Some Anti-Gun Arguments Are So Lame…

by Steve MacDonald

There’s a great “Your Turn” editorial in the Union Leader, written by Brandon Harvey of Danbury.   His primary point is that some of the arguments being made in favor of restricting second amendment rights are so lame (as in unable to stand on their own), they have to be addressed, and he does a fine job doing just that.

Another argument in relation to this bizarre position taken by the anti-gun crowd is this: You don’t need an “assault weapon” or “high capacity magazine” to hunt deer.  First, the Second Amendment says “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.”  It does not say “the right to hunt deer.” In fact, deer hunting is not a right. The use of the word “militia” obviously implies using weapons that would be useful in combat. 

Militia, combat, I guess we are entitled to military style weapons after all, whose keeping the government…shall not infringe.  oh! Wait.  Brandon’s not done…

Second, where does the government get off telling me what I do or do not need?  It could be said that you don’t “need” a five-bedroom house, or a car that is capable of reaching 150 miles per hour.  In a free society, I’m sorry, you can’t tell me what I do or do not “need.”

And it could be said Obama doesn’t need 30+ Czars, John Kerry don’t need no yacht–regardless of which state he registers it in,  that Al Gwhore doesn’t need all those houses or a private jet, that men and post-menopausal women do not need to pay more for health insurance that covers abortion except that thanks to Democrats they do, and on an on….  Great point Brandon.  Big thumbs up from the Groksters. 

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: