Gun Nuts

Gun nuts,

Please, before you try to sell me on this part of the 2nd Amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Please read the first part of the amendment first where they tell you why they gave you this right, "A WELL REGULATED Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". They didn't say, Due to the small size of your penis and failings in life, In order for you to shoot up defenseless school children, or Because you never learned to fight and don't know how do deal with an ass whipping, or Because you are a crazy paranoid schizophrenic, or because when you personally think it's time to overthrow the Government because it's being led by a black guy, no, it says,"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". Period, that's why that right was given...It's there, in ink.


I'm not saying that they ONLY meant for guns to be in the hands of militia men since we had relatively no standing army at the time but there are other contexts that gun nuts don't take into account.


A.   This is a 60" long Musket common to the era in which the 2nd Amendment was written:

B. This is the led balls it could fire about 100 yards every 90 seconds:

No reasonable person at the time thought that the 2nd Amendment applied to private citizens owning cannons, frigates or any other strictly military weapons.


A. This is a 40" long AR-10 which gun nuts now claim is referred to in the catch all phrase as "arms":

 B. These are some of the 60 rounds per minute (military version can fire 800 RPM) it can fire  at a range of about 700 yards:

Do you see how these are different and should be treated as such?? Not to mention the fact that the US Federal Government could barely staff a standing army and relied on militias as a first response to an invasion from one of the many enemies who had the capabilities of executing such a task.



And why is it that the 2nd Amendment is seemingly the only one that comes with no limits?? And speaking of limits, also there in ink in plain English, it says this right must be "WELL REGULATED".

The 2nd Amendment clearly states, here's your right, here's why and here is how it should be managed, yet gun nuts have gun blinders on that only allows them to see this part: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This would be like an Anarchist defending anarchy with the first Amendment by stating, "Congress shall make no law" and stopping there. It's moronic.


And then there is this:

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

It clearly says in the first Amendment, "NO LAW restricting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" yet, Mormons aren't allowed to practice Polygamy, Rastafarians aren't allowed to smoke weed, churches can't officially endorse political candidates and now, even companies aren't allowed to force their religious beliefs upon their employees. We have the freedom of Speech yet I can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater (unless their is a nut with an AR-10 shooting at everyone) and the press cannot slander someone even though the constitution seemingly gives them the right to do. And don't even get me started about the 5th Amendment and how that's been interpreted and limited in it's rights.

Why isn't the NRA and the gun nuts out there fighting for Polygamy if they are such strict constitutionalists??

And before you start saying Nugent was right and Obama's plan was to come for your guns and bunkers and white women from the get go, just remember that from a legislative stance, Obama never once talked about gun control, not after Tucson, not after Aurora. But Bush W clearly stated that he would have renewed and signed the assault rifle ban when it expired in  2004 and that Obama's stance on gun control are actually more lax than Reagan's, who supported assault rifle bans and once said,

"I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.'' -  Ronald Reagan, 1989

And you have to love the irony in this non-Onion headline:

5 People Shot at 3 Different Gun Shows on Gun Appreciation Day

Remember, it's the NRA's stance that guns don't shoot and kill people, that people at gun shows are responsible and that no one has ever been shot at a gun show and that the more guns you have the safer you will be which is obvious when looking at places like the US, Iraq, Pakistan, Congo, Russia, etc...Or where gun ownership in the area of this country is most common and it also happens to be the area of the country with the highest crime and murder rates.

You can be a gun owner, that's fine, I own a gun, but if you believe the bullshit from the NRA, you are an idiot who is easily manipulated.