11.28.2014  |   | Subscribe  | Contact us

All News & Blogs

E-mail Alerts

Second Amendment: Not about venison and antlers


Date published: 1/31/2013

Second Amendment: Not about venison and antlers

An effective strategy to attack an opponent's argument is to trivialize his cause. This strategy has been repeatedly applied to the gun-control debate by liberals such as Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine when, in separate TV interviews, they equate the Second Amendment right to possess firearms with the right to hunt.

With the repeated argument that "you don't need assault weapons to shoot a deer," they intentionally misrepresent and trivialize the Second Amendment, which references ensuring "the security of a free State."

The security of a free state does not depend on shooting deer. It does, however, permit the citizenry to possess the means to resist the usurpation of power by its leaders or foreign influences.

I have heard various liberal media talking heads stating with a mixture of feigned astonishment and condescension that "assault weapons are only meant to kill people."

Yes, we know that. We don't have the right to bear arms to shoot deer. We have this right because our fore-fathers were students of history and the human condition and understood that the republic could be in danger from both foreign and domestic elements that might attempt to seize political power, revoke our freedoms, and impose their will.

I witnessed it firsthand when stationed in Northern Ireland in 1969. British soldiers invaded the country and establish marshal law over a disarmed population literally overnight. I still remember my reaction to what I was witnessing: "My God, how easy it is when only one side has the guns."

Trivialization leads to modification, which leads to revocation, which leads to subjugation.

Gordon Lane

Colonial Beach