The latest novel argument I've seen on the far left is to suggest the Second Amendment to the Constitution only protects an individuals right to keep and bear arms if those arms are muskets because that is the level of firearm technology that existed at the time the Bill of Rights was enacted. This is among the most absurd and ridiculous arguments I've seen come from the far left in years. Do they really want to interpret the Constitution this way?
If we do not have the right to keep and bear items that didn't exist back in in the 1780s imagine how many things we would not have the right to keep and bear. Automobiles and televisions didn't exist back then. Those giant butcher knives used in the kitchen, they didn't exist. Microwave ovens, laptop computers, your beloved cell phones and tablets. All of those things didn't exist back then and you wouldn't have a right to keep and bear any of them.
And for those among the pro-abortion faction of the far left, remember that any abortion procedures medically practiced now didn't exist back then nor did the RU-486 abortion pill. Even if there is a right to abortions in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which there is not, those forms of abortion didn't exist back then.
Surely the far left can not seriously suggest we opt for this method of Constitutional interpretation given all they could lose. This isn't really a serious idea. If individuals on the far left want to own muskets they can voluntarily do so, just like they can pay more taxes themselves voluntarily if they so strongly believe in that too. When shooting at targets at the range, I suspect a Sig Sauer M400 would be far more accurate than a musket. But if they want, they can have their muskets. They can keep the rest of the far left change they seek to impose on us too.
None of the gun regulations suggested by the far left would have prevented the massacre at Newtown if all of those regulations were enacted a decade ago. The gun restrictions always proposed by the far left will never effect criminals that misuse firearms to commit their crimes. So does the far left always target the rights of law-abiding citizens every time a shooting massacre happens? That answer is because the far left wants to restrict gun ownership by the citizens. An unarmed population is more easily defeated by its enemies, both domestic and foreign.
This article is a rebuttal to Brian White's article Sensible Gun-Control Proposals Obvious, Impossible
Coming soon: ConservativeReform.com the future of the conservative movement and victory in 2014 and 2016 for Republicans begins here.
Read the best of Dean's News and Commentaries here at DEAN2112.com.
Please also follow Dean on Twitter and Facebook.
Read my articles at PerigonMedia.com also.
Read more articles at RightNewsNow.com
Comments