The Hard Black Line of the 2d Amendment

| January 12, 2013 | 20 Comments

Crass, heartless liberals, heeding Rahm Emmanuel’s admonition to let no crisis go to waste, have seized upon the Sandy Hook killings to ram through as much gun-restricting legislation as they can. Doing their very best to channel public emotions into pressuring legislators across the country, and in Washington, to quickly, emotionally and unthinkingly enact restrictive measures against gun ownership and possession, they are shameless in their exploitation of the deaths of those children and their teachers.

No doubt, should their efforts prove successful, they will someday erect a monument on the front lawn of that tragic school, celebrating the death of the 2d Amendment and proclaiming the murdered children as liberal martyrs to the cause.

But not so fast there all you gloating liberal gun haters; for there is growing evidence that your shameless exploitation of those children’s deaths has provoked a rapidly expanding counter-outrage among that far larger cohort of Americans who own guns, wisely for protection of what they hold dear. It is a concept that only blooms in the minds of parents as they become responsible for lives other than their own.

How many young American couples have come to realize, upon the birth of their first child, that they now bear the responsibility to protect something more precious to them than life itself? And do you suppose that as a family grows to include more children that sense of needing to protect those little ones doesn’t grow as well?

There is ample evidence to show that the original intent of our Founding Fathers, in guaranteeing our right to bear arms, was for the purpose of the people being able to oppose the tyranny of a standing federal army. In our present circumstances, can we believe those stalwart men would take issue with the reality that the crucial right they gave us to bear arms now serves to protect us from criminal tyranny in our homes?

Although the Castle Doctrine was not yet a promulgated legal standard in their time, there should be little doubt that those brave men who stood against the British Army with weapons they had stored in their homes, would approve whole-heartedly of our keeping and bearing arms to protect all which we hold dear.

In the spirit of fighting fire with fire, a concept which the Founding Fathers likely grasped in its entirety, do you suppose they would now deny us the ability to be at least as well armed as those who would criminally abuse us? When a home invader can knock down your door and point an illegally obtained, fully automatic machine pistol at your face, do you really believe your Founding Fathers wouldn’t want you to have, at the minimum, a 17 round semi-automatic handgun to abort that planned home invasion in the entryway? Something you really need to think about, America, is just where that dubiously interpreted 2d Amendment draws the hard, black line of reality:

Do you doubt that it’s at the front door of the sanctuary you have created for your children?

Crossposted at American Thinker

Category: Guns

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Comments (20)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. ComancheDoc says:

    Ive made similar arguments in the STL PostDispatch fb page about 3 shootings last night and was told i was tryin to intimidate people into being heavily armed…Some people just dont get it.

  2. DefendUSA says:

    PT…Have I told you lately that I love you! Excellent post.

  3. Bam Bam says:

    I have to admit, I feel the tide changing back in our favor on this. My wife said “I can’t watch piers Morgan anymore cause it makes me sick” and I said “I can, cause it brings me hope” I keep seeing his useless attacks falling short as he brings more and more people telling him, and America, what the facts really are.

    Things started off bad, and I ain’t saying its all over, but I really feel change coming in this argument. Not saying there won’t be new legislation and things, but I don’t think it will be near as bad as some people may have thought two- three weeks ago. We just gotta keep the information campaign going.

    Just my thoughts.

  4. Doc Bailey says:

    Security is almost always a false narrative. It is easy to breech any but the most sophisticated locks, and without adequate preparation or training it is nearly impossible to prepare for a physical confrontation, not to mention if you have physical infirmity.

    I find it hard then to see why a house should NOT be loaded for bear, owners of said house as dangerous as can be to any that would dare breech it

  5. Fatcircles0311 says:

    Libtards are as cowardly as they come. Bob Costas saying he’d simply lie down and die than to even entertain the option of anyone but the state having a means to stop evil basically said it all.

    Coward society has become so cowardly just the thought of someone else being completely helpless is just to dangerous for these coward to fathom any longer.

  6. OWB says:

    Two things about this entire “discussion” continue to astound me. First, to hear the extremists tell it, we who support the 2nd ammendment are the oppposite extreme from them when in reality we are mostly folks who just want to be left alone. The opposite extreme from those who want complete or nearly complete disarmament or control of any sort (registration) would be those who seek a requirement that everyone bear arms all the time no matter what.

    It appears that most people are accepting the lefts definition of the extremes. Most of us fall comfortably in the middle of the extremes – I don’t care much if you own any guns, and it’s none of your business whether I do or not. The only way someone should be able to discover that for sure is if they attempt some sort of criminal activity in my presence which would warrant the use of a gun to stop the criminal activity and I happened to be armed at the time. That’s the way law abiding folks act – you never know for sure because law abiding folks don’t go around brandishing. Usually.

    The second thing that continues to nag at me is that the same folks who want to further restrict our gun liberties keep harping on choice for this and choice for that, most often using privacy as their justification for personal decisions.

    Choice? Are you kidding me?? If you do not want to own a gun, then don’t buy (or steal) one. It’s that simple. If you don’t want to be around people who own them, then you might want to rethink your choice of friends. Criminals tend to possess some really scary guns and use them with little regard for anyone other them themselves.

  7. Devtun says:

    Rahmbo’s munchkins attend the elite University of Chicago Lab school…that has armed security. His kids also get an armed escort to and from school. The Mayor of course is protected by a platoon of 2nd City’s finest. Elitists can justify anything.

    All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

    ? George Orwell, Animal Farm

    Also:
    Obama Grants Himself, Bush Lifetime Secret Service Protection

    Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/obama-bush-secret-service/2013/01/11/id/471007#ixzz2HnK2GJbP
    Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

  8. Hondo says:

    I hate to say it, Poetrooper – but there is a major error of fact in your article. The Castle Doctrine far predates America. It dates to at least Roman times, and arguably back farther than that. Biblical support for the Castle Doctrine exists in Exodus 22:1-3.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+22%3A1-3&version=ESV

    Further: the Castle Doctrine had been incorporated into English common law well before the American Revolution. See Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 4, Chapter 16.

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch16.asp

    In short: use of deadly force in defense of one’s home was a settled point of English Common Law well before 1776. US jurisprudence started out with the Castle Doctrine as a basic right possessed by all.

  9. Poetrooper says:

    Hondo, I guess the operative word here is “promulgated” by which I meant the legislatively enacted state laws that have arisen in the past few decades across this country to specifically define the rights of citizens to defend themselves and their property. I am well aware of the concept “An Englishman’s home is his castle,” and that it was incorporated into English common law several centuries back.

    But you are right that I should have phrased that differently so as to make it clear I was referring to the specific, contemporary, American laws as they exist among the various states. Unfortunately, what is going through my mind is not always what emerges from the keyboard. That is a common hazard when you permit old farts to post on your site.

    BTW, while the Castle Doctrine has gained widespread support here in America in the past few years, it is probably at it’s ebb in Great Britain due to the influence of political correctness. Just days ago I received an email from a buddy about an Englishman sentenced to life in prison for killing a burglar.

  10. Bam Bam says:

    I’m aghast! How did he kill a burglar, with a toasted crumpet? And besides, Great England got rid of guns, and Piers Morgan TOLD me that that would solve the crime problem. I’m horribly confused right now…

  11. Ex-PH2 says:

    Hondo, just how BIG IS your library?

    England is not — repeat NOT — a gun-free country. It is difficult to get a permit to legally own a gun, but anyone who lives down in Exmoor will confirm, in spades, that people with guns go hunting and target shooting on a regular basis. People go hunting in other shires, and in Wales, Cornwall, and Scotland, too.

    Piers Maroon is so full of absolute crap, it’s a pity he doesn’t bother to check his facts about his own country of origin.

  12. Devtun says:

    @11

    Even U.K. can’t stand the rubbish that is Piers Morgan (please keep him America)…Nobody wants to give Piers an arse kicking more than Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear( believe there was some drama between them on a Concorde flight ).

  13. streetsweeper says:

    Very well done, Poe! I love reading your articles. Always have, always will! People, there are *two* laws you need to be aware of that exist. Those are, the law of defense and self-defense. Check your particular state code or statutes. Here in Georgia and probably identical to your state laws we have one of those pesky “stand your ground” statutes the left so willingly condemns.

    OCGA 16-3-21§ 16-3-21. Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution

    (a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

    Read more at the link and I encourage you to research YOUR states law regards this. YMMV!

  14. Ex-PH2 says:

    So, this means that if, as has happened four times to other people in December, some dickless wonder with a brain the size of a pea tries to hold me up at gunpoint when I’m at the ATM in my car, I’m justified in running the window up on his arm and driving around with the !#$@!$#!@# while I’m on the phone with the poh-lease, even if the 1@#$!$!! gets a booboo out of it?

    Yes, Illinois does have some sort of ‘stand your ground’ law. A homeowner in Morton Grove, outside of Chicago, shot an intruder, was not arrested. Other, similar incidents — self-defense — have taken place over the past five years. Only the criminals have been arrested for anything. It’s particularly rewarding when there is surveillance video of it on the news, and the perp’s mug shot shortly thereafter.

  15. USMCE8Ret says:

    If you have a CCL in VA, can you still open carry w/o being harassed? How does it really matter?

  16. Crucible says:

    #15 One can open carry in VA without a CCP-but you’ll undoubtedly attract attention….of all kinds. There’s been several higher profile harassment cases in the last decade or so IIRC but I have not heard of any in recent times.

    Still, open carry invites attention good, bad and ugly. For me (a “gray” man), I greatly prefer to conceal and do it very well accordingly.

    C-

  17. Ex-PH2 says:

    Wyoming has proposed (and it may have passed) a law that allows the sheriff and local law enforcement to arrest Federal agents if they attempt to seize guns in Wyoming:

    New Wyoming Gun Law – Jail Terms for Feds
    Executive Summary – Wyoming passed a new gun law similar to Tennessee and Montana. The Firearms Freedom Act. This law states that any gun made, sold and kept within the State of Wyoming is not subject to Federal Gun Control Laws. This means no registration. Wyoming did however go further that the other states. They said that any State or Federal Official who tries to enforce any federal firearm law regarding a firearm made, sold and kept in Wyoming could face a $2000 fine and two years in prison. See how the law reads:

    “A personal firearm, a firearm action or receiver, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in the state to be used or sold within the state is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce.” (Note the federal government was never given the right to interfere with or regulate intrastate commerce (within a given state).

    “Any official, agent or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Wyoming and that remains exclusively within the borders of Wyoming shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be subject to imprisonment for not more than two (2) years, a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($2,000.00), or both.” (Please note if a federal agent was convicted of this law it would make him or her a felon and thus they could not own firearms and would be ineligible to hold a federal law enforcement position. And face firing and loss of pension. Of course if they ignore Wyoming convictions under this law then Wyoming may ignore all federal arrest warrants they felt to be inconsistent with the constitution like tax cases.)

    Discussion – The Federal ATF are not amused by the bill and of course have no intentions of following a state law. This pushes the country closer and closer to a full out and out revolution (think shots fired) as the fed oversteps their bounds and powers delegated to them by the constitution which is the document that empowers them in the first place. Montana is taking the federal gun control people to federal court to test their law. This is one of the stupidest things imaginable. They think a federal judge is going to side with them and let the process of forcing the federal government to return to their constitutional powers only get support in the federal courts. We will see what happens when they lose in court. We think Wyoming did the right thing by putting penalties in the game for the feds. This will pitch the feds against the local police, which is a good thing for the people that want to remain free and exercise their constitutional rights. Rest assured Wyoming got the attention of the feds and has them boxed into a corner. If they ignore this they lose. If they react against this they convict themselves of usurping their authority. It is a lose lose situation. Obama is the perfect storm waiting to happen.

    — Source link: http://www.panamalaw.org/new_wyoming_gun_law_jail_terms_for_feds.html

    The duly-elected sheriff’s authority to arrest Federal gents was ruled in favor by the US District Federal judge. And you guys thought the 10th Amendment is dead and buried?

    – Source link: http://politicalvelcraft.org/2011/09/22/wyoming-sheriffs-told-federal-batf-irs-agents-to-abide-by-the-constitution-or-face-immediate-arrest/

    Tennessee and Montana have laws similar to Wyoming’s Firearms Freedom Act.

    Over this past weekend, the Chicago Police Department seized 89 guns that were held entirely by criminals. Cook County Board President Tony Preckwinkle wants to get rid of all legitimately-owned guns in Cook County, because she thinks that will solve the problem, when common sense tells you that it will not.

    OH, and while I’m on the subject of the police, they are now telling you that if someone wants to rape you — are you READY for this, ladies? — you should just submit to it. Do not attempt to defend yourself, just lie there and take it.

    Like hell, I will….NOT!!!!!

  18. Ex-PH2 says:

    Ah, s!$#@! That should be ‘ruled in favor of the sheriffs’.

  19. ComancheDoc says:

    Ex-PH2, can you provide a link for the rape thing, i have several familiy members(female types) who live there who might want to read it.

  20. Ex-PH2 says:

    @19, I will find it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *