Part 1: The Left’s Full Court Press on the Second Amendment

0 51

This is going to be a five part series on the Second Amendment, because there are so many aspects of the argument that deserve adequate attention, but grouping it all into one article would prove to be too daunting for some to read in one sitting.

Let me start off by assuring everyone out there, we are all horrified by the senseless loss of life in that has occurred in these recent mass murders. No one, no matter how ardent a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, no one wants incidents like that to occur. We are all parents, children, movie goers, mall shoppers, etc. None of us wants anyone to be subjected to horrific incidents like have occured, but to blame the gun or the NRA is akin to blaming a car or AAA for deaths resulting from drunk driving. The fault lies with the perpetrator, not with the tool.

This “perfect storm” of recent mass murders, and attempted mass murders, which culminated with the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary, has reinvigorated the left’s attack on our Second Amendment rights. While I understand the outrage, the hurt, the angst and the pain, I fail to understand how people so clearly misdirect those emotions to the tool used to commit the atrocity instead of the perpetrator.

When terrorists attacked this country by crashing airplanes into buildings, people were not angry at airplanes, they were angry 226780_4701337123805_1861673973_nwith the terrorists. When Timothy McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma City Federal Building, people were not angry with fertilizer companies or truck rental companies, they were angry with McVeigh. When a drunk driver kills a family in a car accident, no one blames the car or the booze, they blame the drunk. Why is it then, when some psycho goes on a murder spree, no matter how small or large, the first thing the left blames is the guns? The attached comic really does an excellent job portraying the typical liberal responses to these incidents.

Listening to the gun control crowd, and Piers Morgan in particular, talk about guns is extremely frustrating to an avid gun enthusiast such as myself, because it is abundantly clear they do not know anything about what they are trying to ban. They point to the AR-15, and because it looks similar to an M-16, they call them “weapons of war”. They constantly refer to regular capacity magazines as “high capacity ammunition magazine clips”. Diane Feinstein’s (D-CA) newest gun ban proposal not only lists grenade launchers like the 1994 Clinton ban did, now she has gone as far as to include rocket launchers (both are already banned under federal law). For Pete sake, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) created her own new term, calling standard capacity magazines “assault magazines”. The best analogy I can give an non-gun enthusiast is that it would be like listening to a sportscaster at a hockey game saying “the fullback just hit the hockey ball with his racket sending it through the hoop for a touchdown”.

If gun control advocates really want to have a “serious discussion” about the topic, they need to become educated on the topic. Through that education process, they might find things are not as scary as they previously thought, because the guns they most often seek to ban are not capable of some of the things they think.

You might also like