Friday, February 18, 2011

The Firearm Series Part III: Are Gun Bans Legal?

            In my previous two posts, I have shown that guns are very dangerous, but this danger can be effectively limited by the use of gun restrictions and bans. Since this is case, why is there such a large movement to keep guns legalized for private citizens? Is this just a group of adamant rednecks and violent criminals, or is there actually some basis for keeping guns legal? The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of the free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” This is the basis for arguments for gun ownership rights in the United States. (Obviously the violent criminals dug up this “Second Amendment,” whatever that is, to quote in courts of law. The rednecks, like all people from Alabama, couldn’t have done it because besides owning lots of guns, having no electricity and still using outhouses, they can’t read)
            The Second Amendment seems to be a convincing reason for private gun ownership being allowed, but upon closer examination the true nature of the amendment, that is the restriction of citizens from owning guns, becomes obvious. The Second Amendment starts out by saying, “A well regulated Militia being necessary…the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The Militia used to consist of the whole of this country’s population, but now it is only the National Guard units that are the militia. Because of the chronological setting of the Second Amendment, it seems to support private gun ownership but really doesn’t.
            The opposition to sanity maintains that the Second Amendment supports the right of citizens to own firearms because it states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This is a completely stupid argument since obviously when the writers of the Constitution wrote “the people” the meant “only those people who are in the employment of the government and can serve to oppress the citizens of this country.” It makes sense that the Constitution, the document that is the basis for a republican government, that is one that gets its power from the people, would give the federal government a way to enslave its citizens but depriving them of firearms.
            Another argument of proponents of gun ownership rights comes from one of the chief framers of the Constitution, James Madison. To address the concern that the federal government might, at some time, stage a coup and seize complete control, Madison wrote that, based on the country’s population, the federal government could only have a standing army of 25-30 thousand men. “To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands…” Supposedly this proves that one of the chief writers of the Constitution considered private ownership of guns to be an enduring fact, but obviously this argument is complete and total cow feces. I don’t know why, but it just is.
            There is absolutely no reason why gun restrictions and bans should not be used to control the ever present danger of firearms. Concerns that such bans would violate the Constitution have been raised, but these have no truth to them and so should be ignored. Gun restrictions and bans are perfectly legitimate and are the only way to effectively neutralize the ever present danger of firearms in our fair country. Oh, and God (Oops, can’t say that in connection with the government!) help the man who is responsible for collecting all of the guns from the rednecks in Alabama.

NOTE: All of the information in this article can be found at

To whoever reads this:
This concludes my series on firearms. I hope that it has been informative and entertaining for you. As always, thank you for reading my blog. God bless you all.

Peter Last

No comments:

Post a Comment