Article the fourth [Amendment II]
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.
So much has been written about, battled over in court, and politicized in regards to this Amendment that it is easy to forget what the actual words say- and what they mean.
There are so many people, and unfortunately law makers, who seem to believe this amendment has something to do with recreational target shooting and duck hunting. This was taken straight from Barack Obama’s campaign website which has since been scrubbed- go figure. Notice he doesn’t even speak of supporting gun owners’ rights related to the 2nd ammendment!
He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting.
This is the type of doublespeak we should expect from someone on the left. He is making an attempt to re-define the second amendment to somehow be aligned with just hunting and target shooting. But while recreational shooting and hunting may be a nice sidebar to the right to bear arms, the Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with recreation- just like the First Amendment has nothing to do with rap music. This basic right to our freedoms as humans and Americans is pretty cut and dry.
The right to bear arms has everything to do with preservation of life, liberty, and even property. Our taxes pay for armed security for the president, and rightly so. Many anti-gun celebrities in Hollywood have bodyguards- and I’m betting they don’t carry mace in that holster. It is hypocritical that these same celebrities, who can afford personal armed body guards, do not believe the rest of America should be enabled with that right.
It is ironic, but not surprising, that the same people who claim to defend the poor and/or racial equality are the ones who would create gun bans based on racial and class prejudice (Does Chicago ring a bell). If there are any places in our country where law abiding citizens are in need of personal defense via firearms it is in our inner cities- where violent crime rates are the highest.
While the gangs are running the streets and infesting the many neighborhoods, many cities don not allow its citizens to possess firearms legally- or they have so many hoops and fees to pay that not many people could/would be able to finish the process. Do the gang members, criminals, and drug dealers on the streets obey the gun laws in places like Chicago? Of course not, in fact, nowhere in our country where guns are banned do criminals obey gun law. But it is in these places where citizens need the most protection. Politicians would say, “just call 911!”, but by the time the over-worked police get to your door, they may be arriving to a murder scene.
These inner city gun bans are racist and prejudice to class income. (Read THIS ARTICLE) The law makers who pass these laws do not believe the people living in these areas should have the right to bear arms- even law abiding citizens. Remember what liberal elitist celeb Bette Midler said, “People who are not educated in any way, are just a little on the barbaric side”. This is how the left see people. No Harvard degree? You just may be a barbarian.
If a law abiding white man or woman living in mountains of Colorado can bear arms for personal defense, then a law abiding black man or woman (or any race) should have the same right in downtown Chicago. Some would say this argument is ridiculous, but there is a long history of racist gun laws that are still in place today.
Some of these gun control advocates say, “We won’t take your guns”, but what they do is create a structure where the only citizens who can own guns are the wealthy and/or politically powerful. This is done using extremely high and unfair taxes on firearms and ammunition. Or by creating a maze of hoops to jump through that make it impossible for anyone to actually be “authorized” to own a gun. There is a big difference between passing a background check that shows that a person isn’t a violent criminal, and slapping a hefty tax and price tag on the “registration form” for a personal to qualify.
And now with the latest Homeland Security “Right Wing Extremism” release by Janet Napolitano, anyone who falls into their idea of “extreme” (against abortion, anti-illegal immigration, etc) they may deny your right to bear arms. But that’s a whole issue in itself!
So, it all goes back to these words, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed“.
right: something to which one has a just claim (merriam-webster)
keep: to watch over and defend (merriam-webster)
bear: to be equipped or furnished with (merriam-webster)
infringe: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another (merriam-webster)