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.
Now, anyone with more than two brain cells that rub together can tell that the comma wasn't a typo when the framers of the Constitution wrote it. Rather, since they had a powerful command of the language, it was designed to state clearly to other English speakers, "Since we need a military, and since tyrants (King George) tend to use the military against the people, it's best if the people are allowed to arm themselves, so we can protect ourselves from the government."
Of course, the lunatic fringe on the left states that the comma was just there as a pause. The purpose of owning a gun is to field a militia. You know, 'cuz the rest of the Constitution was similarly carelessly worded and proofread. Nobody debated about what to put in there. Nobody nearly came to blows over the possible interpretations of everything. And, in that same, sad, alternate reality occupied by leftists, I'm a pro basketball player. As Mac Johnson states:
Henderson's second insight was that despite the right belonging to "the people" in the amendment, it actually belonged only to the militia as an organized military force. To believe this, you have to believe that the United States is the only nation on Earth that felt a need to guarantee its government, in writing, the right to have an army -- which is possible, I suppose, if Jefferson foresaw the attitude of the modern Democrat party towards the military.
The Washington comPost, in their infinite wisdom, states that "[T]his ruling will inevitably mean more people killed and wounded as keeping guns out of the city might become harder." Yes, more people will be killed and wounded at first. The predatory element of DC, conditioned as they have been to think that the sheeple of DC are unarmed, afraid, and willing victims, will start mugging, raping, and attacking people who are now armed. And they'll get shot. And some will die. This will reduce the number of them that have to go to prison, as dead people need no further punishment.
The amusing part, however, is that, everywhere that concealed carry permit issuances have gone up, violent crime goes down almost immediately afterward. It's almost like cause and effect, or something. I just don't understand it. It's almost as if criminals become hesitant about attacking people when they sense there might be some element of danger to it. No, that can't be it. It must be because all the gun-toting rednecks indiscriminately kill the "poor, underprivileged youths in impoverished neighborhoods", but, since they're white, are never prosecuted for it. That has to be it. Can't have anything to do with the gang-bangers either dying off for attacking people, or learning that it's dangerous to rob an armed populace.
To the gun-fearing pussies out there, a cold, hard fact: The murder rate in DC is 26% higher now than it was in 1978 when the gun ban took effect. What can this mean? Well, it could mean that the murderers took Archie Bunker's advice, when his daughter asked him if he knew how many murders were carried out using guns every year. ("Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if dey was pushed outta windows?") Or it could mean what every non-fucktard already understands: People who are going to commit a crime like murder do not care if they are also committing a crime by owning a weapon.
I'm going to repeat that, 'cuz I know some people still don't get it. I'm going to say it louder. MAKING OWNERSHIP OF A GUN A CRIME ONLY AFFECTS PEOPLE WHO ARE CONCERNED WITH NOT BREAKING THE LAW.
People get all emotional about guns, so they have trouble seeing that logic above. So, I'm going to provide a handy analogy. Let's say you're a criminal. You're involved in a high-speed chase, as you flee the scene of a bank robbery where you just killed someone. How likely are you to give a shit that you've just run a couple of red lights, a stop sign, and are ignoring the speed limit?
Furthermore, look at places where these bans have been "successes." In England, they have managed to take guns away from most of the populace. Two things have happened. In the first two years after handguns were banned, handgun basesd crime increased 40%. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm. Why, it's almost as if criminals found that unarmed targets were easier to rob and murder.
Now, let's just hope that the court "rediscovers" the 10th.....
No comments:
Post a Comment