Second Ammendment

A few nights ago I watched a debate between a gun control advocate and a constitutional scholar on CNN. For the record I've always been a strong believer in the right to bear arms and the second amendment. I believe that the constitution means what it says, but apparently there must be a large amount of people in this country who can't or obviously have some trouble understanding what words mean.

Now as I watched this debate, I discovered a common flaw in what the gun control advocate said. One of the things that he continuously referred to was how the Constitution was outdated, and followed it up with the predictable myths. Guns kill people, taking away guns will reduce murder, people can't be trusted to do their own thing, they need the government to show them the way, etc. So I figured after taking the day off to relax here, and try and beat the hell out of a chest cold, that I would confront these myths one by one.

The Myth: Guns Kill People.
We've heard this myth implanted in the minds of people at a young age since the late 1970s. Guns are the biggest evil on the planet, and the only way to destroy that evil is to ban it. It seems if you look on both sides of the political spectrum nowadays, all you here is ways to ban or regulate something for "our own good".

Let's think about this statement for a quick second here. "For Your Own Good"? Think, when ever has a multi-million dollar earned politician been concerned with what everyday people like you and me do in our daily lives, that has no effect on their pocketbooks or voting block? If your brain hasn't melted yet from trying to recall one time, I'll encourage you to stop before it does. We don't need anymore mindless zombies voting.

The whole phrase "Guns Kill People" is a blanket statement used to stir up sensationalism in people who don't bother to think for themselves. That's why so many liberals are rabid gun-control freaks. A speaker goes up on stage and talks about how guns are killing little children everyday, and how more restrictions are not enough. We need to stop the true murderer they say, usually ironically stated after they defend a child killer/molestor. Ban the Gun!

But let's look at some real statistics here, courtesy of FedStats.
But someone who actually thinks would roll their eyes, because while kids to get shot and kids to die, far more get killed in car accidents, hit and runs, drownings, and what not. In fact looking at the statistics of the top 20 causes of death of kids ages 5-9, which is that age group that anti-gun lobbyists feed off of, only .46 percent of these kids die of anything related to a firearm. Yes, that's less than half of one percent.

The major COD of children is in fact, Motor Vehicle Accidents, which account for 21% of all deaths in this age bracket, followed by drowning and fires at 5%. I guess the left should spend more time working on movements to ban the use of swimming pools, and legislate a plan to reduce bodies of water at the rate the statistics are currently leaning.

Let's move up to preteens. The statistics once again don't change by much. Death by firearms is once again only .86 percent. Again not even a one percent figure, yet you see all this lobbying and all these soapbox speeches about how children, all over the place, are picking up guns and blowing their brains out and kiling other kids.

Going on up to Teens. Number 1 COD: Motor Vehicle Accidents at 40%. Deaths by guns actually drops to a whopping, get this, .77 percent. Just above two-thirds of one freaking percent. I guess these guns are really magically levitating and killing our children, which brings me to the next major flaw.

Guns just do not go off by themselves. If your son or daughter was shot and killed by someone, would you be out there rallying to give the gun the death penalty or give the murderer the death penalty?. Chances are if someone truly had enough nerve to plan killing someone, they'd find a way whether guns were available or not.

The Myth: Banning Guns Reduces Crime

*BUZZER* WRONG! Europe has been plagued by this problem, and so has Washington DC. Read a book outside of the DNC Platform Guide. Also if someone is holding the law at a such a high regard anyways to find no problem killing someone for no apparent reason, I don't think they would be too worried about the penalties for smuggling in weapons... Just a thought.

The Myth: The Second Amendment Only Applies to Organized Militias and Military.

This is a popular myth, which is routed in absolutely no fact at all. Ask a liberal one day what the second amendment says and they will go on this long tangent about how it only applies to militias, and they will probably, in fact most likely misquote the amendment like they do other ones.

The constitution means what it says and says what it means. It's not a living breathing document, and to discard another myth so I don't have to waste time discussing it, it's not outdated. Our forefathers intended it to last and hold together a common peace in this country, which is often torn apart by radical nutcases in this country. Try reading the Preamble.

It has a little thing in it about Posterity and provided Domestic Tranquility, and I said Domestic Tranquility, not Domestic Tranquilizers!

Let's look at the definition of those two words.

Posterity (noun): succeeding for all future generations collectively.
Domestic (adj): Of or relating to home (In this case America)
Tranquility (noun): peace, disconnected from stress and confusion

So someone explain to me how they can believe the Constitution can be a living breathing document when in the first statement of the Constitution we have statements referring to the Constitution as the all-Sayer in lasting peace and order, and the upholder for Tranquil Domestic Posterity!?

Now getting back to the Second Amendment, but taking into account what I just said, let's break it down here:

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.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state: ONE STATEMENT
The right of the people to keep and bear arms: ANOTHER STATEMENT
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Notice... not one whole statement implying that the militia is the only co-dependant of the Second Amendment. If it was, it most likely would have been worded this way:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

There you go.

The Myth: People can not be trusted with weapons. Government intervention needed.

Look I believe that the government has a responsibility to keep us safe, and for the most part a responsibility to make sure that weapons do not get into the wrong hands. They truly suck at it, but hopefully that can be changed. But no where does it say anything about the government having a responsibility to keep weapons out of everyone's hands but themselves.

Nothing sounds more reminiscent of the reign of Hilter, besides a weapons ban. Nothing sounds more reminiscent of a Red Dawn situation, besides a weapon ban. Nothing sounds more reminiscent of Communist Authoritarianism or Fascist Authoritarianism, than a weapons ban. Think about what these politicians are proposing the next time you hear about their resolution of gun bans.

They are proposing to take your right to defend yourself in your own home away, but still granting government full power to do anything they want. The weapons are not being taken away from the military, not being taken away from federal operations, and most definitely are not being taken away from federal law enforcement. You liberals that claim to fear government intervention of people's personal lives, even though I know you all love the idea of government control... You see absolutely nothing with disarming the people yet not the government?

Let me give a brief summary of why we left Great Britain. We had a tyrannical king, who ruled people's lives with an iron fist. We found an opportunity for freedom in America, and Great Britain seen a way for a screw and grab for more power. We fought against monarchical control. We fought against taxation without representation, we fought for the rights of freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom to defend ourselves, and we used all those rights. So why in the hell would we put our nation at a perfect disadvantage to make these last 220 years worth absolutely nothing but a nice slot on a museum time line?

Think people. It works.