Demolishing one of the more ridiculous arguments regarding the Second Amendment

My fellow Watcher’s Council member, Greg, who blogs at Rhymes with Right, has put together the ultimate smack-down for those (especially those journalists) who argue that the Second Amendment extends only to muskets and other weapons in use when Congress enacted the Bill of Rights:

The First and Second amendments in context

Carrying this irrefutable logic over to the First Amendment means that the modern media has utterly forfeited its Freedom of Press protections. Unless those Democrat cheerleaders are willing to go back to hand-operated printing presses, they are fair game for government censorship and journalist imprisonment.

Please spread this poster around to those who need a few more weapons in their rhetorical arsenal supporting the Second Amendment.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. beefrank says

    Nothing says ‘America’ and ‘2nd Amendment’ better than the bi-annual Knob Creek Gun Range Machine Gun Shoot in West Point, Kentucky.  All the exhibited weapons are legally owned by fellow US citizens which makes me proud to be an American.  I smile and grin when I think how the anti-gun ranting liberals, like Piers, would soil themselves watching these videos and pondering how well-armed our citizenry (militia) is.  The founding fathers knew the more armed we are, the better freedom reigns.  Gun-ban anyone?
    History Channel coverageOutdoor Channel ‘Shooting Gallery’ coverage. 2012 Machine Gun Shoot.  

  2. says

    Fair game perhaps, but they know we wouldn’t do it, because we actually believe in the US Constitution. The Left, however, doesn’t give a damn about what the uS Constitution says, and only plays the part of a loyal patriot. They aren’t, though. And it’s often why they react so strong to the term “traitor” or “treason”, because they know it is true even before we were born.

  3. says

    One of the good things is that the international transnational coalition is now moving their propaganda mouth pieces around, to the point where I hear foreigners from Australia saying the same thing about China stabbings and American gun control law benefits as American politicians.
     
    We are finally seeing most, if not all, of their propaganda repertoire. And even if some of us knew about them before this, many Americans didn’t. By raising a shield against these psychological and mental attacks, the Left’s overall effect for guns in the long term will decrease. If they had surprised us with these attacks when we weren’t ready, that would be a different issue.

  4. Mike Devx says

    I have some quibbles with the argument as presented by ‘Rhymes With Right’.  Greg extends the right to bear arms from those available at the time (muskets) to any similar form of weapon that fires a single bullet at a time.  In those days, there wasn’t much available, in firepower, beyond this; There was cannon, and I believe you *could* actually park a cannon and as many cannonballs as you wished, in your field, in those days.
     
    Yet I believe it is already illegal for us to purchase and own a fully-automatic assault rifle.  Is it proper for private ownership of a fully-automatic assault rifle to be illegal?  What about a grenade launcher/RPG?  One could take the thought experiment much further: Should your neighbor be allowed to construct a suitcase nuke in his basement?  How about basement experimentation with developing a 95%-human-mortality rate, airborne-transmissible version of a bird-flu virus?
     
    Our military capabilities *have* evolved far beyond the point where we would allow a citizen to hold – and use – the kinds of armaments and weaponry that we allow our military to develop and keep.  I am only asking the question and *not* offering the answer: Where should we draw the line exactly, on the proper limit on destructive potential that we would allow a citizen to hold?
     

  5. beefrank says

    In the late-18th century, combat and firearm technology improvements occurred in the colonial conflict against what was considered the world’s largest modern armed forces. New World ‘wilderness’ hunting tactics were employed against established European military field tactics, rudimentary smooth-bore musket technology was improved with the advent of the ‘high-tech’ rifled musket, i.e., the Pennsylvania long rifles, which increased the effective target range from the 50 yards to 200 (or reportedly 400) yards. Weapons technology have always been R&D and built by the private sector sometimes at great expense before the government even purchases the products.  There should be no limitations for the law-abiding citizen to bear arms.  The Constitution instead dictates the limitations of the government.  It is not a coincidence the liberals are coming out with numerous gun-control regulations which have little to do with preventing a Sandy Hook.  These regulations have been on file in a progressive think tank waiting for the opportune crisis to enact upon the public.

  6. says

    The only people that should be drawing the lines are those with the best interests of America at heart. Not child sex slave traffickers. Not born rich to gooders that like to wipe out the competition with industrial scale mega corrupt corporations as powerful as the government, because they are the government’s power branch. Not people who make millions and billions from the American Dream, then seek to deny anyone else the opportunity to do so with claims that the American Dream is dead.
     
    None of those. Get rid of them first, then we’ll talk.
     
    There is quite a bit that can be worked out, even amongst enemies, so long as the negotiators are honorable and at least have a shared interest. The Left does not share any interests with me, however. They wish to be the conqueror and want all of us, to be conquered. There is your “common interest”.

Leave a Reply