“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Those words, more than any other part of our Nation’s Constitution, have been the most contested. Keeping in mind that this writer is no lawyer, those words really seem simplistic to me. I think they would seem simplistic to Supreme Court Justice Scalia, also. He, of all the members of the Court, seems to have the clearest vision of how to interpret the Constitution…as it was written.
Liberals and self-described scholars seem to have a different view. They believe that the Constitution is a “living document”, one that is fluid and changes with time. Of course, these people only see the changes that benefit them and refuse to open their eyes to those which don’t. A shining example of this is our “press”. The First Amendment says, in part, that “Congress shall make no law….abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” This is freely interpreted by the press as a license to lie to their heart’s desire to accomplish whatever agenda the editorial staff has chosen. I’m not sure that’s what the writers of the Constitution had in mind.
Looking at the language of both amendments, they both seem clear. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and no laws shall be made to abridge the freedom of the press. Simple…to me. But there are those who like to make mountains out of molehills. So, I will try to understand some their arguments here on this page.
Some argue that the Second Amendment was created back when cap and ball muskets were the norm; That the framers couldn’t have anticipated the complex military weaponry available to the masses in this modern era. It’s a good point and deserves some consideration. The only problem is that people arguing this point are the same ones that fail to recognize that the press was a single page letterpress when the Constitution was framed. The framers couldn’t have imagined computers, the internet, podcasts, etc., when they crafted the First Amendment. While the “press” continues to argue for more gun control, noting that the framers couldn’t have anticipated the power of modern weapons to maim and kill, they fail to mention the power of the internet and pod casts to spread their lies and distortions and the damage that can be done to society with such.
I’m willing to compromise. I’m a compromising kind of guy! I’m willing to discuss limits on my firearms if and when the “press” is willing to discuss more liability for those things printed that are not proven to be true. This includes the responsibility to pay for all legal fees for people who challenge…and win…in lawsuits against the “press” for lies and distortions. This includes elimination of the limitations imposed by the definitions of slander and libel. Simple and provable lies, to be determined by a jury, should be punishable in civil court.
I won’t hold my breath on that happening. In the meantime, the “press” and gun control advocates will argue that my right to keep and bear arms CAN and WILL be infringed by laws against open carry, concealed carry, carry in government buildings, bars, schools, sporting events…not to mention restrictions on magazines and round capacity, registration of my weapons, a ban on certain types of weapons, and the requirement that I no longer consider inspection of every area of my life…commonly called a “background check”… as unreasonable search and seizure.
While I am forced to accept all of that for the sake of a false sense of security for the “press”, they continue to degrade our national security by printing classified information, distributing false truths, and supporting political candidates by printing lies and distortions about the challengers of those candidates.
The “press” is currently gearing up for the lies that will encompass the debate on gun control that has been promised by the President. After all, the press is a master of it. The press has coined such terms as “assault weapon” to define any long gun that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition, “hi capacity clips”, which are magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and “Saturday night special”, which is…well, I’m not really sure of what that is other than an attempt to label inexpensive handguns to sound sinister. All of these terms will be hammered home by the “press”, as they exercise their free speech in an attempt to suppress my right to bear arms.
Ladies and gentlemen, the tragedy at Newton was committed by a mentally damaged young man who illegally possessed firearms that were illegally taken from his mother, illegally carried those arms onto a school campus, illegally carried those arms concealed, and murdered innocent children. Gun control people will tell you that a total ban on all guns for all people would have prevented this. Would it? Cocaine, heroin, and many other drugs have been contraband for years, yet millions of pounds of these substances enter the country every year. Do you really think banning all guns would stop guns from being acquired by bad guys?
Little by little, piece by piece, your gun rights will be chipped away until you can’t own any. This is the end goal of the liberals and the press. It’s time to turn the tables on them. It’s time to start chipping away at the rights of the “free press”. It’s time for reform of libel and slander laws. Time to shut down the National Enquirer, the Poynter Institute, and other lying liberal rags that are working to erode your rights. It’s time for a serious, damaging, all-encompassing boycott of any company that sponsors, advertises, or otherwise supports any form of gun control or the media that supports it. Sure, you may have to give up your Ben and Jerry’s ice cream or stop watching Matt Damon movies. You’ll have to give up a lot. Your other choice is giving up your Constitutional rights.
Which do you prefer?