Donald Trump Disparages Judge in Trump University Fraud Case
He hasn’t seen “hostile” yet. Wait until the general election.Read More »
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.
Conservatives just can’t resist the shiny object held out by Progressives. In the case of the current “discussion” about the Second Amendment, Conservatives accept the position that it’s all about needs when they answer the question, “Why does a hunter need a high capacity clip or an “assault” weapon for hunting?” Conservatives argue about the intent and purpose of the Second Amendment, whether it applies to individuals (i.e., what did George Mason mean by a militia?), etc., rather than correctly framing the argument.
It’s a Bill of Rights, not a bill of needs. The Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to bear arms a person needs. It doesn’t matter a wit what a hunter needs, or what an individual needs. The Second Amendment is clear and concise, and guarantees the right to keep and bear arms – Full Stop. There is nothing expressed or implied about needs. In 1789, the Second Amendment would have guaranteed the right to keep and bear a cannon, despite there being little “need” for a person to do so.
And don’t get sucked into the “it’s over 200 years old and times have changed” argument. That doesn’t matter. The best Progressives can do is say the Founders couldn’t know what kind of weapons would be available in the future. So they were brilliant enough to draft the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but not smart enough to think times would change? I think they knew times would change, that weaponry would advance, and they said exactly what they meant – …the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It’s impossible to win an argument you’re not having. When you accept the proposition that it’s about needs, and respond to questions along that line, you can’t win. The trick Progressives love to use is to take a position that sounds reasonable, “Of course a hunter doesn’t need an assault rifle to hunt ducks.” They frame the argument in a way that makes then seem reasonable and opponents seem radical. How about being smarter, and having the right argument. Make sure the questions asked and answered are the right ones. Stop taking the bait and arguing about what a person needs, and start having the debate that should be had. It’s a Bill of Rights, not a bill of needs.