I usually don’t let the liberal ant-gun morons get under my skin because, frankly, they are usually either stupid or just misguided by their own irrational fear. BUT…tonight I was going back and forth with a couple of rocket-surgeons in a political blog. The question being posed by the site was: “Should states have the right to ban guns for the average American?” I posted my obvious (and correct) opinion and began to read the countless other posts as they came in. Many mirrored my own and several were intelligently written but sadly and predictably misguided wrong answers. Then came “R.O.” I will not use his real name in this post because I’m confident that based upon the combination of his physical appearance and his amazing lack of common sense, he likely deals with enough ridicule on a daily basis as it is.
Mr. O. proceeded to answer his question as follows;
- Should states have the right to ban guns for the average American? -
Yes, I agree that states should have the right to ban guns for the average American. In fact I think it should be a decision made on federal level. I would like to see a total ban on the right to own a gun in the country, because too many people are abusing those rights and it is not safe to walk on the streets alone anymore, even in broad daylight.
As you can imagine, I was forced to respond. But I was nice. ;-)
I just can’t, for the life of me, comprehend the fact that FREE AMERICAN CITIZENS could actually believe the words that this person typed. He felt strongly enough about this, that when he read the question on the blog, he was compelled to form that thought and then type it into the dialog box, sending it out to be read by anyone who chose to read it. He believes that, not only, the states should be able to ban all guns but it should be done by the federal government. His reasoning is, “…because too many people are abusing the rights making it unsafe to walk the streets…”
OK…..I will say it again, because…well, this is my blog and it happens to be a SECOND AMENDMENT blog at that:
THE OBJECT
A handgun is an object, not unlike a hammer or a pencil or a pillow or a car. Each of those objects can be safely used in a manner which is within the laws of man as well as common sense. Each of those objects can also be used in a dangerous manner which is not lawful and that may cause injury or death. A hammer cannot swing itself. If I swing a hammer correctly, only striking the head of a nail, I can build a shelter for a person in need. The same hammer can be used incorrectly and illegally to take the life of that same person. If I use my pencil to stab rather than write; If I use my car to ram, rather than for transportation; If I hold my pillow over the face of a person, the outcome will be quite different than if I were to lay my head on it at bedtime. A handgun is only as dangerous as the hand in which it is held and it cannot fire itself. The hammer, pencil, pillow, car or any other object used incorrectly, cannot operate itself and is not at fault for the outcome.
THE HUMAN
The HUMAN is at fault. The HUMAN that has broken the law…is at fault. The law-abiding citizen who legally keeps and bears his handgun, is statistically less likely to be involved in any type of crime, let alone a violent gun-related offense. The law-abiding citizen who legally keeps and bears his handgun IS NOT AT FAULT for the actions of the other HUMAN who chooses to BREAK THE LAW. Are you still with me? This is really not difficult stuff.
COMMON SENSE
I recently wrote a letter to our famous Governor, strongly urging him to veto a couple of anti-gun bills that are just sitting on his desk. I asked the Goverator if there was any logic in being forced to sell your Harley because your neighbor got a ticket in his Hummer? Not only was it not the fault of the Hummer…but it was not YOUR fault that your neighbor chose to break the existing law against speeding. Does it make any sense at all, to punish the law-abiding citizens in attempt to control the behavior of those who will always continue to break the same laws? At the very least, the law-abiding citizen should be allowed to exercise his natural, Constitutionally guaranteed, individual right to protect himself and his family from that other citizen who refuses to respect the law.
THE CONSTITUTION
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America was adopted on December 15th, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. This was one of the rights that was specifically singled out for protection…A right that was so important to the architects of freedom that they placed a guarantee in the Constitution making sure that every generation of Americans would continue to enjoy the natural right that predated even the very document in which it was written. ”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.” Some people have a problem with the wording of the amendment itself while others choose a convenient interpretation which favors their particular political agenda. I believe that it says exactly what they meant. Some believe that the right extends only to members of a state “militia” and only as a group. This notion was dispelled by the Supreme Court last year as a result of the “Heller” case which determined that the right is one that belongs to the individual. Others cling to to the words “well regulated” in their attempt to over-regulate the keeping and bearing of arms to the point of non-posession. Hamilton addressed both issues in Federalist Paper #29 stating;
…”well regulated” used in conjunction with “militia” described a characteristic of the militia that is based on their perfection or proficiency. Thus, “well regulated” in conjunction with “militia” means the militia are effective, efficient, or proficient. Hamilton’s usage makes it perfectly clear that “well regulated” does NOT mean regulated by the government or under government regulation. It refers to a characteristic inherent in the militia themselves (the people at large, the great body of the citizens, the whole nation) who constitute a capable or effective militia. A disarmed populace could not logically be described as an effective militia.”
I am still at a loss when I listen to a grabber spew the Brady talking-points and completely disregard simple common sense and the Constitution of the united states.
All of that being said…This week’s DUH Award goes to R.O. for his staggering lack of simple common sense and his complete disregard for the freedom guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Bravo, you idiot!
