You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Second Amendment’ tag.

This may seem petty. But, I need to say it. I am sick and tired of reading all over blogs, forums and news websites that people have the right to bare arms. It especially annoys me when it is written in response to statements by gun control advocates. These statements are often worded like this: “Read the Constitution. The Second Amendment says Iright to bare arms. What part of shall not be infringed don’t you understand?”

I tell you all now, the Constitution says nothing about bare arms. Those who angrily make this statement to show the anti-gun people how wrong they are, just make us all look foolish. Their assumption that gun owners are a bunch of ignorant loudmouths is proven for all to see. Your implied assertion that you have, unlike them, read the Constitution becomes immediately suspect.

“Baring arms” is what you do when you wear a sleeveless shirt. No jurisdiction in the U.S. has passed any law infringing upon your right to bare your arms. Maybe some establishments have a dress code that disallows bare arms. Other than that you can bare arms just about anywhere you like.

The Second Amendment states that the right to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed. “To bear” is a verb synonymous with “to carry”. “To bare” means “to expose”. As an adjective “bare” means naked or unadorned. There is a major difference in meaning between the words “bear” and “bare”.

It doesn’t make any difference to me if you are a poor speller in your personal correspondence. But, if you are going to publicly (and the internet is public) call others out for their ignorance of the Constitution, learn the proper terminology. If you are passionate about the Second Amendment, you should know what it says and what it means. If you haven’t even bothered to learn the right word, how dedicated to this right can you be? If you are unable to write at a second grade level, why would others believe you are intelligent and responsible enough to carry a gun? You just give the Liberals another laugh at the ignorant backwoods stereotype they believe is the face of gun owners.

With yet another mass shooting in the news today, I can understand (though not agree with), the gun control advocates. I believe in the spirit and inent of the Second Amendment. I grew up in an extended family who all had guns. I went shooting and hunting as a child and learned respect for firearms.

However, I do find it disturbing that there are so many innocent victims of shootings. Whenever there is an upswing in a particular kind of death, people have a tendency to call for tougher laws. We see this with DUI, texting and cell phone use by drivers, child abuse and domestic violence, to name a few. In some cases, such as domestic violence, a change in laws and attitudes has been needed. In others, the focus has been on preventing only the dangerous people access to “killing tools” – as in drunk driving laws.

Nobody has ever suggested motor vehicles be banned because they are killing people. The blame is placed where it belongs, on the driver. We do not insist cars be smaller or incapable of high speeds. Drivers who have killed people stand trial, not the automobile manufacturer. Yet, driving is a privilege, not a right.

Years ago, I would have said that I favor “sensible gun laws”. That was before the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun advocates co-opted that phrase to mean “burdensome laws that make it nearly impossible for anyone to own or carry a gun”. I favor background checks as a way to keep guns from being purchased by known criminals or mentally ill people. True, preventing legal purchase doesn’t eliminate illegal purchase. But, it does make sense to try to prevent it being easy. With modern computerized systems, this check is barely an inconvenience for the law abiding citizen.

Other laws and proposed laws make little sense to me. For example the “high capacity magazine” bans already in place in some states. Gun control advocates want these laws to be nationwide. Now, I can agree that average citizens have no real need of a 100 round drum magazine as was used by the Colorado theater killer. But, why is 10 the magic number that determines whether a magazine is “high capacity”? Many modern pistols are manufactured with 12-15 round magazines. I don’t honestly see why 10 is good and 12 is bad. To me, it would seem that “high capacity” magazine would be one that has more capacity than the standard capacity the gun was designed to hold. The proposal the anti-gun crowd advocates makes no sense to me.

It’s unfortunate that both sides in the gun control debate are completely unwilling to have reasonable discussion on how to keep the public safe without infringing upon the right of the law abiding citizen to own and carry a firearm.

Twitter Updates

%d bloggers like this: