Search This Blog

Saturday, October 10, 2015

The right of self-defense shall not be infringed

I got this topic today from my brother, Michael. Thanks bro.

Obama's been stumping recently for more gun control, or perhaps a better term than gun control is gun confiscation. Liberals believe that if there are less guns then logically there will be less violence, less crime, less murder, less suicide. In liberal parlance, less guns means more peace. Are they right? It turns out that, actually, you don't have to guess! That's right! There was a time not too long ago in geological terms when there were no guns. Nope! It was peace and tranquility. It was lions laying down with lambs. It was THE DARK AGES YOU MORONIC DUNCE!... okay okay calming down now. I was channeling my inner Sam Kinison. And maybe that's why liberals hate guns. What if you're crazy? Who wants a lunatic crooning lullabies to his arsenal?

Did our forefathers put the right of self-defense in the Constitution? Here's the 2nd 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.
Liberals AKA Democrats AKA progressives AKA Barack Hussein Obama will argue that of all the people owning guns, very few indeed are part of any kind of "regulated Militia." They will also argue that in those times, "Arms" were black powder muskets, taking quite some time to load and shoot a single ball of lead. Nobody expected improvements in armaments. The musket was the most deadly thing on earth at the time. Our benighted founding fathers lacking any grounding at all in history were probably completely unaware that Arms got better and better as the years passed.

After all, for thousands of years people used rocks and sticks as "Arms", and for more hundreds of years they used bronze knives and later iron swords, and then even later for more hundreds of years it was armor and horses and lances and bows and cannons and trebuchet, and finally to top it all off it was finally muskets. Yes muskets. These modern day weapons represented the acme of technology. After pouring in the powder and ramming it down you put in your pellet of lead and touched it off with a match or something. Honestly, since the notion of "Arms" had never in the entire history of the world ever gotten more deadly, how, I ask you, HOW could our founding fathers have EVER expected anything perhaps even more deadly than a musket?

[By the way, the entire preceding paragraph was shrieked Sam-Kinison-style in an ever-louder ever shriller and ever more sarcastic tone. AH AHHH AHHHHHHHH!!!!]

We mustn't forget that part about a "well regulated Militia." Let's parse that phrase, shall we? If you read the statement logically, it says that because X is true, then Y is the law of the land. WHAT WHAT WHAT?! You say that X is false? It doesn't matter. You'll notice that the 2nd Amendment doesn't say While X continues to be true then Y is the law of the land. The founding fathers simply gave a reason for declaring that Y is the law of the land. They did not limit the right to bear arms, exactly the opposite was the case. They said ... "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

I would argue that since that constitution was ratified by the United States, the right to bear Arms has been infringed upon again and again and again. Recently Ben Carson has come under fire. He argued that if the seven million Jews in Nazi Germany had owned guns, history might have turned out differently. Alright Ben, I just going to come out and say it... THAT'S THE FACT, JACK!



And so now, we get down to brass tacks. Is it okay for you to defend yourself from an aggressor? Let's take a look at bullfighting for the answer. The bull is probably going to lose, but just to be sure, do they cut off its horns? That's stupid! If somebody attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself.

You want to know what it was like before a man could load a pistol and confront his attacker on equal terms? Your forefather was most likely a peasant. He lived a life of starvation and hardship. Ninety percent of his crop was confiscated at sword point for his entire life. He faced an armored man wielding a sword and shield. Every knobby bone in his body stood out as he shivered in the cold. He didn't stand a chance.

If that sounds like world peace to you ... then you're too stupid to continue living, so do us all a favor, and shuffle off, already.

2 comments:

  1. You should look more into his Brady ratings. He's basically the NRA's bff...http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/76717-gun-control-group-gives-obama-an-f

    ReplyDelete
  2. [Obama's] the NRA's BFF? No you're living in a fool's paradise. Perhaps it is [you] who should look into his NRA rating? Oh let's face facts...everybody on Earth hates Obama's guts. I'm not aware of a single positive quality that our president possesses, unless it's the ability to read from a teleprompter.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/27/obama-pushing-for-largest-gun-grab-in-american-his/?cache

    ReplyDelete