The Second Amendment of the Constitution states: "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 John Ashcroft seemed to think that the Second Amendment was a "privilege". I'm glad that asshole is out of a job with the DOJ now. Apparently, he can't read when it comes to the Bill Of Rights.
The Second Amendment uses the "well regulated militia" as an example, not as a requirement as Ashcroft seemed to think. "Shall not be infringed" means just that. No laws can be made that infringes on your right to carry a firearm. That means that if you want to be technical about it, criminals, the mentally ill, ANYONE can possess a firearm. Please notice that it says nothing about automatic weapons, assault rifles, or even laser or rail guns. I'm not saying that criminals or the mentally ill should have weapons, but if they pushed their case, I imagine that you could have a good argument with them.
Now personally, I own several weapons. For example, I own one of these:
This isn't my particular weapon, but it is very close. It is a Bushmaster AR-15 weapon. Now, do I "need" this weapon? Of course not. A machine gun would do just a nicely. :) I have this weapon for several reasons. First, I use it to protect my home. If you are staring down the barrel of one of these, you will think twice before trying anything stupid while the cops are on their way to come arrest you. If you do think about doing something stupid, I have 30 rounds I can put into you before I need to reload. What that means is, you had better be a good shot, because in a firefight, I'm going to win.
Secondly, I have it because it's cool. There isn't a red blooded American man (or any red blooded man from any nation) that wouldn't want one of these. If you want to feel testosterone rush through your bloodstream, pick one of these up, it will work wonders. :)
Thirdly, my wife said I could have it. Now, I'm not saying that she has full say in the matter, but her approval does mean something. Your spouse must be comfortable around guns, otherwise when things get ugly from say a burglary, you want your spouse to be able to defend her/himself.
Now, for those of you out there that say I shouldn't have this weapon and guns in the house are more likely to cause harm to the occupant rather then the intruder, my guns are locked up. I have several children in my life and I would be devastated if one of them got into my guns and killed themselves or someone else. The guns are locked away, but can be retrieved in a matter of seconds if the need arises.
If you think that guns shouldn't be in the home, fine. Don't have guns in YOUR home. You don't have the right to tell me how to live my life when I'm well within my Constitutional rights. For example, I don't tell you that you can't say something when you have a First Amendment right to do so. That's not to say that I won't be pissed about it, but I don't have the right to trample on your rights to say what you want, when you want, to who you want.
I've been raised around guns. I got my first rifle when I was just 5 years old. I had it kept in my grandfather's gun cabinet. We would go up into the mountains and shoot targets for recreation. There was ALWAYS safety first when it came to guns. Children can understand the power and responsibility that comes with guns. They are much more intelligent then you think. I plan on taking my Goddaughter and other children in my life out shooting when they are old enough as well. I may even buy her a small .22 rifle for her when she is old enough. Although, I think she'd rather have a Barbie or a Tricycle at her age now. :)
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
No comments:
Post a Comment