Saturday, February 2, 2013

How to crush Democrats' dumbest (but pervasive) gun control argument

How to crush Democrats' dumbest (but pervasive) gun control argument

136 545
Let's be clear. The Second Amendment was not written to protect your right to kill a deer. It was designed to protect your right to defend yourself against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Your right to bear arms is the only guarantor of your other rights to life, liberty, property, speech and all the rest.

The never-let-a-crisis-go-to-waste Left is in assault mode on your Second Amendment rights. These gun grabbers think they're so clever with this line of questioning which (frustratingly) seems to stump the unprepared:
The Framers didn't write the Second Amendment with AR-15's in mind. Where do you stop? Should citizens be allowed to have nuclear weapons?
This is a hanging curve ball just waiting for you to crush it.

First of all, remind Democrats that the Framers didn't write the First Amendment with cable television, Internet communications or even the telegraph in mind. Should we limit the press's freedom of speech to the movable-type printing press which was the primary means of mass communication at the time of the Framers?

More importantly, don't let the nuclear weapon ruse intimidate you. [And for fun, pronounce it /nuke 'yuh ler/ just to show 'em who's boss.] The limits of the Second Amendment is a fair question that deserves an answer. It's simple: Law-abiding, free people should have the right to arm themselves with whatever weapons their government would use against them.

If the world is sufficiently dangerous that the police require semi-automatic rifles with large-capacity magazines, then do not the free citizens who are sovereign over the police and who also live in the same dangerous world deserve to similarly protect themselves from it? In fact, are not the citizens -- not the police -- always the first ones who are forced to face those dangers?

There is no justification for the public servant police to be more heavily armed than the law-abiding public they serve ... unless ... the government's intention is to be more powerful than the people. When the police are the only ones armed, then it is a police state.

Nah, that's crazy talk. The next thing you know, you'll claim that even the Department of Education is arming itself. Oh crap...

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers. I'm one of you. Be sure to check out...
Worst school massacre in U.S. history: Not a shooting
Watch what happens when a nation bans semi-automatic guns
Why are Democrats so racist?
And my latest Washington Times column: Grappling on the ‘fiscal cliff’

No comments:

Post a Comment