The Recreation Writer | Second Amendment

Stoneman Douglas High School shooting – Repeal 2nd Amendment? | TheRecreationalWriter. Com

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. Hellerthe 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.

Leave a Reply