment. Following on, any decision that uses these as their basis is equally flawed.
Today, there is today no constitutional scholar worthy of that term who doesn’t recognize the intent of the founding fathers. Thus, if you are a “gun control” advocate, you either cling feverishly to stare decisis in the face of strong evidence of erroneous judgment or you admit that the people of the United States have the right to keep and bear arms and you start arguing about the meaning of the word “infringed”.
To take the latter course is simply unthinkable for the “gun control” crowd. This is strong proof of their totalitarian intent.
Since they won’t admit that the people have any right to keep and bear arms, any and everything they do is highly suspect. Because they won’t admit the real meaning and validity of the second amendment, the NRA recognizes that regardless of what they say, their endgame remains the same. Thus, the NRA opposes them at every turn. When there is no hard and fast backstop to keep legislation or judicial activism from overreaching, no ground can safely be given up. When every “gun control” scheme enacted is welcomed by shouts of “It’s a start!” no proposal will be unopposed. The NRA understands that there is no such thing as an unlimited right, but until the other side - at a minimum - acknowledges the existence of that right, there can be no discussion between the two sides.
If, on the other hand, the courts and legislatures and people around the country had a firm notion of what is acceptable and what crosses the line into the unconstitutional, then a real discussion of a firearms registry could take place. A genuine exchange about the efficacy of a licensing system may happen. A calm talk about the possibility of storage requirements is conceivable.
As it currently stands, however, as long as the forces of “gun control” persist in their perverse denial of the reality of the second amendment, they frustrate their own avowed goals and prolong the bloodshed.
Regrettably, the truth of the matter is that it is the forces of gun control who are the ones standing in the way of “reform”. It is groups like the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence and the Million Mom March that are the roadblocks to the policies you seek to implement.
You see, since the “gun control” movement began over forty years ago, the people at the heart of it have had, as their ultimate goal, a complete and comprehensive ban on the private ownership of handguns and the strict restriction of long arm ownership to those whom the government approves.
They have convinced themselves somehow that the second amendment to the constitution is irrelevant. Now, they have had some help. If you view the law as nothing more than what a particular judge says it is, then if you get some decisions that go your way, it is easy to convince yourself that you’re right. U.S. v. Cruikshank; Presser v. Illinois; U.S. v. Miller – these and a few others are the hooks on which the gun control crowd hang their hats.
Now if you believe in the original intent of a law, however, then you are not going to consider these precedents as having any import.
So, it then becomes necessary to see who has the better argument. It is easily argued that both Cruikshank and Presser were wrongly decided viz. the 14th amendment and Miller said nothing about the meaning of the second amendment. Following on, any decision that uses these as their basis is equally flawed.
Today, there is today no constitutional scholar worthy of that term who doesn’t recognize the intent of the founding fathers. Thus, if you are a “gun control” advocate, you either cling feverishly to stare decisis in the face of strong evidence of erroneous judgment or you admit that the people of the United States have the right to keep and bear arms and you start arguing about the meaning of the word “infringed”.
To take the latter course is simply unthinkable for the “gun control” crowd. This is strong proof of their totalitarian intent.
Since they won’t admit that the people have any right to keep and bear arms, any and everything they do is highly suspect. Because they won’t admit the real meaning and validity of the second amendment, the NRA recognizes that regardless of what they say, their endgame remains the same. Thus, the NRA opposes them at every turn. When there is no hard and fast backstop to keep legislation or judicial activism from overreaching, no ground can safely be given up. When every “gun control” scheme enacted is welcomed by shouts of “It’s a start!” no proposal will be unopposed. The NRA understands that there is no such thing as an unlimited right, but until the other side - at a minimum - acknowledges the existence of that right, there can be no discussion between the two sides.
If, on the other hand, the courts and legislatures and people around the country had a firm notion of what is acceptable and what crosses the line into the unconstitutional, then a real discussion of a firearms registry could take place. A genuine exchange about the efficacy of a licensing system may happen. A calm talk about the possibility of storage requirements is conceivable.
As it currently stands, however, as long as the forces of “gun control” persist in their perverse denial of the reality of the second amendment, they frustrate their own avowed goals and prolong the bloodshed.
posted by Voolfie at 9:23 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home