By: Paul Forman
Gun control used to mean “two hands on the grips.” Today, gun control means more laws restricting law-abiding U.S. citizens from obtaining and owning guns for self-protection, or for the sport of target shooting or hunting. The 2nd amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly and in no uncertain terms states: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” So far, here in Alabama our 2nd Amendment rights are still intact.
The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices. State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing on this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. *Taken from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Actually, these rights (of the people) were not given by the government, but these rights were endowed by our “Creator.” The amendments were written to emphasize our God-given rights, not simply allow them, as if the government could even do such thing.
Today, attacks on the 2nd Amendment are growing as the left tries to disarm law abiding U.S. citizens. The far left anti-gun crowd seems to think in their feeble, unreasoning minds, that making more laws will prevent crime from taking place! We have plenty of laws! We have laws against stealing. Therefore, there should be NO stolen guns out there in criminals’ hands for them to use in robberies. We already have laws against murder, so that should automatically mean we will never have any murders, right? We have laws against convicted criminals buying or owning guns. Criminals can’t possibly be committing crimes with guns. After all, it’s already against the law for them to be in possession of a gun to commit a crime, right?
How on earth can any reasonably thinking person think that making laws that prevent a law-abiding citizen from buying two guns on the same day, one for himself, one for his wife, prevent a crime from taking place? How can a law, recently passed in California, outlawing a law-abiding citizen from owning a “black assault rifle” prevent a crime, when he can buy the same rifle with a brown wood stock and it is perfectly legal?
Yet, in spite of what most of us would consider “common sense,” these ridiculous laws keep right on being proposed and passed, especially on the left coast.
I am a proud “Life Member” of the National Rifle Association. Some of these far left, anti-gun hate groups have gone so far as to label me and the NRA as a terrorist threat to the security of the United States! That’s right. The organization that teaches gun safety training. The same NRA that fought for the rights of freed slaves to be allowed to own guns. The group that certifies instructors, such as myself, on how to train others on the safe and proper use of firearms for self-defense and shooting sports, such as hunting. The NRA is the number one source for certifying instructors for training Law Enforcement Officers and Military.
It sickens me when our elected officials call for the eradication of the NRA because these elected officials choose to lie and call the NRA a ‘HATE GROUP” and a THREAT to our NATIONAL SECURITY. If the USA was ever invaded by a foreign enemy, I could easily imagine millions of law-abiding NRA members crouched down behind rock walls and dug-out trenches fighting for the preservation of our Republic, while the snowflake left-wing pansies cry like babies and wave white flags of surrender.
Why do the left-wing snowflakes want our guns confiscated? As one far-left-loony elected official recently stated, “I need armed guards because, after all, I am an elected official.” Do they really think confiscating guns or restricting the amount and kind of ammo we can use will reduce crime? If the far left was even close to being serious about reducing crime, they would call for vigorous enforcement of the laws already on the books. Or, is there a far more nefarious purpose that may not be so crazy after all?
By: Paul Foreman