Liberals in the thick of the gun debate keep trying to ease the fears of conservatives about gun control laws by stating that they don’t want to get rid of the Second Amendment, just make it harder for certain people to own “assault style weapons.”
They try their best to assure Americans at large that none of their activism is geared toward a complete ban or repeal of the right to bear arms, but anyone familiar with progressive ideology and how tyrannical government has worked throughout history knows this is simply not true.
Gun control laws are really nothing more than a step-by-step process to banning firearms altogether. By doing so a little at a time, most people will not even notice their rights disappearing.
However, every once in a while you get an intellectually honest and consistent leftist who spills the beans on what they really want and hope to accomplish. Like retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens who recently stated the Second Amendment needed to be repealed.
Fox News has more:
Stevens, once the leader of the court’s liberals, said the “schoolchildren and their supporters” who have been demonstrating against school shootings should “seek more effective and more lasting reform.”
“They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment,” Stevens wrote in an op-ed for the New York Times on Tuesday.
Stevens argued that the amendment – which states that “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” – is a “relic of the 18th century.”
Repealing the Second Amendment, he argued, is the most effective way to stop school shootings. Stevens retired from the court in 2010.
“That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform,” Stevens said. “It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world.”
Liberals are extremely good at emotional knee-jerk reactions and passionately taking steps to stop whatever issue — real or imaginary — they see right in front of their faces. However, they never really think through the long term implications of the solutions they propose.
Banning guns completely has serious ramifications for future generations and exposes them to a plethora of dangers, the chief one being tyranny. The reason the Second Amendment exists is so that citizens can have the means of defending their liberty from a tyrannical government that seeks to oppress them. At minimum, it gives people a fighting chance.
Without the fear of an armed uprising, the threat of facing deadly resistance, what is to keep some deranged dictator from one day taking over the government? The Second Amendment is meant to be a check on the power of government held firmly in the hands of the people.
Taking away this God-given right leaves people vulnerable to criminals and tyrants alike. Rather than taking away guns, perhaps more energy ought to be spent on common sense measures — like armed security — that will keep kids safe without violating the rights of American citizens?