The 2nd ammendment doesn’t grant the right to bear arms…

It is supposed to insure it.

I found an interesting analysis about the 2nd amendment a few weeks ago. The analysis states that the language of the 2nd is straightforward and unambiguous.

It is assumed, according to this analysis that citizens living under the constitution inherently have the right to own arms and that right is not granted by the 2nd amendment but is protected from government interference by the 2nd amendment.

The analysis is far more detailed and can be read in its entirety here.

So without thinking about it too much, I sent the link to an acquaintance on Twitter.

He was, as always embattled with one of the gun control advocates from one of the groups like Moms Demand Action, or Everytown for Gun safety. This analysis made his point and he sent it to the gun grabbers.

I’m always surprised by the nasty comments from the gun control crowd. For an “enlightened”, “Progressive”, “Well Educated”, group, you’d think their vocabulary would have a bit more depth.

Nonetheless it got me thinking about the logic the gun control folks are using.

Some of the gun control people absolutely believe that guns should be removed from the hands of people because of the harm some guns might cause.

That led me to this thought;

“By their logic, I could advocate bringing back Eugenics Laws because one of their descendants might be responsible for killing a bunch of people.”

Their logic is just as flawed about guns as mine is about descendants.

You can’t know a gun is going to hurt someone any more than you can know a descendant is going to be a criminal.

There is no family on the planet that doesn’t have at least one criminal in the family tree and no family is immune from producing criminals.

I could as easily make the case that preventing people from breeding is likely to be equally beneficial to society and the planet in the long term, as removing guns.

After all, fewer people sucking up resources burning fossil fuel, etc. would be better long term to combat global warming.

I’ve considered invoking the Zardoz paradigm where the primitives were given guns so that they’d war amongst themselves thereby keeping their numbers manageable.

I don’t think that would add anything useful to the debate other than to offend the fem-nazis by forcing them to view a half naked, hairy, violent, Sean Connery.

Humm… Might be worth it after all!

I wonder all the time, why the “Moms Demand” and “Everytown” groups aren’t also teaching gun safety. I believe that there are too many guns to confiscate, even if I believed that line of illogic. I believe instead, that teaching children gun safety would save more lives.

I absolutely believe the fewer people in the general population who have knowledge about proper handling of, and behavior around guns; the more likely gun accidents become.

For me its simply pragmatic. If you teach gun safety you can’t go wrong.

The educated gun control folks reject that kind of education. These are the same people that seem content with censoring other knowledge as well.

These folks are content with not teaching children via Chemistry Class about dangerous chemicals in the home. In spite of the fact that accidental poisoning is common.

They’re offended by locker room nudity, but not extremely suggestive nudity & sexuality in movies. They’ll decry playground fights as unacceptable, but will show DVD’s to their children depicting bloody fights and dismemberment.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating censorship any more than I’m advocating gun control.

I just wish these groups were consistent in their logic.