Unrestricted Gun Rights?

Should you support gun restrictions? No doubt this is a ‘hot’ topic and an emotional one at that. However, that may be exactly the problem with seeing this issue clearly. Emotional decisions are rarely rational decisions, as I think most would agree. Shootings are tragedies, whether it’s a criminal or an innocent person. However, since we are not all created equal, not everyone can defend themselves against another by simply using their hands. The folks over at Prepared Gun Owners put out an interesting article on this topic:

“To put it simply: the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Full stop. No exceptions. And, just to be clear, the Second Amendment did not place any limitation on the definition of “arms.” This means, for those who aren’t familiar with a dictionary, that any weapon is allowed Constitutionally.”

They go on to make another great point:

“ANYONE CAN KILL ANYONE WITH A GUN. THAT IS ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF WEAPONS. IT IS IMPORTANT TO REALIZE, HOWEVER, THAT GUNS HAVE SAVED FAR MORE LIVES THAN THEY HAVE ENDED. STUDIES SHOW THAT THERE ARE ANYWHERE BETWEEN 500,000 TO 3 MILLION DEFENSIVE GUN USES PER YEAR IN AMERICA.”

Guns are not active and do not make decisions, nor do they load themselves. Therefore, they cannot be held responsible for actions.

However, they should be available to all who need them.

“The threat of immediate lethal force is a powerful deterrent to crime.” 

Everyone, in America, should have the right to defend themselves and that means the right to bear arms. If you’re a 115lb lady you shouldn’t be expected to defend yourself, with just your bare hands, against a 250lb man who’s trained in martial arts, should you?

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. How far off the deep end can you go? The first part of this article defies the recent Supreme Court ruling, Heller vs. DC, in which Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, clearly states that the right is indeed subject to limitation. Read part 3 of his opinion.

    If you believe that the right to bear arms has no limitation, then you are saying that people should be able to own SAMs, nuclear weapons, or bombs powerful enough to take out large buildings. Of course, passengers in planes and occupants of buildings would also be armed to defend themselves against such attacks, so the balance of power would be maintained. Right? Where do you draw the line, and why?

    There are no remotely credible “studies” that show that guns save more lives than they save. Note the slippery way that they ignore the distinction between “preventing crime” and “saving life”. The vast majority of crimes do not result in death or the possibility of death. If someone trespasses on my lawn or even tries to take something from my back yard, and I send him to his maker, is this a good use of firearms that you would want to encourage?

    1. A little rushed in your effort to refute the article? ” “studies” that show that guns save more lives than they save.”

  2. The time stamp is Jan. 30 2019 5:42 pm. It is NOW only 1.:48 pm on Jan 30. Are you time traveling or what ?? So how can I really trust anything stated in your bogus comments…

  3. I agree with the “Prepared Gun Owners” (PGO) statement that the 2nd Amendment does not distinguise between the types of arms the Constitution allows. In point of fact, it is absolute in it’s Constitutional language allowing US citizens the undeniable right to bear arms.

    Taken even further, if you had read some of the writings of our Founding Fathers, you would know they were more concerned with the government overreaching their authority and the citizens being able to put up significant resistance to such overreaching and take back control of the government as it was intended to be.

    Following that logic, citizens should not be at such a significant disadvantage by being relegated to SUCH inferior by an overreaching government. According to the Bill Of RIGHTS, certain basic rights are bestowed upon us by GOD HIMSELF and can not be denied by man.

    Funny how the 2nd Amendment is number two of the Bill Of Rights. If you take one, then you need to take them all. In all cases, The Constitution should rule supreme in any legal argument.

    And as to trying to subvert the supreme law of the land by your own wishes, the Constitution provides a way to amend it if you have the sufficient majority of support behind you. End game is do not try to subvert by will what you can not overcome legitimately.

    I support the entire Constitution. Do you?

  4. 1.) Scalia was wrong.
    2.) Yes, it says weapons. No limits. Founding fathers were very concerned about a government that went against the people. Like ours! The people are to be armed just the same as the government. Like Swalwel says… We’ll nuke you! Not if I can nuke you back, you won’t! Same applies to machine guns and armed jet fighters. If we have to go to war against our government, ( and it looks more and more like we might ) do you think the government will stick to 10 round magazines, 3 rounds in a shotgun, and won’t use full auto?
    3.) No remotely credible studies that show guns are used defensively more often than offensively? How about the CDC? Is that credible enough for you? This will start you in the right direction. http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#1f8e7362299a And this…https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-o

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Replies containing profane language will be blocked by an internal filter. Required fields are marked *