At some point you would think the anti-gun cabal would educate themselves enough to know the facts about guns. Instead of focusing on real concerns such as the mentally ill getting access to a gun they continue to rely on talking points that have no validity. Banning the AR-15 is one of the more common ones these days.
They try to make a case that banning the AR will stop the carnage but the fact is the overwhelming majority of violent crime is handgun related. They’re going after the AR-15 specifically because they view it as low-hanging fruit. They’re convinced they can win that war in the state legislatures.
One need only look at the criteria they consider to make an assault weapon and it’s obviously a sham. Pistol grips, barrel shrouds, collapsible stock and other cosmetic parts that have nothing to do with the lethality of the firearm but the real issue is blaming the inanimate object rather than the individual who uses it. And worse, so many of these school shooters had a litany of psychological problems and encounters with law enforcement that should have been more than enough reason to get the individual psychological help and keep them away from firearms.
One of the most bogus arguments is the notion that the Second Amendment only gives the right to bear arms to the military. This is so wrong on so many levels. First of all, the Constitution in general and the Bill of Rights specifically, do not award rights to John Q. Public; they affirm their rights and specifically limit the power of government.
Among the founding fathers the Federalists were against the Bill of Rights. Liberals have used that fact to say the Founding Fathers really didn’t intend to give the public unlimited freedom but they either misunderstand or are disingenuous because that’s not the case.
The Federalists such as Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison didn’t like the Bill of Rights because they argued that the Constitution didn’t need it. Their perspective was the people and the states kept any powers not given to the federal government. Their fear was a tyrannical government would consider a bill of rights as an all-inclusive list of the rights of citizens and everything else were the rights of government.
The Anti-Federalists such as Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams and James Monroe believed a Bill of Rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty by specifically stating the most sacred rights were clearly guaranteed. Both sides agreed on the rights of John Q, they just disagreed on how to assure those rights would always be recognized.
An ancillary to the liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment is it only applies to muskets. “The Founding Fathers had no way to predict the evolution of firearms into the modern, rapid fire weapons of war that are now available,” they postulate. Ironically that point of view is most often read in Internet blogs on smart phones and iPads which begs the question do they have the right to publish their thoughts since the First Amendment would only apply to quill and parchment but I digress.
What the Founding Fathers did know was that John Q. should have total access to the same weaponry possessed by the military because John Q. was the last line of defense against a government out of control. And that nonsense where the left goes to the extreme and asks, “Does that mean you should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon?” First of all, even a government out of control in this country isn’t going to be nuking its own cities but having said that, what part of law abiding citizen do you not get? Even if I had a nuke on the workbench in my garage, I’m not going to be using it. That’s the point of being a law abiding citizen.
And for the record you intellectual tree stumps, repeating rifles were in existence for more than 100 years before the Bill of Rights was written and the Puckle gun, a multiple shot repeating rifle somewhat of a precursor to the Gatling Gun was well known to the Founding Fathers. Not much of an intellectual leap of faith to project it would morph into a more efficient automatic type firearm in the future.
But the most fundamental lie is if we ban guns criminals won’t have access and violent crime will go away. Again, the hardware is the problem not the individual but individuals have been slaughtering others for time immemorial all the way back to the day Cain killed his brother Able.
Yeah, the government banning guns will solve the problem all right; just as it did with prohibition and the war on drugs. If you’re in the mood to ban something how about we ban those who would attempt to ban law abiding citizens from owning whatever gun they want?