So, let’s have a conversation, America. We’re in the middle of a big fight in the USA,and it concerns the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution, which reads as above. Most of us realize our President sees our Constitution as a “living” i.e. evolving document. An overwhelming majority of Americans, however, do not see it that way, but as a solid, absolute foundation upon which our nation is built. Problem is, those in agreement with President include 99.9% (conservative estimate) of all journalists/media outlets and celebrities with big mouths and plenty of camera time.
Lies of ‘Sandy Hook’ Please click!
The administration has a history of orchestrating events and “milking” tragedies for his political agenda. Remember, “Fast & Furious?” Remember the Aurora shootings? While I will not go so far as to accuse the President of arranging the “Sandy Hook massacre,” he is most assuredly milking it to further is dream (and goal) of a gun-free America. He has, in fact, rearranged the entire scenario, tampered with evidence, to fit his agenda.
Remember the horror of the “Breaking news” that morning? I do! The initial news report said Lanza used 2 handguns in the event and that an AR-15 “Bushmaster” was found in the shooter’s car. Just 2 days later, that scenario had been rearranged saying the AR-15 was found beside the victim’s body. It is now believed, they say, that the Bushmaster was the primary weapon used in the tragedy. Well … which is it? The result of this obvious and blatant manipulation of the facts is a media BLITZ attack on our 2nd Amendment rights to “keep and bear arms.”
Just for the sake or argument, the same weapon found initially in the shooter’s car in Newtown, Connecticut can look ominous painted black, but it can also be painted other ways to make it appear less threatening. Bottom line is that ALL firearms are assault weapons, and the definition used in legislation is solely at the discretion of the author of the bill. How reasonable is it, though, for someone like Senator Feinstein to hold a concealed carry permit & carry her gun while she proposes a ban on the rest of the American people?Similarly, there have been several news items posted in recent weeks extolling the benefits of an armed population.
- 15-YEAR OLD BOY USES AR-15 TO DEFEND HIMSELF, SISTER AGAINST HOME INVADERS
- DESPITE NATIONAL TRAGEDY, TRUTH IS, GUNS SAVE LIVES
- Father of Aurora shooting victim speaks on gun control
- Robber Armed With Cattle Prod (Yeah a Cattle Prod) Stopped by Store Clerk With Gun
- GA Homeowner Uses Derringer to Disarm Shotgun Wielding Burglar, Then Shoots Burglar With Own Shotgun
There are plenty of statistics that demonstrate many other items much more dangerous that any type of firearm. Still, the administration is locked and loaded toward the disarming of the American people in open and obvious contradiction to the US Constitution. Shall we put a ban on tobacco products or re-institute “Prohibition?” Shall we ban automobiles? Obviously, the answer is NO!
This adminstration is working overtime to install a”dumbed down” approach to life in America. President Obama believes, and he wants US to believe the American people are not smart enough to rule ourselves, even though we have done so successfully for more than 200 years. This is the whole “nanny state” mentality that he is encouraging in his “food stamps” push toward Seniors, repeated extensions for unemployment, and his lack of success in job creation. He doesn’t WANT to create jobs, America! He isn’t even trying to create jobs. We aren’t responsible enough to own and operate firearms, so he must take them from us one way or another.
The US Constitution contradicts this policy vehemently, and so do the majority of American citizens – both Democrat and Republican! So … TAKE A STAND!
Just for the sake of argument, though, what do you think of the ideas in this graphic? Cars are regulated by state governments, according to state laws and oversight. Might firearms be managed likewise? Would it be an infringement of our 2nd Amendment rights to regulate firearms in this way? You tell me! Let’s have a REAL DISCUSSION here, America!
The main difference is that driving is a privilege whereas owning firearms is a right. There is a difference. So, no, guns don’t need the same regulation as cars.
We go through criminal background checks in order to purchase various guns already. If the current laws, of which there are already too many, were enforced, we would go a long way towards solving the problem of mentally deficient people acquiring firearms…legally.
Good point, and I agree, but it is an interesting discussion – more logical than the mounting regulations and restrictions in proposed legislation! Thanks for your comment!
good point of clarification, thanks
Thanks for your comment!
Reblogged this on That Mr. G Guy's Blog.
To know the intent of this administration, lookup Oct 2209 UN Arms Trade Treaty
signed via executive order, and appears to trample our 2nd amendment rights. Thank heavens someone/Sen. Marco Rubio R-Fl was paying attention and co-sponsored The 2nd Amendment Soverignty Act (S.2205) which somewhat negates the damage to our rights the aforementioned would have done. Adding insult to injury this is the same admin. that could or would not keep tract of their own weapons, a/k/a the “fast & furious” disgraceful deboggle.
Exactly! Their record with weapon/asset management isn’t great, so why should anyone think they could/would handle our weapons any more responsibly?
Amything that can be used as a weapon, including a dog, has the potential to be used as in an assult. Therefore, all weapons are potentially assult weapons. Somewhat an aside. I read a blog the other day that made the point that the right to have arms stems not from the second amendment byt from the unalienable right to life. His argument was that the Bill of Rights are requirement of the federal government to protect our unalienable rights. Therefore, if one has the unalienable right to life, one also has the the right to protect that life. I then should be able to defend my life with whatever weapon I believe I need to defeat an assailent with whatever weapon he/she might use to assail me.
Oh wow! GREAT POINT!!! Thanks for sharing that! 🙂
The greatest danger with gun control is the government: First comes gun control, then dictatorship. And this is why “liberals” in government are pushing for gun control, which in fact creates a two class society, i.e., government “authorities” and the citizen abused by those “authorities”.
Well said & thanks for taking the time to comment! I find it offensive that we even have the conversation … every time some lunatic gets his/her hands on a weapon!
Barack Obama is not the Commander-In-Chief of me.
OATHKEEPERS UNITE!
First, we do need to understand the mentally ill people are NOT stupid. They’re merely mentally ill. If the voices in their heads tell them that certain people need to die, they will use whatever weapon is available to make that happen. If guns aren’t available, they might use a knife (as a client that I knew did to kill a coworker about five years go). If the voices in their head say that a LOT of people need to die, they will figure out how to build a bomb or make a molotov cocktail. Keeping the guns away from paranoid schizophrenics won’t solve the problem. Keeping paranoid schizophrenics on their medication might.
Second, driving is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution or in the extra-constitutional writings of the Founders, so we’re comparing apples to mangos and that’s not a sane discussion. I just posted on this the other day and I believe it was James Madison who said that the people needed to be at least as well armed as the standing army to protect their own freedoms from the tyrannical tendencies of any government. That would, at the very least, be semi-automatic weapons with extended magazines.
Third, I saw the video where the police where searching Lanza’s car and it sure looked like that was the Bushmaster in the trunk, which means it couldn’t have been found beside his body. People with way more firearms knowledge than I have say the same thing. As one of our local collectors said on local talk radio — I love my AR, but it wouldn’t be my first choice if I really wanted to kill people.
Yes, the media is clearly manipulating the evidence, apparently, with the local law’s knowledge and cooperation … just to fit the agenda, to create the agenda … Despicable behavior for anyone, but for the supposed leader of the FREE world??? All I can say is WOW!
Hi. Molotov Mitchell raises some good points. I’ve seen other videos which question the medical examiner, etc, and seem to indicate that there are some very contradictory statements made.
For your interest, my children and I made a video in response to the Sandy Hook shooting in response to the Demand A Plan To End Violence celebrity video.
(plus another one you might like as well.)
What initially caught my eye on your site was the Monument at the Line of the Minutemen. I used that in our video at the end. If you watch it, let me know what you think!
Response to Connecticut shooting:
History of the Come And Take It flag
Pingback: Sunday Links: Facebook Friends Pic Edition Volume 49