2nd Amendment is my Right

When we were kids we all played army, war or whatever it was that had to do with the military and we did this by playing with toy guns. If we didn’t have toy guns we played with our fingers and used our imagination. When we got home from school we would play war and go in the woods. Even girls played with us on occasion but for different reasons that will not be uttered here. If you are reading this thinking “Well I never did this growing up”, then you must be from Washington DC or a place without trees like New York City or Chicago. I would rather have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it. The following explains how the previous statement just makes perfect sense and how common sense toward this issue has been lost to politicians who apparently forget to pay taxes.

I have disdain for any political ads that convey that sportsman’s rights to hunt shall not be infringed. I am not a sportsman. Hell, I quit playing sports when I got to high school and started chasing tale and I don’t mean white tale deer. I do not hunt or target shoot for sport either. I just collect fire arms because I can like Steven Spielberg (he has one of the biggest collections, you libs would freak out). The same way some people collect classic cars, bugs, pornos or even tea pots. This country was founded by the right to bear arms and it’s an inalienable right that no Founding Father would disagree with no matter what contemporary trust fund baby politicians say. People have rights provided by the Constitution and amendments but that doesn’t mean they feel they need to exercise them. They just take great comfort in knowing that they have the right if they wanted to exercise it and it has nothing to do with being a sportsman.

Another reason I have the right to bear arms is protection of myself, others, my family and exactly what the right was intended for, the government! Gun legislation only targets people who are the perfect candidate for a law biding society. More specifically, people who actually obey the law with no conscious mind of contest in doing anything different other than following it. Criminals are criminals for a reason because they do not adhere to the law. Gun legislation only targets law biding citizens and gives criminals the affirmative upper hand. Some even say politicians make laws favorably to criminals just in case law biding citizens figure out their politicians are criminals as well (i.e. criminal protection zones). This way a politician has a golden parachute to escape in when they’ve been caught. Punish criminals who break the law not citizens who haven’t broken one. After all, apparently criminals vote too, but just in congress.

I have friends who believe guns are an archaic way of conveying “don’t tread on me” to the government. These same critics claim that we have the courts to protect us and to keep the government in check. Has anyone made the discovery that guns are the silent authority are the real checks and balances keep on the government? No. Guns are the status quo that prevents any radical reform from altering change to any society that has firearms. All modern civilized countries that have banned firearms in the past have been conquered by an aggressive power most often being its own government! Canada does not count because they are basically America’s top hat and we look out for them. However, during both World Wars firearms were gradually banned throughout Europe and Germany took advantage of this and you know what happened after that.
 
The most infamous ban on firearm owners and manufacturers was the Brady Bill in the early 1990’s. The Brady Bill is a symbolic effort that the left leaning politicians use to put a thumb in the eye of the right leaning gun supporters of the second amendment. It prevents no crime and when the Brady Bill lapsed in 2006 no crime went up. The Brady Bill restricted the selling of assault rifles but statistically did nothing to prevent crime. More over, the bill drives up the cost of guns to law biding citizens in attempt to discourage them from buying and punishes the manufacturers fiscally. Criminals who buy guns on the streets not only do not pay exorbitant prices for guns they don’t pay taxes either (You would think the government would go after criminals for not paying taxes like professional athletes who bet on dog fights but I guess they are too busy not going after themselves for the same reasons)! In addition to, most violent crimes are committed with pistols and not assault rifles like Columbine and Virginia Tech massacres. In point of fact, Washington DC bans all pistols and it is the highest murder rate in the country from pistols and is not even a state. Go figure.  

The double standards for arguing what the amendments really means is so funny when you bring up that same argument for the oppositions favorite amendment. I don’t care about abortion but it you attack my amendment; I am going to attack yours on principle. The 4th amendment reads nothing remotely relating to the right to kill a fetus, a woman’s choice, or states the word abortion. However, opponents against the second amendment claim that the founding fathers didn’t intend or mean for citizens to carry assault rifles. Case and point, the second amendment actually reads “fire arms” which means weapons of projectile capability. What was modern in the times of the Revolutionary War is meant for the contemporary times of today. Assault rifles, pistols or rifles period are protected by the second amendment. So go hide in fourth amendment closet and sell crazy some place else because we are all sold out here.

If you are a guy who does not like guns and think they should be banned that is your opinion. It may be a Candy Ass belief but nonetheless your right to think that. The fact is Americans have the right to possesses fire arms regardless if the second amendment conveys that thought or not. The colonies didn’t have an amendment that gave them a right to rebel against the British Crown but they did anyway. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the second amendment in 2008 & 2010 which was a complete waste of time considering they came to the conclusion that the second amendment actually meant what it read. Bravo. I figured that out for myself when I was in the 6th grade. We don’t need politicians to protect our rights that have already been written down over 200 years ago nor do we need the Supreme Court to interpret what those rights mean considering we the people can also read. If you hate guns it’s your own personal preference just like people do not like eating sardines or Fruit Cake. It’s an individual issue that should not be legislated as an absolute belief and legislation of words on paper will not remove this right regardless of what courts rule (scary huh?).