Funny Valentine's Day Poems to Give Your Kids
Modamily Site Helps You Find Someone to Have a Baby With
Perfect Chocolate-Covered Strawberries
‘No Child Left Behind’ Screeches to a Halt
Brave Girl Won't Let Rare Disease Steal Her Childhood (VIDEO)
Pink Ribbons Hide the Real Truth About Breast Cancer
Would You Wear These Fang Shoes?!
Mom Delivers 15.5 Pound Baby Boy (VIDEO)
Heart Cookie Pops Perfect for Valentine's Day
Obama's Marshmallow Fight at the White House (VIDEO)
7 Things You Can Do Right Now to Prevent Cancer
Beyonce Trademarks 'Blue Ivy' & Starts a Celebrity Trend
5 Great Gifts for Your Techie Valentine
Angelina & Brad Are Letting Maddox Do What?!
Should the Department of Education Be Abolished?
The Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment right of all Americans to bear arms for the first time on Monday, while reviewing a restrictive handgun law in Chicago. The 5-4 ruling does not affect gun control measures outside of firearm bans.
Which means that there are four justices on the bench that would have Americans abandon the most valuable tool they possess in defending their liberty. The Second Amendment ensures that we keep all of the other amendments we've grown so fond of -- like the freedom of speech or the right to a fair and timely trial.
After all, those in power won't dare take away our God given, Constitution-protected rights so long as We the People have the ability to resist. What happens if the government takes away our right to vote, or our right to practice our own religions, if the law-abiding citizens have no guns? We can call the lawyers, but is anyone really afraid of lawyers?
Do you really want to have to trust the government that much? Or wouldn't it be better to know that if a group of power-hungry people were to get in control, we'd have the ultimate ability to resist them if need be? As Americans, we get to make one last stand against tyranny, rather than submit or be killed.
Thomas Jefferson said it himself:
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Just look at history. Germany had a gun ban prior to World War II. Ask Holocaust survivors how that worked out for them. Ask Neda how the gun ban in Iran has been working. Oh wait. You can't ask her. She's dead. Ask the law-abiding citizens of Chicago, where the gun crime rate is significantly higher than the national average.
In addition to being the ultimate tool against tyranny, allowing civilian gun ownership is just good common sense in the fight against crime.
I live in California, where it's illegal to carry a concealed weapon. Criminals know this. Potential rapists, murderers, and/or kidnappers know this. If I'm walking down the street to my car after a night hanging out with my friends, maybe a little bit later than I had intended, someone wanting to do me bodily harm knows that I don't have a substantial weapon in my purse.
Even if I chose not to carry, I'd feel (at least slightly) safer knowing that a super-bad dude might have to wonder if I was carrying. It's just plain old common sense.
Thank you Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas for upholding the Constitution. And congratulations to the city of Chicago, which is sure to see its crime rate fall drastically in the coming years.
Image via Kristen Bons
Comments (15)
I find it extremely sad and troublesome to make a comparison between Holocaust-era Germany and the United States in terms of gun bans. Thinking like this and advocating for permitting anyone to carry a concealed weapon is a slippery slope to more violence in this country -- something we clearly don't need in light of ever-rising gun-related violence and deaths. While the Founding Fathers may have intended citizens to keep guns in the 1700s, I have to believe they were also smart enough to know that life would be a lot different in America 300 years later.
Common sense to carry conceal weapons? Not the kind of common sense I subscribe to.
PunditMom, if the founding fathers thougtht the amendment wouldn't be relevant 300 years later (um, we're not there yet, but OK), they would not have put it in the Constitution. The whole point of the Constitution is to be a framework for a long-lasting, strong government. And the right to bear arms is absolutely as important today as it was when the Constitution was ratified. Very recently in our history, the US government (and state/local governments) have gone onto citizens' private property and shot/killed them, often when they were not even committing a crime, and certainly not a capital crime. If you want the government to think they can do this any time they want without fear of violent repercussions, why don't you move to China? (They have a gun ban there, and my ex's parents spent over a decade in a prison camp for the crime of being university teachers. Related? Yes - they both stem from the attitude that the government can do whatever it wants to the people.)
The Constitution needs to be upheld; those who don't like what it plainly says can start a movement to amend it.
I have no desire to carry a concealed weapon at this point in time. However, circumstances could change, and I am glad I have the ability to make the choice. Just because something is a right doesn't mean every person is going to run out and use and abuse it. Give humans some credit.
I'm really disappointed in US educators who are teaching children that guns and gun-owners are evil. Some of the most peaceful people I know are gun-owners. Their grandkids should not be seeing them in a negative light just because they are exercising a Constitutional right.
I consider myself liberal but the right to gun ownership (in my opinion) is a MUST for every free country. They did allow for "reasonable" restrictions on gun ownership such as felons on the mentally unstable.
PM- My point was to avoid the worst possible outcome. Which is the inability to resist a totalitarian regime. In terms of crime -- How am I safer if a potential rapist can be reasonably assured that I don't have an ability to over-power him? If gun bans really do protect citizens, why does Chicago have the highest gun crime rate in the country? It is common sense, imo.
But are you really afraid that America is turning into a totalitairan regime or that we are on that road? If so, guns are the least of our worries and maybe it's just time to move to Canada. Or France -- the food is yummy there. Seriously, the Second Amendment specifically says the right to have a gun is in connection with forming a militia, not just for each and every person to have a gun. So if not militia, then how do we get to the right to even have a gun?
@SKL -- My daughter was born in China, so while I don't want to live there, maybe a little respect?
Punditmom, what did I say about China that isn't a fact? I have been to China and have dated a man from China for years. I have no disrespect for Chinese people. I feel sorry for them in some respects. My point is that gun bans aren't a step in the direction of a higher level of civilization, as many anti-gun people think. It's exactly the opposite.
And besides, since you decided to bring up your daughter (who was completely irrelevant to the discussion), why is it that she is no longer in China? Anything to do with a regime that punishes families with multiple children?
Punditmom - where do we get the right to have a gun? Where do we get the right to have a coffee pot? Hello? Are you saying that if it's not specifically permitted in the Constitution, we have no right to it? The Constitution is about limiting government's rights to make oppressive laws and bans such as a law against carrying weapons. They felt it necessary to specifically mention the right to bear arms because the colonies didn't trust anyone to have central control otherwise.
Also, the amendment doesn't kick in when the majority of Americans feel like things are going south. That would render it meaningless. It's the living law of the land unless and until it is removed via the process to amend the Constitution. Would you be in favor of a "trigger" to activate the First Amendment? Your right to attend church only kicks in if and when the government tries to force you to memorize the Koran?
Let's just hope someone doesn't clear the way for convicted felons to pick up a gun at Walmart without so much as a background check. It burns me up when people have a problem with reasonable gun regulations like background checks, safety training, restrictions on the very mentally ill purchasing guns, etc.
To my way of thinking, if the criminal KNOWS that I am unarmed, I am in way more danger. If the criminal has no idea of what I MIGHT have in the way of weaponry, they will think twice, and weigh the risks of trying to do something to me or mine. I have the choice of whether I want to be armed or not. I don't have a gun at this time, I plan to get one (hopefully) soon, but I DO have a sword in the house, and someone with the knowledge of how to use it, lol.
I find it quite telling that the Founding Fathers put this right as 2nd, behind only freedom of speech, religion, and assembly. This was extremely important to them, that their new countrymen could protect themelves from any danger. They had been on the other side of that issue, and knew how important it was to have that right!
Remember, guns don't kill people. People kill people.