Low Hanging Fruit

I shouldn't pick on this guy, but it's been a while, and this is too easy.

Baring Arms Isn't Right
Steven Mrozik

The founding fathers bestowed many unalienable rights. They are most commonly known as part of the "Bill of Rights." One of these unalienable rights is the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution -- the right to bare arms.

Steven, Steven, Steven. Unless you worship the founding fathers, you've got the origin of the concept of "rights" all wrong. Rights exist outside of any government, bestowed not by the founders, nor a piece of paper, but by our Creator. Now, your version of the Creator might just be Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc. I just hope you don't worship at the altar of John Hancock.

As to the right to bare arms; well maybe, but going sleeveless is only practical in the warmer months.

I have learned one thing though, "unalienable" is a word.

we can still agree that many people who own firearms have no need for them.

We? Who's this "we" you're talking about? You got a turd in your pocket, son? There is no "need" involved in firearm ownership. There is only desire, and legal status. If a person wants a firearm and is not legally prohibited from handling one, they can have one. It's not rocket surgery*.

The founders of our nation lived during a completely different time and had lived in a different culture in different circumstances than we do today.

Oh boy, here we go with that one again.

The times they lived in were treacherous, you fended for yourself in the wilderness. There weren't cities and developed areas everywhere; it was forests and plains. The need for weapons was obvious and it was that need that directly influenced the second amendment.

So, where in the Second Amendment do we see the phrase "hunting, being
necessary to the security of a free state"? Find it, and get back to me.

What we must realize now is that the writers of the Constitution also wrote it in such a way to prevent the abuse of the rights given to us.

(emphasis mine)

Stevie, you're going to be a good little servant to the machine aren't you? You let people and pieces of paper give you rights. A jellyfish has a stronger spine.

The Constitution states that a "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." This same rule doesn't apply to every person as many claim it to be.

[I've inserted a break here, as that much lunacy in one paragraph can be hazardous to your health - ed.]

According to the Constitution, guns are to be used to protect the citizens from danger, and that the people in charge of protecting us oversee the "militia" and make sure no one is infringing on others' rights by misusing the weapons they were given.

Ho-lee sheepshit, Batman, we have us a certifiable Constitutional scholar on our hands! I never knew the Constitution applied to different people in different ways. What a revelation!

Now, the second part, well I just don't know what to say. It's easy when someone comes at you with pseudo-science, or "facts", but something pulled out of thin air? I'm at a loss this time. I'll come back to it later.

If the use of firearms was limited to police officers and military servicemen, we could prevent thousands of gun-related crimes every year and create a safer and more peaceful society. With reduced crime would also come less of a need for firearms as a means of protection. The people who acquire guns to steal and kill wouldn't have them to commit such heinous acts in the first place.

And how do you think we can make those guns go away? Magical pixie dust maybe, or if we just hold hands and think happy thoughts, all the guns held illegally by criminals would just vanish. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Many people and groups, such as the National Rifle Association, promote the use and ownership of firearms for protection and claim it is our Constitutional right. I say that once the option of using firearms is eliminated, we are ensured the right our forefathers gave us: protection.

(emphasis mine)

Again with the "give" thing. That, there is your fundamental misconception. You take an erroneous premise and run with it, drawing outlandish conclusions about the Constitution and generally sounding like a high school sophomore.

The last three paragraphs are so not grounded in critical thinking that it's hard to address them in a civilized manner.

I'm still trying to get a response to this:

According to the Constitution, guns are to be used to protect the citizens from danger, and that the people in charge of protecting us oversee the "militia" and make sure no one is infringing on others' rights by misusing the weapons they were given.

But all I can come up with is something that would make Gunnery Sergeant Hartman blush.

Besides, everyone knows this is what the right to bear arms really means:




Stony Brook University, you should be ashamed. Parents of the students there, get your money back.

Thanks to the Man Called Uncle for the pointer.

I wish I could take credit for that, but I can't. I read it somewhere else, but can't recall where.