Previous

Contents

Next

Inspiration
by Neale Osborn
[email protected]

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

How many times have we heard/read the line "Fine. If you want to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, then get a flintlock musket. Because our forefathers couldn't possibly have foreseen fully automatic assault weapons!" (usually in a smarmy voice). I'm sure others have said similar things, but today, Jim Comfort said it so well, I have to copy it here:

If you want a forum with which to exercise your individual right to free speech, get off the internet and go stand on a stump in the town square.

How could we say it better. OF COURSE everyone knows our forefathers were innovators in more than politics. Ben Franklin "discovered" electricity and invented the Franklin Stove. During the Revolution, a British officer invented the Ferguson Rifle, one of the first breech-loading rifles. Many different systems of multi-shot rifles and pistols were in production, and more innovation was on the horizon. The framers of the Bill of Rights had absolutely no reason to believe the evolution of personal arms was complete. Any more than they had any reason to believe the printing press and the town square stump were the end of the line for free speech. Or that redcoats kicking in a door was the ultimate invasion of personal space the 4th Amendment needed to protect against. Using the logic of "They only meant flintlocks" means that telephone calls require no warrant to tap, e-mails are not private, and automobiles are not protected against warrant-less searches without permission "just because". Since they had no idea a doctor could remove a baby from a mother's womb WITHOUT major risk of the tansy killing the mother, abortion is not a right.

Those of you claiming that we only have a Constitutional right to flintlocks better watch out. WE can play that game if you want us to. And why wouldn't we, if you choose to assault the Bill of Rights and succeed? Once you kill off one part of it, the rest have no real relevance anymore. We might as well finish it off quickly, so we can move on to the next iteration of the American story. Because the first 230 years are finally over.

Personally, I'd MUCH prefer we follow the Constitution correctly. IF you don't like the 2nd Amendment for ANY reason at all, there is a very simple way to change it. It's called an Amendment. The 18th Amendment created Prohibition, making it the law of the land. The 21st Amendment repealed it. The ONLY Constitutional way to "control" guns is by an Amendment. Not by writing laws, Executive Orders, regulations, taxes, or bans. But you need 2/3rds majority of both the House and the Senate to pass it PLUS 3/4ths of the states to ratify the amendment before it becomes law. Good luck on that! But it WILL negate all arguments.

Was that worth reading?
Then why not: