Defending the 2nd Amendment
On December 14th 2012, the tragedy of Sandy Hook killed 26 innocent teachers and kids. RIP. Every day since the tragedy, the liberal media has called for different kinds of bans on guns. However, members of the public, including the NRA, have been speaking out, trying to defend the 2nd Amendment. 2nd Amendment defenders have an extremely strong case, here are some facts to help you in your next heated gun argument.
2nd Amendment – In 1787, at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, America’s Founding Fathers discussed every topic from states, to slavery to the Constitution. The Founding Fathers and Conservatives believe that our inalienable rights come from God and our Creator, and not from government. Conservatives believe you are born with these rights. If you believe in inalienable rights, no temporary politician or government can give you any rights. Therefore, they cannot and should not be able to take any away from you.
Assault Weapons – The media has popularized the term “assault weapons” since the Sandy Hook tragedy, and their definition of an assault weapon is a certain type of semi-automatic gun or military style gun (guns that look like the ones the military possess, however they perform a lot different, in action) and this leads to several questions. If I go out tomorrow and buy a gun for the sole purpose of self-defense and never use it, is that still considered an assault rifle? Likewise, if someone goes out tomorrow and kills someone with a baseball bat or a hammer, are their baseball bats and hammers considered assault weapons? Should they be banned?
Murders – The liberal argument says that if we remove assault weapons from society, there would be no mass murders. Two of the biggest mass murders in my lifetime included no guns – 9/11 used only 4 planes and Stanley knifes and the Oklahoma Bombing. Also, if guns are so bad and need to be banned, how come a country that actively asks its population to carry fire arms, never has mass school shootings (country is Israel)? When we think of all the gun massacres of the recent past, how come NONE happened in an area that permitted the carrying of fire arms? The point here is simple – bad people will always do bad things whether a country makes it legal or illegal for its population to possess fire arms and Ronald Reagan summed it up best when he said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” If someone is determined to kill or assault, they will not stop killing and assaulting just because guns are illegal.
Bill of Rights – Another statement used right now is, “You don’t NEED an assault rifle to go hunting,” or “you don’t need 30 bullets in a clip.” On his radio show, Mark Levin has said that it is called the “Bill of Rights” and not the “Bill of Needs.” Mark says we are now living in a Post-Constitutional America, and this will only furthermore be proved if America lets temporary politicians and/or a President acting liking a dictator, to remove the 2nd amendment from a free people. Americans have inalienable rights to own a gun and if someone decides to go hunting with a military style rifle with 100 rounds in it, or decides to buy a hand gun for self-protection and use it in a responsible manner, who are you, as an individual, or you as politician to say “No, you can’t have that”, or “You don’t need that”.
Guns – Assume, for a minute, that America enforces a gun ban. What do you think would happen? Effectively, a gun ban would only remove guns from good honest citizens while the government and criminals would remain armed. There is sufficient evidence that a gun ban would not work on criminals because look at how restrictions on drugs and even the sex trade has worked in the past? It has not. But again, let’s go one step further towards a Utopian mind-set – look at the strictest federal prisons, where rooms are turned down on a regular basis, mail is checked before being delivered, prisoners are searched before and after visits and yet crime at different levels still takes place. So, transferring that to the modern world (which is a Utopian ideal where the individual is stripped of all rights), bad people still find ways to do bad things. So why was the second amendment made?
Self-Defense – Americans believe in the right to private property and the right to defend their property and, more importantly, their families. If someone walks into your house and tries to rob you, you have the right to defend yourself – so let’s look at some different scenarios:
- If a criminal brings a gun, the only way you stand a chance is if you own a gun.
- If a criminal is armed with a knife, you are nearly guaranteed to be safe with a gun because the criminal will retreat or likely lose if you are armed with a gun.
- If a criminal has no weapon, and walks up to a young man who is also unarmed, either could win. But what happens if the burglar is young and strong, and the victim is and old grandpa? God knows the damage the criminal could do. However if either were armed, it would give the victim a good chance of survival.
Governmental Tyranny – When the Founding Fathers included the second amendment, they wanted to empower the people (who are supposed to control government) to be able to defend themselves against government tyranny. When we review history, we have seen the ploy of governments taking away guns so citizens cannot defend themselves. In 1929, Stalin removed guns and killed approx. 20 million citizens, in 1935 Mao killed approx. 20 million, in 1938, Hitler killed approx. 13 million and in 1956, Pot killed approx. 2 million citizens.
Liberals have mocked the theory of self-defense by asking if we should give warheads to citizens too, since governments have them? The answer is no because how can someone defend themselves with a warhead? People can defend themselves with a gun and when we look at modern warfare, Guerrilla warfare has proved most successful and people have mainly used guns.
To win this debate, conservatives need to stand up and CONTROL the discourse on guns, because there is not one scenario which warrants gun control.