Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Rabidly anti-gun 'Mike the Gun Guy' deliberately asks the wrong questions

When Weisser asks if "guns [make] it harder to walk away from a fight," and if it's a mistake to "give civilians the right to walk around with a gun," he leads the public away from such questions as how to reconcile government issued permission slips for exercising the right to bear arms, with shall not be infringed; or, for that matter, why anyone who values gun rights should patronize and thus support a so-called "gun guy" (and deadbeat?) who has dedicated himself to undermining those rights. That's a guy who would prefer to not have to worry about answers.


Anonymous said...

"Ph.D. in economic history", writer for the Huffington Post.

Another over "educated" leftist, whose solution is for the police to be the only ones allowed to carry.

ExtraChrispy said...

Although the article did a decent job at decent job at pointing out the absurdity of "The Gun Guy"'s position, I'd like to add that if the Second Amendment is read through the preamble, we find it was incorporated into the Bill of Rights as a “declaratory and restrictive clause” to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its power” to infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

Another way to understand the original intent of the Second Amendment is re-write it/re-read it through the preamble:

“Because a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the federal government is expressly denied the power to infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear Arms.”

By advancing the myth that the Amendments grant the American people their individual rights, the federal government has been able to convert enumerated restraints and qualifications on its power into legislative, executive, judicial and administrative power over individual rights. The federal government claims it was granted the constitutional authority to determine the extent of the individual rights enumerated in the Amendments and/or impose “reasonable restraints” on those rights. This assertion is absurd. The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to ignore, circumvent, modify, negate or remove constitutional restraints placed on its power by the Amendments or convert them into a power over the individual right enumerated in the particular restraint.

Sean said...

Traitors, educated or not, are always an oily and slippery bunch. To me, he's Jane Fondas' brother. My solution? Only "civilians" carry, no cops, no military, (CONUS)and people who commit crimes with a gun receive public execution for murder, and the ones getting jail also get branded. The jailed ones pay restitution to their victims first, then they pay back every single penny of the cost of them being jailed.

Anonymous said...

This shouldn't surprise anyone. It should be expected that a handful of hard leftists would get the idea of joining the NRA to establish their "street cred" as gun lovers, then proceed to preach the gospel of "common sense" gun laws. The propaganda value to them is more than worth the cost of an NRA life membership.