No Explanations Needed to Exercise Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms You are here: Home2nd Amendm

Do we have to justify our rights?

In response to one of my Second Amendment articles posted on the Tenth Amendment Center’s Facebook page, some commenters asked: “What is your position on school shootings,” and “How do we stop kids from shooting each other?”

It’s easy to see what they are getting at, but my response is this: Are you implying that my rights are contingent on my answer? Do I even have to give an answer at all if, in your eyes, I want to keep these rights?

If that is the case, are we going to start asking a free speech advocate how they intend to stop news publications from committing libel or people from spreading lies about each other on social media? Libel and defamation of character are both wrong, but that doesn’t change the fact that people have a right to speak and write what they wish, and it is not their duty to explain how they intend to prevent the misuse of those rights by others.

To do so places an unfair moral obligation on law-abiding citizens to explain or justify their rights whenever someone else commits a crime.

Certainly, solutions to horrible atrocities such as mass shootings can and should be discussed. Practical measures that do not violate individual rights should be considered, and if proven effective, implemented within the bounds of the Constitution. But the conversation has to begin by acknowledging that innocent, peaceful people do not have to defend their rights every time someone abuses that right in order to do evil, or even stipulate they create a political response that placates the person demanding one. This flips the whole notion of “innocent until proven guilty” on its head and leaves people in perpetual fear of losing their rights when a crime occurs. It makes them morally and legally responsible for the behavior of others.

It is perhaps incidental that this month marks the anniversary of FDR’s executive order calling for the internment of Japanese Americans following the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. To be sure, the comparison isn’t perfect, but the fact remains that more than 100,000 people had their basic civil rights violated by the government in response to a mass killing. Innocent Japanese-Americans shouldn’t have had to justify their ability to exercise their rights after Pearl Harbor any more than I do after what happened recently in Florida.

I don’t need to explain why I, or any other person, “needs” an AR-15 any more than I “need” a copy of Brothers Karamazov or a first American edition of 1984. It is my right to purchase and own them without having to give a reason to anyone.

Our right to keep and bear arms, like all other rights, does not come from general consensus or through sufficient persuasion of certain individuals. It is an unalienable right, bestowed by our creator, or nature, however you choose to look at it.

No Explanations Needed to Exercise Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms

 

I definatly would have responded..

I would have asked how do they feel about the numbers of children killed each year drunk driving..
Overdosing on drugs. Resultes of being beat to death by tbeir own parent. Medical malpractice.
Each of which is completly preventable if the coresponding law was followed.. However, the laws had been ignored..

How many childeren have died as the results of falls? Drownings? Skiing accidents? Choking on food? Hangings? Are any of these less tragic?

Mass murders? Jeffery Domner? John Gassy? Ted Bundy? How many people have been killed by just these three? And with all these peoples deaths, not one was killed by a firearm!

Ever notice that all these shootings happen in metropolitan cities, predominatly in liberal areas?
How many childeren are killed in gang related shootings in Chicago or new york? Shootings that occure in cities with strict gun control laws.. And associated with illigal activities..

If someone wants to do harm.. They WILL do harm..
If someone is evil. They WILL do evil deeds.
Be it with a gun, knife, bomb, rope, shovel, axe, bow, poison, fire.. Anything and everything can and has been used to kill someone.. Even by their own hand.

 

May be a new slogan needs to be put to press .
"More good people need to take responsibility and be armed "

 

When people ask this question, I always think the best response is, "Is it your position that kids in school are more important than the seven hundred people killed in Chicago last year?" Because I notice no one wanted to take a position on that. The fifteen kids killed in a lily white uber rich suburb in Florida are far more important than the mostly black men between the ages of eighteen and twenty five killed in Chicago and Baltimore every year. Dana Loesch is completely correct. The media love to watch wailing rich white women, but have nothing to say when the media's own antics create mass death in liberal areas with tough gun laws. Just because our media is full of wealthy racists doesn't mean we have to buy in to that. We all know how to solve the problem in urban areas, and the same solution would probably work in wealthy white schools: more cops.

 

Believe it or not, cops are cheaper than crime; and they're darn sure cheaper than dead people suing the government. For you and I the question is more likely, who is going to pay when the idiots in the hyper liberal cities finally bankrupt themselves. My guess? You and I.