First off, and above all else, my thoughts and prayers are with those directly affected by the shooting at Santa Fe High School in Santa Fe Texas, and to all of the Police Officers, ATF agents, Deputies and State Police who responded and entered the school. It was a horrible murder spree by [apparently] two kids.
Secondly, I am hesitant to write this so soon after this horrible event, but thanks to people like Hogg, it makes it necessary as the wheels of falsification, misinformation, ignorance and outright lies I am certain are already spinning in full force. They will not be happy, nor will the wheels stop, until every American citizen is disarmed. Which makes it ever more important to rebut those spinning wheels of falsification, misinformation, ignorance and lies, with truth, and begin discussions on the real issues that are leading to these events, and hopefully find real solutions to the problem, and not band-aids.
For evidence of this push, head to Twitter.com and look at trending (at the time of this writing), and you will see hash-tag guncontrolnow. What is ironic about that trending hash tag, is there is not one that says, “family now.” Or, “respectlifenow.”
Why is it that these liberals do not want to solve the root of the problem? Because they want nothing more than to control. They want to control what you eat (take “soda” bans in NY.) They want to control what your children eat, overriding what you as a parent give your child (take MO’s enforcement of food items at schools. (Michelle Obama’s Intrusive School Nutrition Agenda)) They want to confiscate your guns, despite what the public facing talking heads would proclaim (North Carolina Democrat Will Introduce a Gun Confiscation Bill, Boulder Ban, Deerfield Ban) These are just a very few examples of liberal control. People that share opposing views are outright ignored when liberals have power. Evidence Gwen Stouder during the Boulder “hearings.” (Gwen Stouder of Longmont Colorado gives a powerful pro-second amendment speech in the face of a deaf gun grabbing city council in Boulder Colorado who just passed a ban on their definition of assault weapons.)
Liberals would rather repeal the 2nd Amendment than to address the real issues. Issues that they have created and contributed to. They continue to argue, in contrast to writings, documented speeches, and letters from the time, the Founding Fathers had no intentions of the 2nd Amendment protecting individual rights to bare arms.
“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands” – Patrick Henry
Speech on the Federal Constitution, Virginia Ratifying Convention, on June 09, 1788. “The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution”. Book edited by Jonathan Elliot, volume 3, p. 168-169, 1836.
One such quote is from James Madison, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789) From George Mason, “I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” (George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788) Here is one from Patrick Henry, “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” (Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778) Here is another, “No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…such are well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” (State Gazette (Charleston) (8 September 1788)) And finally, “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” (Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788)
These are but a few of the many.
Despite what Robert Parry and others would say, that the history of the 2nd Amendment is “fake“, there is overwhelming evidence of what the Founding Fathers’ intentions were. It was to protect citizens’ ability to bear and keep arms. Strangely enough, the Founding Father’s put no limitation to what arms are acceptable either. They had ample opportunity to add a clause that military grade weapons were not protected under the 2nd Amendment for citizen use. Yet, they did not. They did not, because they believed that “. . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
There is a plethora of evidence in historical documents what the Founding Fathers intention was for the 2nd Amendment, just s there is a plethora of evidence that liberals want to take away that Constitutional Right, and control every other aspect of your life. Perhaps it’s in the pretense of “security”, or “what is best for you.” Back in 2013, Michael Goodwin penned an interesting article for the New York Post outlining the warnings given to us from the Founding Fathers on tyranny. In it, he states, “Are we closer today to the ideals of liberty, or to the tyranny the Founders warned would follow the death of those ideals?” (Founding Fathers’ warnings powerful reminder amid government crisis) He also pens, “The same sense of self-gratification and entitlement that infects our culture rules our politics.” Extraordinarily accurate for the culture of the day, and it has only gotten worse in the five years since.
No, guns are not the issue. I have never seen a gang of AK-47’s walking down the street looking to shoot people. I have never seen a gun fire a bullet without a person pulling the trigger. Guns are a scapegoat for liberals to cover up and not address the issues that they have created. The culture that they have created.
The first part of real issue that needs to be addressed lies partly in the profound statement, “The same sense of self-gratification and entitlement that infects our culture rules our politics.” (Founding Fathers’ warnings powerful reminder amid government crisis)
No person on this earth is entitled to anything other than “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” (The exception that I see would be to those that have risked their lives for the country, any U.S. Veteran or active duty, Law Enforcement Officer or Firefighter.)
Laziness is often disguised as “entitlement” which is then used to justify laziness, and getting angry at those that achieve.
The second part of the real issue that needs to be addressed also lies in the moral compass of American citizens. The “norm” that has been introduced by hollywood elites, either by their actions, or the portrayal on television and in movies. Norms that show that killing people, killing Law Enforcement officers is somehow glorious. Glorifying violence in all aspects. That drug use and distribution is glorious (i.e. Breaking Bad.)
Hollywood continues to produce and glorify violence, while at the same time, the elites are demeaning average Americans, and especially Christians. They encourage immorality, both through their films, television shows, YouTube videos and their own behavior. They portray that criminality is okay, and that those that uphold laws are evil. From 2008 to 2016, this was also portrayed from Pennsylvania Ave., as was evidenced by responses to a criminal that attempted to kill a Law Enforcement Officer and was shot and killed.
The third part of the real issue that needs to be addressed is the ousting of God from all things in American culture. It is now taboo, and on the verge of illegal, to say Jesus Christ or God in public. References to God are being removed from public places. On Christmas, which is specifically a holiday to celebrate the birth of Jesus, not “winter break” or any other nonsense, we are being told that Nativity scenes cannot be displayed because someone walking by may be offended. People against the public displays of crosses, Nativity scenes and Bible versus often quote some of the Founding Fathers out of context, attempting to present they “built a wall between Church and State.”
“In gutting his draft was Jefferson playing the hypocrite, sacrificing his principles to political expediency, as his Federalist opponents never tired of charging? By no means, for the Danbury Baptist letter was never conceived by Jefferson to be a statement of fundamental principles; it was meant to be a political manifesto, nothing more.” (‘A Wall of Separation’, JAMES HUTSON, https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html)
That however, is inaccurate, at best, and a gross attempt at manipulation at worst.
“The unedited draft of the Danbury Baptist letter makes it clear why Jefferson drafted it: He wanted his political partisans to know that he opposed proclaiming fasts and thanksgivings, not because he was irreligious, but because he refused to continue a British practice that was an offense to republicanism. To emphasize his resolve in this matter, Jefferson inserted two phrases with a clenched-teeth, defiant ring: “wall of eternal separation between church and state” and “the duties of my station, which are merely temporal.” These last words — “merely temporal” — revealed Jefferson’s preoccupation with British practice. Temporal, a strong word meaning secular, was a British appellation for the lay members of the House of Lords, the Lords Temporal, as opposed to the ecclesiastical members, the Lords Spiritual. “Eternal separation” and “merely temporal” — here was language as plain as Jefferson could make it to assure the Republican faithful that their “religious rights shall never be infringed by any act of mine.” (‘A Wall of Separation’, JAMES HUTSON, https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html)
“Jefferson heeded Lincoln’s advice, with the result that he deleted the entire section about thanksgivings and fasts in the Danbury draft, noting in the left margin that the “paragraph was omitted on the suggestion that it might give uneasiness to some of our republican friends in the eastern states where the proclamation of thanksgivings etc. by their Executives is an antient habit & is respected.” Removed in the process of revision was the designation of the president’s duties as “merely temporal”; “eternal” was dropped as a modifier of “wall.” (emphasis added) Jefferson apparently made these changes because he thought the original phrases would sound too antireligious to pious New England ears.
In gutting his draft was Jefferson playing the hypocrite, sacrificing his principles to political expediency, as his Federalist opponents never tired of charging? By no means, for the Danbury Baptist letter was never conceived by Jefferson to be a statement of fundamental principles; it was meant to be a political manifesto, nothing more.” (‘A Wall of Separation’, JAMES HUTSON, https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html)
“One of the nation’s best known advocates of religious liberty, Leland had accepted an invitation to preach in the House of Representatives on Sunday, Jan. 3, and Jefferson evidently concluded that, if Leland found nothing objectionable about officiating at worship on public property, he could not be criticized for attending a service at which his friend was preaching. Consequently, “contrary to all former practice,” Jefferson appeared at church services in the House on Sunday, Jan. 3, two days after recommending in his reply to the Danbury Baptists “a wall of separation between church and state”; during the remainder of his two administrations he attended these services “constantly.”” (‘A Wall of Separation’, JAMES HUTSON, https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html)
It is apparent with Mr. Jefferson’s beliefs, and staunch critic of fasts and thanksgivings (as to him it was a tradition of the Crown), drove his response to the Letter from the Danbury Baptists, and was never meant to suggest that religion was unwelcome in government, or in public. But rather, as the First Amendment spells out in black and white, that Government would create no laws that created a national religion or to limit the free exercise of religion. His actions also spoke to that.
Mind you as well, this letter written to him was a more than a decade after the First Amendment was composed.
As a final note on this, the Danbury letter was written due to the fear that government was “granting” the Baptists the right to exercise their religion, and that they (the state legislature) did not view it as an inalienable right.
Addressing these three items, Entitlement, Glorifying Crime, and a Godless Society (most emphasis on Godless Society), I believe would go a long way.
I recently came across an article from the New York Times, discussing Bill Cosby. (Bill Cosby is being crucified for being conservative) In it, it discusses the double-standard in Hollywood on those that are prosecuted for alleged crimes. It points out the fact that Roman Polanski, after admitting to sexual relations with a thirteen year old girl, has received numerous awards and essentially is put on a pedestal by Hollywood. It goes on to say, “Polanski, the director and a producer of the 2002 movie “The Pianist,’’ is celebrated as a cinematic superstud by his toxic admirers.” It does not appear that the liberal left mainstream media has delved into the double-standard of a “celebrated film maker” that had sexual relations with a thirteen year old, and then fled the country to avoid prosecution, and Bill Cosby, a man that was an adulterer.
In recent posts, I have managed to stray off into the political circus of 2018’s society. But today, I wanted to take a step back, and explain my beliefs behind The Walt Disney World as a place, and as a Company, part from a lifelong fan, and part from a former Cast Member.
To me, from a lifelong fan’s perspective, “Disney” will always be synonymous with The Walt Disney World in Orlando Florida. I know full well that Disneyland existed first, and that The Walt Disney Company owns many different businesses in many different genres, including but not limited to, ESPN and ABC, and ownership or close collaboration with companies such as Dreamworks. As a whole, The Walt Disney Company is a massive company. However, as I stated above, to me as a longtime fan, Disney is, well, The Walt Disney Resort in Orlando Florida. So, for the sake of this post, that is what I will discuss and remain focused on.
Undoubtedly, everyone has seen that students walked out of class today, and horrifically enough, it was allowed and condoned by school officials.
This was an attempt to get out of class. It was an attempt to be on t.v. and YouTube and other social media venues.
Surprisingly enough, npr.org reported just about the walkout, no political commentary that I observed in the article I read.
However, CNN railed full force into political commentary, exclaiming “a historic show” for tougher gun laws. (CNN on Student Walkouts)
Regardless of CNN fawning all over kids walking down streets, it was plain stupid to allow it.
First off, and more of a side note, parents and teachers just allowed students to forego learning, to participate in a liberal political stunt. Yes, I just called it out for what it actually was. When, in the history of the Earth, have ignorant children (and I do not say that in any derogatory way whatsoever, children are ignorant to the ways of anything, as they are learning) bore any voice in the running of a country?
But, as I said, that was a side note. No, the actual focus here is that the protest was for more gun laws. Gun laws that liberals want to fly in the face of the 2nd Amendment. Nothing would pleasure them more than to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
Let me stop for a minute. There should be absolutely zero tolerance for any violence in school.
With that said, why are these children protesting for more gun laws? When people are killed by drunk drivers (34,461 in 2016 (according to this article, 3x the amount of deaths than from any gun violence)) do students, or anyone, go boycott cars or alcohol in the streets? No. The people that commit the crimes are held accountable. End of story.
Why are these children, and left wing nut-jobs, not protesting parenting or lack thereof? Why, if there can be an intelligible argument, are they blaming guns and gun ownership? If they can blame guns, why not blame cars or alcohol?
What these children and left wings really should be protesting is lack of morals in American culture of today. Lack of respect for other people and life. Lack of accountability. The blessing of criminality and the demonization of laws, morality and law enforcement. This last eight years has incubated and condoned these beliefs. As false as it is.
According to this Gun Timeline the first recorded use of a firearm was in 1364 – 654 years ago. Schools have existed since at least the year 859 – 1159 years ago. (Top 10 Oldest Universities In The World: Ancient Colleges).
I am not going to rehash my argument of why people are ignorant when they call for the banning of guns like the AR-15. You can read that argument if you wish, Stoneman Douglas High School shooting – Repeal 2nd Amendment? | TheRecreationalWriter. Com.
My argument here instead, is why are children and adults alike not marching for the accountability of being a parent? Why are they not marching, not to ban a Constitutionally protected device, but the morals of each other, and Americans in general. Why are they not marching to protest the removal of God from all things? The simple answer? A combination of liberal brainwashing by teachers and other mentors of these children, and the liberal agenda to control the populous. That is not a popular answer, but, that is the answer.
The Bible teaches us about the sanctity of life. It teaches us about morals. Both of which teachers, politicians and parents alike fail to teach. Either because they do not see them as important, or they are afraid of being called names for teach morality. Either way, American citizens, the American populous, and America herself has lost her way. When we blame inanimate objects instead of the living people that commit the crime, we have lost all sense of intelligence.
I will continue to say that the issue is not guns, or knives, or even bombs. The issue is coming from the home, from the schools, from politicians and political arenas. It has become normal that immorality and lack of respect for fellow man is okay, but owning a weapon is not. It has evidently become a way of parenting, to not parent. To instead, allow the continued liberal brainwashing that instills immorality. That instills that the Bible is a work of fiction. That the Bible should be removed from schools. That God should be removed from schools. That any sense of accountability or even after-life judgement should be removed from schools and any other child outlet.
It has become normal that it is okay for a 5,6,7,8,9 even 10 – 18 year olds, to play video games that glorify killing people. Killing Police Officers. Robbing, stealing. Playing games that you actually get rewarded for killing, stealing, robbing, raping, et al. And yet, we blame an inanimate object? Parents are never home to regulate what their children watch or play. The product of both parents being expected to work. In part, due to the liberal’s belief that people should be taxed 1/2 to 3/4 of their paychecks to fund handouts. But, I digress.
Until we as a society realize that immorality, killing, stealing, taking something that someone else earns (yes, I am including taxation of income here) and other criminal elements are wrong, nothing will change. All guns can be banned, but someone will have another way to inflict death, because they have no fear of A.) the (joke of a) legal system, and B.) no fear for where they will spend eternity after death and after judgement.
The end of these tragedies will only come when teachers are held accountable for teaching, and not offering political agendas. When parents are held responsible for parenting. When parents are held legally responsible for what their underage children do. When parents begin going to jail because their offspring decide to be immoral and commit a crime, perhaps there will be a closer watch on actually what those children are doing. Instead of sending them off somewhere to play video games, or to watch YouTube videos, or to be influenced by Facebook, simply because they (the parents) do not want to be bothered with them.
Being a parent is more than making certain that your child lives to be an adult. It’s more than about just sending your child to a school, and then to a daycare, and then allowing to roam the neighborhood with no supervision. It is about caring what they are doing. It is about showing, and teaching, them right from wrong. It is about taking interest into what they are doing. But, above all else, it is about teaching them morality, the difference between right and wrong, and about God. Parents are not, never have been, and never should be, a “friend” to their child or children. They should be the rule enforcer. They should be the ones that groom their children to be productive members of society.
Until the mentality of Americans shift from “everyone wins” back to the honest approach that life is not fair and you are not guaranteed to win, you will lose, and you will get picked on at some point in your life so get over it, and move on and better yourself, then killings, rapes, robberies, et. al. will continue. No amount of guns laws will change immorality. No amount of laws in general will change morality.
Until parents are held accountable for parenting, no amount of laws will prevent the violence we have seen in the last decade. The previous’ administration that condoned the demonization of Law Enforcement, and free thinking, morals etc., set America back. It became a norm to blame something or someone else, rather than accepting the failure of those actually responsible. For instance, robbing a store and assaulting it’s owner, assaulting a Police Officer and then getting shot, and yet, it is someone else’s fault. That is the mentality created by eight years.
Children can continue to participate in liberal theatrics, but if they are really interested in changing what has been happening in recent years, or even nineteen years ago (Columbine) they may continue to protest, but they need to protest lack of parenting, lack of morals and lack of God. Until that is done, and until God is allowed to be spoken again freely, without fear of prosecution, and until morality is instilled in our youth, no amount of gun, or otherwise, laws will prevent these horrific deeds from evil people. Until the Ten Commandments are taught again in school and in houses, these atrocities will continue, despite the liberal rhetoric that it is all about inanimate objects. It simply is not. It is about people.
Forewarning. I am going to piss people off with this blog post. And to me, that is fine. This is not a popularity contest. It’s about truth. It is about who should be held responsible, and who shouldn’t be blamed.
On February 14 2018, a monster known to the Broward County Sheriff, not once, not twice, not even three times, but an alleged forty-five (45) times, yes you read that right, forty-five (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/broward-county-sheriff-received-at-least-45-calls-about-florida-shooters-family-not-23-report/article/2650121) opened fire with an AR-15 rifle, killing seventeen high school students and wounding many others.
But, of course, the very first thing out of Democrat’s, and mainstream liberal media propaganda pushers, before even the families could bury their children, mouths was their typical “we need to ban guns!”
They routinely politicize the worst possible horrors that occur to push knee-jerk reactions from those that actually believe it was a truly horrific event. They do not. They see it solely as a chance to politicize and tromp the very bounds of our Constitution, Liberty.
They go so far out of their way they even claim that another gun would not have stopped this monstrous thug. (MSNBC: Handguns Too Slow To Stop Shooter) Yes, they really tried to argue that a handgun would not have stopped that pervert. I guess do not tell Law Enforcement and Military Personnel that, since, you know, handguns are standard issue for them.
What the media and democrats fail to even mention, is the failure of… Wait for it… LAWS. That is right. The school was a “gun free zone”. That was broken by a criminal. Imagine that. In seven minutes this evil person was able to quell any doubt on how outright idiotic Sen. Feinstein’s comments were when she allegedly said that a shooter would lay down his weapon if he saw no one else was armed. However, she has since stated stated about the Las Vegas shooting how laws would not have stopped it. (Dianne Feinstein Talks To Face-The-Nation After Las Vegas Shooting)
No amount of laws would prevent no action taken, or red flags flown, by A Law Enforcement agency that, frankly, failed to properly vet a threat. The Sheriff and numerous Deputies are [apparently] derelict in their duties. Not just before this tragedy, but during it as well. That is where the blame lives. In human actions and inactions.
As much as the liberal media propagandists and democrats spout that it is President Trump’s fault, the GOPs fault, the NRAs fault, that simply is not true. Did they blame previous President’s for Columbine or Sandy Hook?
And of course, those same liberal media propagandists, liberals in general, use the old argument “you don’t need an assault rifle to shoot a deer!” First off, the Columbine terrorists used a semiautomatic handgun, a rifle and two sawed-off shotguns. (Armed Youths Kill Up to 23 in 4-Hour Siege at High School)
“The weapons used in the Columbine High School shooting included a semiautomatic handgun, a rifle and two sawed-off shotguns.” – Armed Youths Kill Up to 23 in 4-Hour Siege at High School
Those same liberal talking heads will also try to convince the average American citizen, that AR in AR-15 is abbreviated for Assault Rifle. Convenient as that may be to push their agenda, it is wrong. AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle, after the company that developed it. (Modern Sporting Rifle Facts)
Another common argument from liberals and mainstream media, is that nowhere in the Constitution does it say Americans have the right to have an AR-15, or any firearm other than a rifle or pistol. After all, the Second Amendment was written and passed when they only had muskets! Well, actually, they had other weapons, such as cannons. Which were considered “arms”, yet, mysteriously (sarcasm), they did not specifically exclude them from the Second Amendment, or any other Constitutional Amendment. Further, that age-old argument is completely null and void, and here is why. If the Founding Fathers “could not have foreseen” advancement in firearms, and other arms, and that is one argument that I hear constantly, by that reason, the First Amendment is also antiquated. Further, you have no Constitutional Right to use a computer. No protections in writing a blog. No protections to the media using television, radio, or the internet. Why? Because when the First Amendment was written and passed, the only for of the “press” was quite literally that, a press. A printing press to be specific. In a liberal’s argument on the Second Amendment they effectively null and void the First Amendment as well, at least when it comes to “the freedom of the Press.”
And, of course there is the argument, that now even supposed “staunch supporters of the Second Amendment” have been brainwashed into believing, that there is no need for an “average” citizen to own anything more than a single shot rifle, because “hunting” requires nothing more. But, I challenge all of those to actually educate themselves, and research history, and what the actual intention of the Second Amendment was.
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. – Amendment II, The U.S. Bill of Rights.
The above is the text, verbatim, of the Second Amendment. Liberals will always draw to the wording, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State as evidence that the next part, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, is nothing more than saying that a Militia can bear arms. And since “well regulated Militia’s” have evolved into the U.S. Armed Forces and individual States’ National Guard, no one but them should have guns. This thought and belief is from complete ignorance. First off, the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly verified the right of the People, citizens, to keep and bear arms. Most recently in District of Columbia Et Al. v. Heller, the court specifically ruled, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” (554 U. S. ____ (2008), DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER)
Of course, the liberal left would simply say that the ruling was wrong. But were they? I do not believe so. Let’s take a look at historical and empirical evidence – the very things that the liberal left want to ignore.
First is the text of the Second Amendment itself, and that there is no “and” before the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. Therefore there must be the assumption that it ties directly back to the militia statement. Not so fast. If you look at, again, historical information from the time, punctuations were used somewhat differently, and, specifically, “The “comma” (,) separates clauses, phrases, and particles.” (Punctuation in English since 1600, Ohio State University) With that in mind, that the comma “separates clauses, phrases, and particles”, it is easy to discern that the comma was indeed separating two clauses, the need for a well regulated Militia (being necessary to the security of a free State), and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. Those are two separate clauses.
Further empirical evidence to support that come from the words of the Founding Fathers themselves. Despite the ignorant statements that the Founding Fathers did not support the people being armed, there are evidentiary writings that the Second Amendment was for that purpose. Furthermore, these writings suggest that not only did the Founding Fathers believe in the people being armed, they believed so not for the purposes of hunting, and not completely for the purpose of self defense, but for the purpose of preventing a tyrannical government. James Madison, the author of the Second Amendment, stated, “Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.” (Madison, “The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared From the New York Packet.”. The Federalist Papers : No. 46. January 29, 1788) He is also quoted as saying, “The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (https://canadafreepress.com/article/the-american-right-to-revolt-against-tyranny-part-c-founders-amp-john-locke)
Patrick Henry also offered opinions on the rights of Americans to bear arms. In 1778, at the Convention on the Ratification of the Constitution, he stated, ““The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.”” (Henry. “Virginia Convention on the Ratification of the Constitution, including the Shall Liberty or Empire be Sought? Speech”. Virginia Convention on the Ratification of the Constitution. June 1778.)
It is true, most of the discussion around the Second Amendment was for the prevention of the people being controlled by a tyrannical government. Now, liberals lefts will say “tyrannical government cannot happen here!” Well, let me recite a historical account at this point.
In 1932, a man named Adolph Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany, by then-President Paul von Hindenburg, President of the republic. After The Reichstag fire, Hitler convinced the President to suspend civil liberties. (Parallel, mass shooting leads to suspension of liberties . . .) Continued intimidation, arrests of political enemies, and fear of the other party (at that time, communists), Hitler consolidated his power to include the Presidency, leading to millions of an unarmed people being put into camps and murdered . . . by a tyrannical government. If you honestly believe that cannot still happen today, in any country, then you are not only naïve, you are ignorant. I am sure that the Jews thought they would be fine turning over their firearms. History tells us how that worked out for them.
That is the protection that the Second Amendment grants. It has nothing to do with hunting. It has to do with individual protections, against enemies, foreign and domestic. And, the ability to have rifles such as the AR-15, serves as well a deterrent to any potential enemy, again, foreign or domestic, that wish to cause harm to our country.
The final piece to this is the argument that “assault rifles” should be banned. However, no one bothers to look at current law. Take the actual definition of Assault Rifle, “a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.” The last that I observed, no where in the United States, outside of Military installations, is an automatic weapon allowed.
The problem is not with guns or the NRA. The problem is with parents. They fail to teach and instill discipline, self worth and value of life. They teach their children that “everyone wins!” – which is an outright lie. Life does not work that way. And when they get a taste of that we see the results. Results too from video games, t.v. and movies that glorify killing people. Look at GTA. It applauds killing police officers. Should adults have access to things like that? Yes, that’s their right. Should children? No. And if caught, the parents should go to jail for it. Period. Because they are condoning death. They are condoning solving problems by killing people. They are aiding and abetting a criminal act.
That is where the blame lies.