Their War On Freedom: A Deconstruction

Perhaps a bit of background is in order. The full text of the 2nd Amendment reads: “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.” If only our current politicians could operate in such a straightforward manner. Yet liberals like President Barack Obama have managed to conjure up all sorts of fantastical hidden meanings in that perfectly worded statement. In the cold light of logic, however, the gun grabbers’ various arguments fracture like Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel under Congressional interrogation. Allow me to demonstrate:

Liberal argument: When the 2nd Amendment was written, “arms” referred to flintlocks and muskets.

Most famously deployed by CNN’s Piers Morgan, a disgraced British journalist-turned-game show host-turned-commentator, this bit of revisionism presumes that the Founding Fathers were incapable of understanding the march of progress and that the Constitution itself is anachronistic. The presence in Philadelphia in 1787 of more than one of the foremost minds in human history belies the former, and the liberal insistence that somehow abortion is Constitutionally protected belies the latter. At the time of the 2nd Amendment’s ratification, firearms were barely beginning to transition from man-portable artillery. The guns of the day were heavy, inaccurate and unreliable under the best of circumstances. War strategy of the day was essentially the same as it had been for the better part of human history: a fusillade of poorly aimed projectiles followed by a flat-out charge. Given the limitations of 1787-era firearms, war was still a pretty “stabby” affair. If the Framers were capable of recognizing the past in the form of swords and bayonets, they were certainly aware of the future in the form of guns and ammunition. Yet they worded the 2nd Amendment in precisely the manner they did. Liberal argument: Civilians don’t need assault weapons.

Given the fact that “assault weapon” is, at best, a nebulous phrase that liberals seem to define as “scary-looking,” it has joined “gun violence” as a rhetorical red flag, indicating the user’s prejudice more than any legitimate debating point. And “need” is a relative thing. The 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting or sport shooting or even personal defense as much as it is about defense against tyranny. And defense against tyranny is something for which the Founding Fathers foresaw an eternal need, hence the lack of language specifying hunting, sport shooting or personal defense. As the Framers gathered in Philadelphia over the summer of 1787, our fledgling union was just a few years removed from victory over the largest empire on the planet. Tyranny wasn’t some amorphous villain hiding on the periphery of society; it was a clear and present danger. Indeed, King George and his red-coated minions would prove as much within a generation of the American Revolution, booking their return engagement in the War of 1812.

The 2nd Amendment isn’t a declaration of need; it’s an admonishment. Just because the forces of tyranny no longer answer to Buckingham Palace doesn’t mean tyranny doesn’t still exist; ask the people of the Mideast, North Korea, Red China or Chicago.

I’ve noticed this fallacious fluff tends to be the default argument for the tinfoil hat-wearing extremists of the far left. Leftist websites like Dailykos.com and Media Matters will flatly state a cause-and-effect relationship between guns and violence, although no such link exists. The most gun-restrictive places in America are also its most violent. By restricting the firearm-ownership rights of law-abiding citizens, the liberals have also left them defenseless against an onslaught of criminals who couldn’t care less what Media Matters thinks of firearm possession. Moreover, the guns-cause-crime talking point assigns sinister intent to inanimate objects. Without humans to wield them, all the firearms in the world are merely complicated boat anchors.

This feat of logical legerdemain is actually more ludicrous than the guns-cause-crime argument. The idea that my ownership of multiple 30-round magazines for my AR-15 somehow endangers others is wrong and offensive. As I pointed out, left to themselves, guns are merely busy-looking doorstops. Therefore, magazines are merely oddly shaped paperweights.

Liberal Argument: Some guns are more dangerous-looking and, therefore, should be banned.

Take a look at the picture below. One of the guns is one of the — if not the — most commonly owned rifles in North America: the Ruger 10-22. It’s a redoubtable and recognizable weapon, chambered in the easy-to-handle .22 rimfire. It features a no-frills wood stock and a detachable 10-round rotary magazine, and it looks about as frightening as a BB gun. The other depicts a sinister-looking death machine. Outfitted in black polymer, it features a pistol grip and a folding and collapsible buttstock, and it is normally shipped with a 25-round magazine. One looks like an amped-up version of a Daisy air rifle. The other looks like something that would make Morgan lose control of his bladder. The thing is: They’re the same rifle. Sure, one looks awfully “tactical,” but it’s really just “tacti-cool.” They fire the same .22 rimfire round. The magazines that work in one work just as well in the other. And neither would be a particularly good choice as a primary weapon against agents of tyranny, from King George’s redcoats to Obama’s cronies in the U.S. Senate. By focusing on cosmetic features, gun grabbers are making specious points about tangential matters rather than focusing on the actual causes of crime.

Sure it is. That’s why Nazi Germany was such a fun spot for a party. A disarmed America is a turkey on the day before Thanksgiving. It’s fat, it’s rich and it’s defenseless.

I can’t fault Obama and his Democratic accomplices for their tireless efforts to keep the so-called “gun control” debate squarely in their political crosshairs. After all, as long as they can keep if not the general public, then at least their media accomplices and the poorly informed voters on whose necks they stand focused on one of the most exceptionally divisive issues of our time, they won’t have to explain themselves regarding their wars on the energy industry, the economy, the unborn or even their own diplomatic corps. As I’ve said before: Manufactured crises are perfect tools to keep the poor, huddled, liberal masses frozen with fear and hatred, and there’s hardly a more perfectly tailored fearmongering campaign than one in which the government can use dead children to sow mistrust among the public. By turning guns into menacing killing machines, the Democratic elite can turn gun owners into menacing killers. To be sure, what sort of soulless monster would dare suggest his Constitutional rights trump the lives of our Nation’s future — other than abortionists, of course. Thusly, while proponents of the Bill of Rights defend their basic freedoms against an onslaught of righteous — albeit wrongheaded — fury, the real issues of the day, from violence to economics, disappear behind a wall of promises, demands and Vice

There is a slight historical misstatement in this article:

' Indeed, King George and his red-coated minions would prove as much within a generation of the American Revolution, booking their return engagement in the War of 1812. '

If the Americans (well some of them, New England mostly wanted nothing to do with the War of 1812, other than making money off of selling rope and sails and other naval stores to both the US and the UK.. The Governor of Massachusetts in very pointed language refused to allow the Mass. Militia to serve outside the borders of that state and enlistment in the US Army was actively discouraged in many parts of New England.) had to fight King george's merry men again in 1812-15 it is because the US declared war on the UK, ostensibly over empressment of US sailors into the Royal Navy and the British trade blocade of Napoleon's Europe (sort of). The real motivation was as much an attempt to conquer Canada while the british were at full stretch fighting Napoleon and his allies. While this war is full of interest about how the tiny US Navy displayed great talent in defeating and taking several large warships from the British (a real scandle to the RN) and in the emergence of two national figures , Andrew Jackson and Winfield Scott, the War of 1812 is certainly not one of pieces of high moral ground in our history.

It’s important to understand democrats on this issue - and this article helps... BUT it’s also important to watch how they ACT:

Liberal astroturf group offering $9 to $11 per hour to join its gun-control campaign ....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2990896/posts?page=13

Liberal argument: When the 2nd Amendment was written, “arms” referred to flintlocks and muskets.

One counter argument to this is that the Constitution itself (before the addition of the Bill of Rights) gave Congress the power to "... grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;". That authorization gave citizens the power to make war against other countries, most often as privateer ship owner to attack foreign shipping, but as shown by the following "captures on land and water" it wasn't exclusively on the sea. Unless stern language was sufficient to capture foreign ships, this meant that the authors of the Constitution expected the private ownership of the 18th Century's weapon of mass destruction, the cannon. That's not some little flintlock musket.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.