.

Defending the 2nd Amendment

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

 

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.

Doug Purington January 14, 2013 at 07:46 PM
There are no reasons, rational or otherwise, for ANY citizen to possess an assault (or similar) weapon or the extended magazine clips to go with them! Banning these weapons will in NO WAY infringe upon citizen's rights to bear arms. Ordinary citizens can own a hand gun for protection and hunters can own a rifle for their hunting purposes.....beyond these simple rights, no other weapons are necessary or appropriate EVER. In addition to these bans, all background checks, particularly for online purchases, should be severely strengthened at all levels! Granted, these absolutely necessary measures will not totally eliminate gun violence but they WILL serve to greatly reduce their instances and severity!
Steve S. January 14, 2013 at 08:04 PM
So you wish to NOT allow women a choice because you want to preserve life, yet you defend the right to place weapons that kill in everyones hands. You don't make any sense, this piece isn't even your opinion, it's a transcript from an NRA newsletter that you copied.
Jack Straw January 15, 2013 at 01:41 AM
I always like to hear the opinions from the North shore on gun control. And as usual I am not disappointed by the ignorance and lack of understanding of others. Now I grew up with guns in the house, I served in the U.S. Army were they had a few gun around too. I have friends and relatives across the country that have guns, their children and grandchildren have learned respect for guns. I said this once I will say it again. From Laure Dann in 1988 to Adam Lanza 2012 there is one big common thread, psychiatric drugs. Over 90% of the mass shootings have a direct correlation to some form of psychiatric medication. Before mass hysteria leads to years of political fighting, why not look at all the possibilities. A normal kid could be sitting on a mountain of guns and would never hurt another creature. Fact: Between 2004 and 2011, there have been over 11,000 reports to the U.S. FDA’s MedWatch system of psychiatric drug side effects related to violence. These include 300 cases of homicide, nearly 3,000 cases of mania and over 7,000 cases of aggression. Note: By the FDA’s own admission, only 1-10% of side effects are ever reported to the FDA.
Bringin' Down Briarwood January 15, 2013 at 07:00 AM
I'm just laughing my head off. This is a new low for you, sweetheart. You don't even know what you're writing about. Is it banning all guns or just certain guns? Maybe you should have had the sense to wait until the proposal was actually announced, instead of spraying to all the usual fields that the playbook tells to address. Since it's the conclusion you barely come to, once again, let me ask: When has anybody is a high-level government position EVER proposed completely dumping the right to bear arms since Newtown? Show me an example with a link and I'll never comment on one of your misguided editorials again. Another piece of advice: PLEASE go take a writing course. I know high school freshmen who write more clearly Here's a little edit of your nightmarish first paragraph ... On Tuesday, President Obama is likely to introduce his new gun control measures. Guided by Vice-President Biden, the plan's objective is to prevent another incident similar to the Newtown gun massacre . Lastly, what does that EVEN mean: "Rights are rights, not needs." LMFAO!!!
Bringin' Down Briarwood January 15, 2013 at 07:07 AM
Oh and the most important thing about your usual thoughtlessness ... 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.
Steve S. January 15, 2013 at 01:45 PM
Nancy, will you be joining this protest? After all cyber crime is far more dangerous than automatic assault weapons correct? http://highlandpark.patch.com/articles/westboro-baptist-church-may-picket-aaron-swartz-s-funeral
Jack Straw January 15, 2013 at 02:41 PM
"sweetheart" You sure are a condescending sexist twit.
Steve S. January 15, 2013 at 02:58 PM
She is well deserving of the criticism, give the woman a break though, she was one of the first lobotomy patients in the last century, she doesn't have much to work with.
Bringin' Down Briarwood January 15, 2013 at 07:44 PM
"Sexist" would imply that I show this type of disdain for the entire gender or use this disrespectful language anywhere in the ballpark of semi-regularly. Far from it. Trust me, I understand the implication of my words - unlike some cheap Patch columnists. If anything, I'm a Nance-ist. Want to call me a twit? Guilty. Want to call me an Internet scumbag? Guilty. Want to call my message condescending? Good!! That was the purpose for someone who easily breaks my maximum levels on the condescending meter.
Bringin' Down Briarwood January 15, 2013 at 08:00 PM
BTW, Old HP, want to get rid of me? Help your pal and find her an example of when someone in a high-level federal government position has proposed completely dumping the right to bear arms since Newtown. It's the second time I put this challenge out there and she can't come up with anything even though that is what she says is happening. Maybe you can help her get me off her back.
Bringin' Down Briarwood January 17, 2013 at 05:57 PM
As usual, you have nothing. And onward I go.
Dan Cox January 24, 2013 at 04:34 AM
Nancy J. Thorner, Thank You! I loved every single word and I support your position 100%
Dan Cox January 24, 2013 at 04:36 AM
Can I impose on your freedom of speech!
Dan Cox January 24, 2013 at 04:38 AM
You need to be educated in the meaning and purpose of the U.S. Constitution.

Boards

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 »