Response to Louis MenchIse:
“The 2nd Amendment ends with the words, “shall not be infringed.” The 1st Amendmant has infringments. One cannot yell, “Fire!” in a crowded theater, nor can one distribute child pornography – to cite just two examples.” This is one of the usual arguments from progressives who try to amend the 2nd Amendment without actually going through the trouble of amending it.
The 2nd Amendment does end with the words, “shall not be infringed.” No one has ever been harmed by another individual keeping or bearing arms. Keeping or bearing is benign. When the arms are actually used is when there is danger, and there are plenty of laws that come into play should one do so. No defender of the 2nd amendment is advocating for the repeal of laws against murder, assault, reckless endangerment, manslaughter, etc. Responsible gun owners take that responsibility very seriously and understand the impact of their actions. I have spoken with many of them and the last thing that they want to do is to actually use to gun against a fellow human being. However with evil in the world, they want to have the choice (pro-choice?) to defend against a deadly attack against themselves or someone in their care. The only way to be able to do that, is to be armed at that precise moment. Where I received my firearm training they stated it very plainly. If you ever have to use a gun to defend yourself, it will change your life…and it won’t be for the better.
Now to address the progressive argument, the First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…” Do you notice the difference between “shall not be infringed” and “abridging”? The right to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed, freedom of speech shall not be abridged. According to the Mirriam-Webster dictionary, abridge means to “reduce in scope; to shorten in duration or extent.
Both of these amendments were to protect individual rights from the tyranny of the government. The First Amendment was to prevent the government from muzzling it’s critics. The Second Amendment was not about deer hunting (Governor Cuomo, call your office). It was about the right to shoot at the government if it became tyrannical. Does anyone see how giving the government a national data base of where every gun is located, could infringe on those rights. Would we still be British subjects if King George III knew where every firearm in the Colonies was located? As it is stated in the Declaration of Independence, “that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness], it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and institute new Government…” The model of this Republic is that the people are sovereign; a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. As Thomas Jefferson said, “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” Which of these statements is closer to the truth?
· Does the IRS fear you, or do you fear the IRS?
· Does the EPA fear you, or do you fear the EPA?
· Does the Federal government fear you, or do you fear the federal government?
Are we closer to the founding principles of this great country, or closer to tyranny?
Bill O’Connell, ‘76
# – # – # – # – # 2013-Apr-15 @ 10:12
