I think that by now, I’m speaking for almost all Americans when I say that a disarmed America is a safe America.
It’s time for President Biden, champion of firearms control legislation, to get serious and propose that we repeal the Second Amendment to the Constitution. No more right to keep and bare arms, no more NRA lobby to annoy progressives, no more whining about rights. It’s time to simply eliminate the rights. Haven’t we progressed far enough where we begin to rethink the Bill of Rights all together?
II. 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.
The old white men who framed the Constitution felt that allowing firearms to be held by the public would work as a hedge against tyranny. Today progressives argue that didn’t extend to military style weapons such as we see in the hands of citizens today. However, it doesn’t hold water because the Founding Fathers allowed those citizens to keep and bare military style weapons of the day (muskets) and weapons superior to those carried by the Army (rifles and rifled muskets) of the day. But they were old, white and not all that bright, so it’s time that we move on! Forward to prohibition!
Prohibition worked remarkably well in the past The Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution, also known as the Volestead Act insured that America would be then (and forever more) a dry nation. It passed on July 22, 1919 and America suffered no ill effects from that.
Wikipedia has this to say about that: The effects of Prohibition were largely unanticipated. The production, importation, and distribution of alcoholic beverages — once the province of legitimate business — were taken over by criminal gangs, which fought each other for market control in violent confrontations, including murder. Major gangsters, such as Omaha’s Tom Dennison and Chicago’s Al Capone, became rich and were admired locally and nationally. Enforcement was difficult because the gangs became so rich they were often able to bribe underpaid and understaffed law-enforcement personnel and pay for expensive lawyers. Many citizens were sympathetic to bootleggers, and respectable citizens were lured by the romance of illegal speakeasies.
 |
| (h/t Daletoons) |
Unintended consequences? Well, maybe back then, a century ago. But look how far we’ve come since then and we have Vice President Joe (I mean business) Biden leading the charge to disarm through legislation — following on the heels of Rep. Andrew Volestead (R-MN). I’m sure that Vice President Biden’s task force will reach out to the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), which has done such a fantastic job in the past. Who can forget their triumph crushing the Branch Dividians at Waco, TX and more recently through their success at Operation Fast and Furious/Operation Gunrunner?
Draconian firearms regulations don’t work on criminals. They are aimed at honest, law abiding citizens. Criminals will be armed no matter how many laws that a government enacts. Witness Mexico. You’d be hard pressed to point to our neighbors to the south as a firearms legislation success story. So why is the government pushing to control – and better still, eliminate legitimate private ownership of firearms? I’ll let you fill in the blanks yourself.
Are your local and state police RELIABLE enough to be armed? That needs to be reconsidered because they form a conservative block that many progressives find difficult to trust. Maybe it’s time to disarm them too.
When the Vice President and President Obama speak of eliminating private ownership of firearms, they are (naturally) exempting the rich and authorized bodyguards for the rich from the law. There will be a peace force to protect them from you (armed with staves and pitchforks perhaps)…and possibly from criminals, who will still be armed to the teeth with the finest military firearms and explosives.
If Vice President Biden is able to pull this one off, it will be the crown jewel in his political career. Imagine, once the Second Amendment is gone, he can move onto that pesky Tenth Amendment.
X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It’s true that the Tenth Amendment is nothing more than a paper tiger that Tea Party people and folks of that ilk wave around, but the Federal Government ignores it. If it can be ignored, why can’t it be repealed? That would leave some of the Bill of Rights intact. I’m sure that progressives could think of some additions to the Bill of Rights that the ‘foolish old men’ who wrote the Constitution may not have considered to be important at the time.
It’s going to be a Brave New World for all of us – and we’ll have President Barack Obama and his attack dog, Vice President Joe (Don’t Mess with Joe) Biden to thank for it!
OR… We'll all become criminals… Hellva choice isn't it…
Its very telling to see that those who would Rule us, rather than Govern, are very interested in ensuring their own safety for life through the Bill that was just signed giving Presidents Secret Service Protection for life. That shouldn't be needed if gun control actually worked, should it?
It think it says a lot about their leadership when they feel that scared of the Governed.
Biden must have a script, for without it he would have difficulty finding his ass with both hands.
Elections have consequences.
I read Bill O'Reilly's book, "Killing Lincoln". In the book one of the more interesting factoids was that there was no restriction whatsoever that kept regular citizens from walking around inside the White House and sleeping in the hallways. Lincoln felt that (even during a civil war) posting guards would make people feel that he was a despot. Times change.
Lincoln had no fear of the governed — even during such a time.
Somebody is pulling the strings of the marionette.
The Constitution in an inconvenient "little book you wave around" according to great socialists like Piers Morgan.
We could also solve the political correctness problem in America by removing the annoying "Freedom of Speech" component of the Bill of Rights. There is so much about the Constitution that annoys liberals. Now if it read "The law is what the liberal element of society says it is — and shall change upon their whim", the British Piers Morgans of this world would love it.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Religion is an antique of the past (except Islam), and free speech allows bloggers to discuss their thoughts on-line — how are those things progressive? Freedom of the press should be limited to the liberal legacy press only: New York Times, CBS/NBC/ABC and CNN. The only news magazine that should be allowed under the new Constitution would be Mother Jones.
And who would want to petition such a loving government for redress?
The Right to Assemble only encourages the Tea Party. It needs to go too. Occupy Wall Street can be grandfathered in as an exception to the rule.
Comments are closed.