|Piers "the Brit" should stick to Magna Carta. He has yet to read The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. He also failed history, evidently, and just sticks the to that talking points his puppet-masters let him speak.|
Almost a week ago, now, Kansas City Chief's star linebacker murdered his girlfriend, then killed himself.
Since then, the gun-grabbing socialists have attempted to use the event as an excuse to push their agenda. The did this after the theater shooting in Colorado during a screening of the last Dark Knight movie. They did so after Gabby Giffords was shot, though it was her constituents with concealed carry permits that subdued her shooter. Their list of excuses go on and on. However, none of their rhetoric can topple the facts.
To those individuals that hate the concepts of individual liberty, the natural right to life, and the natural right of the "Pursuit of Happiness" otherwise known as the right to one's own property; I have two words:
Fellow constitutional advocates of the Second Amendment have a three-word phrase. It's echoing around enough that it does not require repeating.
Piers Morgan made a statement about the Second Amendment being about muskets. In that argument he challenged his opponent to quote where the Constitution stated that it was about modern weapons. His opponent responded with "right next to 'muskets'".
Piers doesn't know the US Constitution. He knows the socialist-oligarchs' talking points. See, socialist-oligarchs want to take them away from people so they cannot defend themselves against the tyranny and theft of individual rights they wish to impose. Piers doesn't understand that is the very reason for the Second Amendment. He has not gone back and read the transcriptions and opinion papers of the days prior to the ratification of the Constitution with the Bill of Rights amended to it. No, he wants to use some lie invented to support the talking points of those who support instilling tyranny.
You see, Piers, the Second Amendment is designed so that individuals can defend themselves and their families against the government should it overstep the US Constitution and become a tyranny.
You see, Piers, 12 years prior to the writing of the US Constitution, its authors had resigned themselves to the fact that a tyrant was unwilling to allow the 13 colonies to govern themselves with conservative ideals. He violated their natural rights. The more they complained and petitioned the government of your home country, the more your tyrant of a king violated those rights. It got so bad that they saw no other recourse remaining than to go war over it.
Among those crimes against individual liberty that George employed against the colonies was gun control. He restricted ownership of those muskets, confiscating many. In some areas, they were limited to one per household for hunting. In other areas, he made them illegal. His purpose was to disarm the colonists so he could control them through the use of force. You see, his second move was to station his military in the very homes of those colonists.
You are correct that it was farmers with muskets that went to war against the tyrant. That is the point, but not your point. If your manner of thought were applied, they would have gone to war using slingshots and arrows. You see, Piers, we are not stupid. We know you sided with King George.
To further your education in American History, we were lucky that, back then, many of the colonists were adept at hiding those muskets.
Now, here's another little fact about those muskets. They were the weapon of choice for the tyrannic and oppressive government forces. The colonists having those weapons evened the battlefield. Having those weapons led to winning the war. See, Piers, necessity is the mother of two things: invention and acquisition. Due to having those muskets, the patriots were able to invent better weapons as well as acquire weapons such as canons and rockets. Had they no means to defend and fight, they would not have gotten the support of France, who, instead, would have seen the war as a lost cause not worthy of the investment.
Let's move ahead to the days of the writing of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was an afterthought, yes. The reason was that the writers, at first, thought that right didn't require statement. They thought it was a given. It was only after several indicated that not stating it explicitly would lead to leaving citizens unarmed and subjected to yet another tyranny. The US Constitution itself was a much more statist form of government than the Articles of Confederation they meant to replace. So, those who were to ratify the US Constitution wanted safeguards to insure that would never happen. The result was the Bill of Rights. The importance of the Second was to insure that citizens would retain the power to defend and insure the rest of them.
That would require the citizens to be free to arm themselves with the weapons of choice of the various militia. Those militia are the US Military forces as well as state level militia. We still have state-level militia. They are called the state police and the state guards, such as they have in Georgia and have recently reinstated in Arizona. The modern weapon of choice for them is the M4 Carbine, part of the AR15/M16 Armalite family. Your British SAS also uses the Armalite, by the way.
Some argue that the Second Amendment is also so free, independent citizens may rise and defend the US against invasion by foreign armies. That is also within the thinking of the framers. So here is another little fact for you. The most proliferated weapon in the world is the AK-47.
The logic then follows that free, US Citizens should be allowed to arm themselves with M4s or AK-47s in order to protect their lives, liberty, and property from tyranny, be it foreign or domestic.
Mr. Costas, I hope you paid attention to the lesson presented to our foreign friend, Mr. Morgan. It seems you failed to learn that lesson as well. If you didn't, then you support tyranny.
You also fail to understand the fact that strict gun control causes an increase in violent crime, not a decrease. Criminals do not obey the law. They don't care about the law. They also do not care about individual rights, much like you. So, they will still break the law and have weapons. They will use them. Those who obey the laws are then left victims.
I know, you will use that false meme that the local militia (police) are meant to protect the people from crime. No, they aren't. Their job is to deter, yes, if they are there when a criminal is considering his acts. However, the cops cannot be everywhere. To be honest, I'm glad they are not. I really am not comfortable with the idea of cops posted outside my house and invading my privacy even though I have no desire to break the law. The job of the police is actually to investigate crime and mitigate its effects. It is not their job to provide protection. The US Supreme Court has made that very ruling not once, but twice that I know of.
Would people with lawfully concealed weapons been able to stop the shooting in Aurora, CO? No. You are correct that it would probably have happened anyway. That left-wing terrorist would have done his deed regardless. However, if someone had a concealed firearm and been able to present it, the number of casualties may have been greatly mitigated. But, you see, those with CCPs are also trained to avoid shooting in a way that will harm innocent bystanders. That was the case in Tucson, AZ when Giffords was shot. The crowd prevented returning fire. So those with concealed permits tackled and restrained the assailant, instead.
Here is another fact for you, Mr. Costas. After Arizona did away with the requirement to have a permit in order to carry concealed, violent crime dropped. A criminal is less likely to violently attack potential victims when as many as 50% of them could be armed. Anybody with a rudimentary knowledge of the principles of war knows that you do not attack a defending victim/enemy with less than a 3:1 firepower advantage. Two guys with shotguns will not attack a group of 10 where 5 of them may be armed with .45cal concealed handguns. It's just plain stupid to do so. Another little fact is that violent crime in AZ is mostly attributed to illegal immigrants, drug smugglers, and human traffickers.
And here is one more. You can have your research analysts confirm this. After King Dick Daley II of Chicago took handguns away from his serfs, the violent crime rate in Chicago skyrocketed. In Georgia, a town did the opposite. Their town council passed a resolution, unanimously, that passed ratification with no opposing votes. That resolution was that all property owners, land owners, and home owners in the town must own a firearm to protect their property. Crime dropped to near 0%. It was years before they even suffered a petty theft.
You are on notice. If you come on my property, you come uninvited. You are criminally trespassing. Since you have stated your intent and desire to deprive me of my property so I may no longer defend my constitutional liberties, in order to deprive me a means to protect the lives of my family and myself. I fear for the lives and safety of my family and myself. You have made your threats clear to me.