Anyone who knows me or who has had a conversation with me on the topic of gun control and the Second Amendment knows where I stand. And to me, this meme pretty much sums up what I think about others who say they support the second amendment - and then use the word "BUT" when they continue speaking.
And at that point you'd better get ready for a debate, because that's one of my buttons. I absolutely do not understand how anyone could say they're a supporter of the Second Amendment, and then in the same breath turn right around and say "BUT."
"I'm a supporter of the Second Amendment, BUT I think everyone needs to be trained before they carry a gun."
"I'm a supporter of the Second Amendment, BUT I don't think anyone needs to own an (please pardon me for using this BS libtard term) 'assault rifle.'"
"I'm a supporter of the Second Amendment, BUT you don't need an AR-15 to hunt deer."
"I'm a supporter of the Second Amendment, BUT I think everyone needs to have a permit to carry a gun, concealed or otherwise."
I could go on, but you get the idea. These examples are the ones that I hear the most, so let me address them one at a time, and I'll do it in the order they were presented.
I agree that training is a very good idea, BUT the Second Amendment doesn't mention training. That's nothing more than your opinion, and the Amendment - and the rest of the Constitution - doesn't support it.
The term "assault rifle" is a bullshit term invented by the bullshit libtard media to scare the public into accepting their libtard views. The TRUTH is that the US military has NEVER used the term "assault rifle" to officially describe or classify ANY rifle in the inventory. But even if the military did use that term to describe a rifle, the statement that no one "needs to own an assault rifle" is still nothing more than an OPINION which is not supported by the Second Amendment.
In the first place, it's not about 'need.' It's called the "Bill of RIGHTS," not the "Bill of NEEDS." If I want to own and use an AR-15 to hunt deer, then there's no law that says I can't. And by the way, yes, people do use an AR-15 to hunt deer. It wouldn't be my first choice of a rifle to hunt with, but people do use it.
As for that last one, it's simple: "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." The end.
I am a believer in the literal interpretation of the Second Amendment simply because those four words sum it all up. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means one thin and one thing only: any law that is passed that restricts, limits, or prohibits an American citizen from owning, possessing, or carrying a firearm under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES is unconstitutional and therefore ILLEGAL.
Do I believe in firearms training? Absolutely. Do I believe it should be required as a prerequisite to owning or carrying a firearm? NO. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
Do I believe that you need a permit to carry a firearm concealed or not? NO. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
Do I believe the public should be prohibited from owning a certain kind of firearm? NO. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
Let me address two other things about the Second Amendment before I close, something that the libtards and gun-grabbers ALWAYS bring up. I'll be brief.
The "militia" mentioned in the Amendment refers to THE PEOPLE, not the National fuckin' Guard. You have to remember that when the Amendment was written there was no National Guard - hell, there wasn't even a standing army! Only 3% of the colonists in America during the Revolutionary War fought in the conflict, and of that more than 90% of them were not members of the Colonial Army but were members of their own state MILITIA. So NO, the militia referred to is NOT the National Guard, but the PEOPLE WHO COMPOSE A MILITIA. (And if you don't really know what a 'militia' is, this is when you should go look it up and educate yourself.)
The term "THE PEOPLE" does NOT mean the state itself, or the governing body of that state. It means the CITIZENS of the United States - the PEOPLE, not the state or the government. Even the most staunchest of libtards will agree that in the other nine Amendments, whenever the term "the people" is used it refers to the individual citizen which is exactly what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote them. So why in the living hell would it NOT mean the citizens in this Amendment as well? Because the libtards can't win an argument against the Amendment and the right it guarantees if they say that it does, that's why.
And lastly, just for giggles, the term "security of a FREE STATE" refers to a state of being, said state being FREE, and not the 'state' as a parcel of land occupied by the people.
So that's it, then. This is where I stand on the Second Amendment. I encourage discussion and debate on this topic, but be warned - you're not gonna change my mind.
Deo Vindice
IHC
No comments:
Post a Comment