"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." -Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
I can own a gun. I can use a gun in self defense. On the other hand, I do no hunt, nor do I shoot guns for sport. If I don't hunt, nor shoot clay pigeons, the question arises, "Why do I own a gun?" Or "why would I want to own a gun?"
Because I can.
After all, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed," right? My personal, inalienable, Constitutional right to keep and use a gun is protected, yes?
A simple explanation to a simple but loaded question.
I can honestly understand opposing critics' incredulity of my explanation. Guns unfortunately bear an infamous nature associated with war, violence, and death. Not to mention tragic deaths result from mere accidents with household hand guns. Following logical rationale, why on earth would I own or want to own a gun if I do not use it for the hunt or sport?
Because I can!
Likewise, why would I, or John Smith, or Clarence Williams III, per say, not own a gun, or never want to own one?
Because he can.
"Because I can" sufficiently and completely explains one's reasoning behind exercising his Constitutional rights - any rights. The Founding Fathers made the Constitution for that reason, that "because-I-can" reason. Keep in mind, the right to do what I want, what you want, or what Clarence Williams III wants, is what makes great the United States.
6 comments:
Lovely!!!
I love the post, Amy. But remember, it is not just because you "can."
Not only CAN you... you have the constitutionally protected RIGHT to do so! Opponents to gun ownership will constantly point out that "the framers were talking about militias." While they DID reference militias, you will note that the text of the language does not say "the right of a militia to keep and bear arms," it says that "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
There is an interesting question as to whether States have the power to limit gun ownership (you will, of course, remember that the Constitution was a limit on the federal government and not the states). However, the recent case of McDonald v. City of Chicago substantively incorporated that right to keep and bear arms to apply to the states.
Further, remember that the Framers thought it was "necessary to the security of a free state." Their premise was not that you "can" but that you "must" own arms (which would include guns) in order to secure the liberty they had procured.
Oh yeah, McDonald v. City of Chicago. I remember the day I heard on the news that the Fourteenth Amendment was applied to the Seocond Amendment for the first time. Thanks James! Yes, I agree, not only can I own a gun, but it is a protected right. Like I said, "'Because I can' sufficiently and completely explains one's reasoning behind exercising his Constitutional rights - any rights."
Correction: ...to the Second Amendment....
FYI- 99% of the time that civilians have to wield guns as defense in a crime, (not necessarily ever fired), they are successful in detering the criminal or holding him at bay.
Did you know that the sale of handguns skyrocketed in AZ after the shooting? Why? So more civilians could shoot up more Congresspeople of course! NOT! Because the average law-abiding citizen in AZ knew that politicans would seize the opportunity to make more gun-control laws.
On another side note- did you know that a left-wing wacko tried to assasinate the Gov of Missouri last September (the gov was a Democrat)? And he must have used a gun- because guns are the only thing that can kill. Nope. He used a knife. But because he was so doped up on drugs, he slashed the throat of the dean of the university of St Louis (where the Governor was), instead of the Governor. We had better make some knife-control laws now. Because knives kill or try to kill people.
I bet you're wondering why this wasn't a headline in all news media back in September. How come we are just now hearing about this in national news? Hmmm... good question. Why was the story ignored? or was it ignored? I mean, Governors of states are so common- there are only 50 of them, afterall.
I was going to say what Melanie said too! That an overwhelming amount of criminal acts are avoided just by brandishing the weapon, not even discharging it. And someday you will have things to protect, your children not being the least! I own a handgun but have never shot it. But I know how to load it and use it and certainly would if my family was in danger! You can count on it!
Post a Comment