Friday, May 10, 2013

More thoughts on the Open Carry March #130704

First off, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of the people to not only “keep”, but also to “bear”, arms...meaning that they may not only be possessed, but also held upon their person.

The notion that our 2nd Amendment rights may be regulated in a manner prohibiting the peaceful carrying of firearms in public because there are also restrictions upon the 1st Amendment is, in all actuality, simply ridiculous and intellectually dishonest. Restrictions on a person's freedoms of religion, speech, and assembly are lawful under our constitution only when used to prevent the free exercise of rights by others.

The dictionary definition of the verb “infringe” is “To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate”. If the right to carry a firearm in a peaceful manner is completely outlawed, the right of the people to bear arms has been infringed, period. The act of bearing arms is, in the very literal sense of the word, merely carrying them.

Obviously, it is illegal to go around randomly pointing a firearm at someone that is not a threat to a person's life or liberty, as that is an infringement upon his right to be secure in his person...a right that is guaranteed by our 4th Amendment. However, peacefully existing on a public street is not a threat to another person. There is a difference between “brandishing” (“To wave or flourish menacingly”) and merely possessing upon ones' person (to “bear”). Brandishing arms is a violation of a person's 4th Amendment rights, while bearing arms is not.

Now let's move right along and look at the logic of those who are opposed to this demonstration, they fall into three camps. One would be the government officials, namely the DC Metro Police and their spokeswhore chief, who decry the notion of peaceful people carrying guns as a threat to safety...while suggesting that they should be stopped and arrested by force at the hands of people with *gasp!* firearms. The second would be the Obamaton leftist camp who also scream about the supposed threat to public safety...while simultaneously suggesting that the marchers be mowed down by police officers carrying *gasp!* firearms. The third would be the so-called “conservatives” and “libertarians” who want to keep claiming that the march should not take place because it is a violation of the law.

Let's get this straight here. The police say it's somehow “dangerous” for people to walk down the street carrying they plan to meet these people with guns. And tasers. And batons. And pepper spray. That's absolutely brilliant. Given the statistical accuracy of these “highly-trained brave officers” in on-duty firefights, I'm just not buying the notion that it's somehow safe for them to walk down the street with guns while it's unsafe for you or I to do it.

The Obamatons, self-described “liberals”, “left-wingers”, and those “in favor of common-sense gun laws”, claim that having a bunch of “guntard toothless hillbillies marching down the street with their AK47s is a threat to public safety”. Their solution? When not expressing a desire to see them murdered in the street for walking down it while possessing inanimate objects carried peacefully upon their backs, they are also planning a “counter-demonstration” that entails meeting the armed march with squirt guns and water balloons in order to harass, annoy, and assault people peaceably walking down the street. Just to be sure everyone understands this brilliant logic, people having firearms on their person in public are dangerous individuals that should be shot on the appropriate response, in their eyes, is to pelt them with water balloons. Yeah, people with guns are dangerous, so in order to demonstrate this danger, they're going to actively provoke them with water balloons. That's beyond brilliant. That's Einstein-level genius.

Then we have the folks who are self-proclaimed protectors of our gun rights, but do nothing aside from complain about liberals, worshiping at the altar of Media Personality XX, and claim that because something is considered illegal by the state that it must not be done.

These are, perhaps, the people I take the most issue with. At least the cops and the commies are honest about who they are. I would like to point out that the people at Fox News and WorldNetDaily don't give a rat's ass about you. They don't know your name, they wouldn't speak to you if it wasn't at a book signing, and they really just don't give a flying fuck about your life or liberty. Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, mAnn Coulter, Sean Hannity, etc do not hate people like Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews...they LOVE these people, because pretending to hate them makes for good entertainment and a healthy paycheck. Pro wrestling is fake, son. Grow the hell up already. Your “No Spin Zone” doormat may impress your neighbors, but O'Reilly and Maher have as much of an impact upon the fate of your God-given rights as Hulk Hogan had on the cold war when the WWF was staging his "fights" against the Bolsheviks and the Iran Sheik. Likewise, self-proclaimed “liberals” and “conservatives” have as much chance of changing this world as fans of the Boston Red Sox and New York Mets. They can hate each other all they want, but in the end, they're nothing more than useful idiots used as pawns by the people who actually do control your life. Real heroes have real mugshots.

The notion that a person should not stand up for what is right, simply because it is illegal, is morally reprehensible. At various points in this nation's history, beer was illegal while slavery wasn't. It took people being willing to stand up for what was right (and occasionally arrested, shot, beaten, hanged, etc) in order for change to be effected.

If not me, who? If not here, where? If not this, what? If not now, when?

Isaiah 6:8, and may the Force be with you.

No comments:

Post a Comment