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 guns...so 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”...one 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 sight...so 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