Defending the 2nd Amendment

Today it's military-style weapons; tomorrow it's "powerful" handguns; pretty soon, it's that old single shot .22 squirrel gun your grandfather got when he was 10.

It is thought that President Obama is likely to introduce his plan on Tuesday, January 15, with guidance from Vice President Biden, who was chosen by Obama to lead the administration's effort to develop gun control measures to prevent another Newtown gun massacre from occurring. 

Meanwhile, the nation’s attention is being focused on guns and gun ownership. To say that the way in which the attention is being focused, and the specific issues on which it is focused is flawed would be a profound understatement.  

One position being voiced, would, if adopted by the defenders of the 2nd Amendment, do more to undermine it than to uphold it. That is the idea that “some guns are bad”, or that “some guns should only be available to government”, or that the discussion should focus on “needs”, not rights. Because this position, in its various forms, concedes the argument to the gun-banning crowd, it would have the same effect as all other appeasements have had throughout history: it just encourages the other side they can achieve complete victory.

Here's what is wrong with banning guns, types of guns, or specific guns. 1. Rights are rights, not needs. 2. As a practical matter, only the law-abiding gun owners would be affected by any new law, and the guns we may own are not a threat to anyone, anyway. The argument against a ban thus occurs on two levels:

1. Moral and ethical: the right to bear arms is a natural right, the curtailment of which constitutes a prima facie injury to those who choose to exercise it.

2. Pragmatic: banning certain weapons, or types of weapons would not keep criminals from possessing and using them.


On that point, it is quite pragmatic to argue that we who do not commit crimes should have access to the same level of weaponry that is available to criminals.

This all gets very silly, when one considers that the opponents of private firearm ownership are exactly that: opponents of private firearm ownership. For each weapon, of any type, they will present an argument--of sorts--why "no one needs to own one".  Like big cats on the African plain, they pick off stragglers by separating them from the herd.  Today it's military-style weapons; tomorrow it's "powerful" handguns; pretty soon, it's that old single shot .22 squirrel gun your grandfather got when he was 10.

Notice the "herd" has shrunk to the point it is totally defenseless.  Unlike the cats, who only want a meal, the opponents of private firearm ownership truly will not rest until ALL guns, of EVERY type have been outlawed. TO THINK OTHERWISE IS TO MAKE A DREADFUL MISTAKE.

Beyond that, they are part of a larger group that has as its goal rendering the Constitution and all of the Bill of Rights irrelevant. As our President said before the 2008 election, what bothered him about the U.S. Constitution was that it is largely a document that places restrictions on the government. For many of our opponents, that makes the document "seriously flawed"-- so much so that it cannot be fixed by amendment, it must, instead, be treated as a "living document", until every part of it has been re-interpreted, stood on its ear, and until its meaning is the opposite of the original intent. "Animal Farm", déjà vu.

The only sane position to take is to oppose—vigorously oppose any new restrictions on gun ownership.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Glenn Farkas January 14, 2013 at 03:04 PM
Nancy, I largely agree with most of your points. What I don't understand is the apathy from the left about the daily killing (mainly via guns) in the large metropolitan areas of the country. If you review the crime data, the overwhelming majority of gun violence is in small pockets of high crime areas near large cities, yet all the media attention gets focused on suburban shootings which are extremely rare. The media and left wing opponents of firearms then use these rare events to justify taking away all firearms from law abiding citizens, leaving them defenseless against societal predators who choose to ignore all laws. It would seem that the best way to limit gun violence would be to focus on incarcerating violent criminals (and keeping them there for long periods of time); increasing police presence in those areas; and expanding economic opportunities within those communities to get people working and off the street. I don't want to minimize the tragedies of Colorado and Connecticut, but our 2nd amendment rights to defend ourselves and our families needs to be vigorously defended.
Bringin' Down Briarwood January 15, 2013 at 07:13 AM
RE: " ... only the law-abiding gun owners would be affected by any new law, and the guns we may own are not a threat to anyone, anyway." In case you missed it, you might want to look up who the guns were registered to that killed all those poor Newtown kids. As far as I know, she was law-abiding. But I know, Nancy, don't let the facts or what's left of your soul get in the way of your disgusting stump speech.
Brian L. January 16, 2013 at 09:44 PM
How can you say that we aren't concerned about the killing in large metropolitan areas? When someone starts calling for tighter restrictions and bans, that would directly impact the deaths in the cities. What you propose would help as well, but with a very large price tag on it also. By adding more guns to the streets (ie concealed carry) it will do nothing to stop the gangs and inner city violence where the people doing the shooting know others around them are armed and they do it anyway. If, for example, guns were made to be more effectively traceable from the factory, we might be able to keep the guns from being sold in back alleys more effectively. We might be able to find the black market dealers with more ease. Sure the second amendment can be taken to mean you get to have a gun on you at all times, but why should it be so extremely easy for anyone to purchase a firearm with little to no proof that you are responsible enough to do so? If we tightened it up a lot, nationwide...not just state to state laws...we might be able to keep guns and ammunition out of the wrong hands while still allowing you and many others to purchase your weapons. You might just have to wait an extra week or two before you take it home.
Brian L. January 16, 2013 at 09:49 PM
Something is wrong when we think it's OK to track possible terrorists when they purchase materials to make bombs but when someone buys bulk ammunition in a matter of weeks we can't question why. I know sources can be very wrong and news outlets can't always be trusted, but "sources say over the past several months, Holmes spent about $15,000 as he was putting together his deadly arsenal -- guns, chemicals, explosives, and ammunition." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57477290/investigators-track-colo-shooting-suspects-ammo-shipments/ Why can't we knock on his door and find out a little about this guy? Try and get an idea about his mental stability, who his family and friends are...anything. There are many steps that can be taken to solve these problems.
Luke Bradley, Ph.D. February 02, 2013 at 10:33 PM
Farkas, who ARE you? An Ohioan? A Chicagoan? Doesn't matter--you're a wannabe career politician who couldn't even get the Chicago Tribune to take you seriously. Why is your past hidden on the web? No Wikipedia biography? Odds are that you were recruited by the Tea Party lunatics who want to colonize every county in the union. You're a disgrace and clearly have no emotional ties to the people of Glenview.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »