The anti-gun advocates have a hard time hiding their smug glee every time a gun is used in an unfortunate tragedy. They pull out their tired speeches about the gun being the enemy of the people, and additional laws being the only way to protect them.
This, in spite of the fact that dozens of gun laws are broken every time a gun is used to kill someone. But what about rules against screwdrivers?
Where are the grand speeches saying we should ban screwdrivers after the death of one student in Houston by another who stabbed him in the head with one?
What about seatbelts? The little six-year-old boy who was dragged to his death when his mom’s car was stolen, was caught in his seat belt. A feature required by law, to be worn by every passenger. Should the government be responsible for this boy’s death?
What about the little 12-year-old Russian girl on her tenth day in America who is sexually harassed by a 14-year-old boy and then beaten up and disfigured? What about banning fists in school?
Because obviously, it was not the screwdriver, the seatbelt, the fists that cause deaths or mayhem… any more than it is the gun. It was the people misusing them.
If Al Gore and Bill Clinton are so concerned about guns in this country they would immediately dismiss their secret service agents who are armed and according to Al and Bill — dangerous.
Oh, not them? Why is it OK for the Commander in Chief to be surrounded by armed guards while he discusses shredding the constitution and not allowing his “fellow” Americans to just defend themselves?
What about the single woman who lives in apartment alone? Isn’t her life just as precious as the President’s? And what does he think would happen in America if there were no guns ? That we would all live in peace and harmony? No more attacks in public library parking lots with crow bars and sticks? No more throwing bricks at people’s heads, busting ice-skaters knee caps, stabbing and killing rape victims?
No, the mayhem, that he contends exists ONLY because guns are legal, would not only continue, but intensify against innocent victims. If Clinton really believed in gun control, tell him to dismiss his private army that insulates him from the real world, while the rest of the country has to deal with his justice department’s lenient sentencing of criminals that use guns.
Alec Baldwin, a multi-millionaire who is part of the liberal elite in Hollywood, has very definite ideas about how Henry Hyde and Republicans should be treated.
He shared his views during a tirade on the Conan O’Brien show on National TV. He whipped the crowd into a cheering frenzy by suggesting that they go to the Capitol and stone Henry Hyde, and then go to his home and kill his wife and kids.
This is interesting from a man who sued a photographer for trying to take a photo of his new born baby and wife as they returned from the hospital. He is not tolerant of his privacy being violated, yet he will call for the assassination of a public official and their wife and children.
But that aside, Alec Baldwin has now become the biggest argument against gun control. If this man, who obviously has a national forum, can incite millions of people to riot and kill, then the targeted people have no option but to protect themselves and their families by invoking the protection of the 2nd Amendment. So this is the saner, gentler side of liberalism?
The anti-gun advocates always seem to be lobbying for more policemen, more law enforcement, and more power to the justice department to find and prosecute criminals. But why do they trust the government with guns and not their neighbors?
The only difference between their neighbor with a gun, and a policeman with a gun is the uniform.
Shouldn’t we just arm all citizens, deputize them, and make them responsible for their own actions and let them keep their own neighborhoods safe. We can’t trust them you say? Any more than we can trust the FBI that wiretaps, breaks down doors of innocent people, shoots mothers holding their babies, and torches religious people in their compounds?
If we are told by the government that we can’t trust citizens to own guns, this must necessarily include citizens who happen to work for the government. Does the second amendment only apply to Americans who work for the government and wear a uniform?
This is called a police state. I doubt that was what the founding fathers had in mind when they put the Second Amendment into the constitution.
Scholars are continuing the constitutional discussions concerning the Second Amendment and whether or not the word “militia” refers to “people” or the “military.”
This will take a minute. The Amendment doesn’t say the right of the “military,” it says the “people.” The same people who formed a more perfect union as in, “We the…”
One scholar said that “the framers couldn’t have intended to bestow a right to armed insurrection.” But that is precisely what they did and what they meant. The idea was that if the government ever got to the point where individual liberties were denied, the citizens could defend themselves, like the patriots did against the British.
Harvard professor, Laurence Tribe, however, has changed his position and finally admits that militia refers to the individual, not the military. He thinks the Second Amendment assumes that “the Federal government can’t disarm individual citizens without unusually strong justification.”
But what is ironic is that peace-loving liberals, who hate guns and violence have been sending him angry hate mail because he switched his opinion. Lucky for him they don’t own guns.
I am sure that the literacy rate in congress must be pretty high. I am sure they have to read a lot of bills and laws and letters, well at least what is being written about them in the paper. But to see the way members of both parties continue to pretend the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution doesn’t exist can only mean they have never really read it.
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” doesn’t mean we have the right to wear sleeveless dresses. But what is the advice of someone who was around during the drafting of the constitution?
Thomas Jefferson said in 1823, to Justice William Johnson, “On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in the which it was passed.”
That is excellent advice that should be applied today. Even if you are illiterate, common sense will tell you that when the words say “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” . . . it probably means just that.
There is a move to capitalize on the recent shootings in high schools to take guns away from law abiding citizens.
There are 65 million gun owners and 200 million guns in America. If the 65 million people who are regularly classified as nuts, really were, the country would be a totally different place. There would be no law and order, there would be no respect for politicians who irresponsibly spend people’s hard earned money on wasteful boondoggles. There would be no domestic peace and tranquility. There would be many more terrorist acts than the dozen or so reported every year.
Between 1987-1992, about 83,000 crime victims per year used a firearm to defend themselves or their property. 75% did so during a violent crime. 38% of victims defending themselves with a firearm attacked the offender, and the others threatened the offender with the weapon.
To quote an often seen bumper sticker, gun control means hitting your target. This is Nina May at ninamay.com. Reminding you that 200 years ago, it was a group of nuts carrying guns that won for us the right to freely discuss this issue today.
Spike Lee, Alec Baldwin, and Rosie O’Donnell all have something in common. They don’t like the 2nd amendment . . . except when they want to invoke it to commit a violent statement against someone.
Alec Baldwin suggested shooting Henry Hyde’s wife and kids, Spike Lee wants to shoot Charlton Heston, and Rosie O’Donnell thinks Tom Selleck should be lined up with the rest. All because these men are trying to protect freedom guaranteed in the first and second Amendments.
Ironically, all these people believe that the same constitution protects the right of woman to kill her unborn child.
But what would the response be if the retort of Henry Hyde, Charlton Heston and Tom Selleck, had been as ugly and politically motivated?
For example, suggesting that Spike, Alec and Rosie have their brains sucked out after the base of their skull is punctured with scissors, as is done to live babies during a partial birth abortion? That would be considered outrageous, cruel, insensitive and just downright mean.
They are right, it would be… just as suggesting that people who support the 2nd Amendment and freedom, should be shot. This is Nina May challenging hypocrisy.
In the wake of yet another school tragedy, the politicians race to pass legislation that will pin the blame on an inanimate object. A gun.
Even though when students were asked by the President what could be done, and their response was put prayer back in school, politicians still think more anti-gun legislation as the answer.
The truth is, 20 of these laws alone were violated at Columbine High School. That is 20 out 20,000 laws concerning guns.
One more law on the books would not have deterred these two boys because society does not reflect the spirit of the law. Violence is glorified in movies, there is no respect for authority, the laws, adults, or teachers in any show on T.V. Religious leaders are ridiculed and believers are called extremists. Children raise themselves, and the ACLU, along with other search and destroy groups, refuse to allow Internet blocking for kids who surf the net looking for violence and pornography.
The answer is not passing more laws, it is just obeying the ten that God has given us. If we did that, we wouldn’t even need politicians.
I saw a show the other night that features unique video of real life events. One of the scenes, shot by a surveillance camera, was of a robbery in a jewelry store. What was interesting is that the three men who robbed the store and escaped, after intimidating the shop keeper and customers, did this all without any guns.
They had clubs and sticks and long knifes, that they smashed the cases open with. They had ski masks on so you couldn’t identify them, but not a single shot was fired… no one was really harmed… just scared.
I was amazed that I did not read anything in the paper about congress rushing to pass laws about the possession of clubs and long knifes during robberies, or the wearing of ski masks out of season in the act of committing a crime.
They are so eager to blame the weapon instead of the criminal I was certain there would be waiting period for the purchase of knifes.
But criminals aren’t on trial in the court of public opinion… 65 million law abiding gun owners, guns, and the Second Amendment are.