Detroit columnist thinks he knows better than the Founding Fathers
Detroit News columnist Robert Smith, Jr apparently is one pretty smart guy. He knows better than our Founding Fathers, who were wrong to give citizens the right to bear arms.
The Founding Fathers of our country made a mistake when they said we had the right to bear arms. They did not know we would be allies with the British and no longer have to worry about them coming over to oppress and colonize us. The British found greater spoils in Africa and India and never looked back on the United States after the Revolutionary War.
The right to bear arms is killing all of us. In 2005 the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported 3,006 children and teens killed by gunfire, most of them young, black men in inner-city neighborhoods. And CNN reported yesterday that black-on-black murder of young black men is up 40 percent from last year. The harder the times get, the higher these statistics will go.
Yet again, we have another instance of an idiot bleeding heart liberal with no concept of the FACT that guns do not miraculously start flying around, shooting people at random with no one pulling the trigger!
Guns do not kill people. PEOPLE kill people. When will liberals ever get that through their thick skulls? Banning guns does not end crime, as the British could tell you. They banned guns, and guess what happened? Stabbing deaths skyrocketed. If someone wants to murder someone, they’re going to find a way to do it. They likely won’t care about breaking one more law to get a gun, either. Banning guns takes guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens and yet, criminals will continue to have them.
But the main thing that’s interesting here is the assertion that the Founding Fathers strictly gave us the right to bear arms so that we could fight the British. God, is this guy brain dead? We were given the right to bear arms not only to protect our homes and families, but also so that the citizenry could fight back against a tyrannical government. And that’s any tyrannical government, not just the British government.
Look, I get it. Liberals hate seeing astronomically high rates of inner-city violence, especially when guns are involved. So do the rest of us. However, the rest of us understand that the GUN is not responsible. The man holding the gun is. An unloaded gun sitting on a table is not going to spontaneously fire itself unless someone loads the weapon and pulls the trigger. A gun by itself is harmless. A gun in a person’s hands, however, is dangerous, and it is the people using them to commit acts of violence that should be held accountable, not the weapon. But then, that would require liberals to believe in people actually taking responsibility for their own actions, and they couldn’t cry over criminals sitting in prison anymore, could they? After all, it’s never the murderer’s fault, is it? It’s the fault of that nasty, nasty gun.
Hat Tips: MK Freeberg and Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary or follow her on Twitter!
Email This
Posted by Cassy Fiano on December 31, 2008 1:18 pm
» Filed Under Gun Control, Liberal World, News
Trackback URL:
Comments
5 Responses to “Detroit columnist thinks he knows better than the Founding Fathers”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Outlaw guns then right along with it, all of the following must be outlawed, applying the same criteria of “logic” (a gun is a weapon, therefore, must be made illegal):
1. All knives, including steak and butter knives; ALL various and sundry cutlery and dining instruments, as ANY could be wielded in deadly fashion.
2. Alcohol and tobacco; use kills oneself as well as others by secondary/collateral effect (drunk driving, secondhand smoke exposure, etc.).
3. Chemicals of all nature up to and including pharmaceuticals, pesticides, and cleaning products, etc., as one could be victimized by voluntary/involuntary overdose or voluntary/involuntary administration of toxic or otherwise contraindicated substances.
4. Clothing and shoes (victim could be stabbed in eye with stilleto, strangled with shoelaces, sleeves, pants leg, etc.).
5. Any and all electrical applicances. (Think about “creative” parenting involving microwaves and refrigerators.)
6. Foodstuffs (victim could be asphyxiated by forcibly lodging food within their throat or, more likely, die of obesity).
7. All bodily appendages and bodily fluids; they carry killer diseases (AIDS) and/or can be used to kill/maim (hand to beat someone to death, foot to stomp to death, penis to transmit AIDS and/or rape small children leading to evisceration, psychological trauma with resultant suicide, etc.).
We’ll all be naked and starving, licking rocks for sustenance, but at least we’ll be safe. Wait… rocks need to be outlawed, also – as they can be used to bludgeon a victim to death….
“We’ll all be naked and starving, licking rocks for sustenance, but at least we’ll be safe.”
That’s Barack Obama’s plan for his first 100 days, isn’t it? Between bankrupting the coal plants and Caroline Kennedy shutting off all the nuclear power plants, we will certainly be close to that outcome quite soon.
The Second Amendment does not give the right to bear arms it merely bans the federal government from infringing on that right that already exists.
It is sad that so many Americans do not know that the battle of Lexington and Concord was over the right to bear arms as the British were marching to confiscate the local arsenal of the American colonists.
“never looked back after the Revolution”? Um, so that thing in 1812 (and 13 and 14) never happened, huh?
TyLt0oN5QLpzH