The Hard Black Line of the 2d Amendment

Russ Vaughn
Crass, heartless liberals, heeding Rahm Emmanuel's admonition to let no crisis go to waste, have seized upon the Sandy Hook killings to ram through as much gun-restricting legislation as they can. Doing their very best to channel public emotions into pressuring legislators across the country, and in Washington, to quickly, emotionally and unthinkingly enact restrictive measures against gun ownership and possession, they are shameless in their exploitation of the deaths of those children and their teachers.

No doubt, should their efforts prove successful, they will someday erect a monument on the front lawn of that tragic school, celebrating the death of the 2d Amendment and proclaiming the murdered children as liberal martyrs to the cause.

But not so fast there all you gloating liberal gun haters; for there is growing evidence that your shameless exploitation of those children's deaths has provoked a rapidly expanding counter-outrage among that far larger cohort of Americans who own guns, wisely for protection of what they hold dear. It is a concept that only blooms in the minds of parents as they become responsible for lives other than their own.

How many young American couples have come to realize, upon the birth of their first child, that they now bear the responsibility to protect something more precious to them than life itself? And do you suppose that as a family grows to include more children that sense of needing to protect those little ones doesn't grow as well?

There is ample evidence to show that the original intent of our Founding Fathers, in guaranteeing our right to bear arms, was for the purpose of the people being able to oppose the tyranny of a standing federal army. In our present circumstances, can we believe those stalwart men would take issue with the reality that the crucial right they gave us to bear arms now serves to protect us from criminal tyranny in our homes?

Although the Castle Doctrine was not yet a promulgated legal standard in their time, there should be little doubt that those brave men who stood against the British Army with weapons they had stored in their homes, would approve whole-heartedly of our keeping and bearing arms to protect all which we hold dear.

In the spirit of fighting fire with fire, a concept which the Founding Fathers likely grasped in its entirety, do you suppose they would now deny us the ability to be at least as well armed as those who would criminally abuse us? When a home invader can knock down your door and point an illegally obtained, fully automatic machine pistol at your face, do you really believe your Founding Fathers wouldn't want you to have, at the minimum, a 17 round semi-automatic handgun to abort that planned home invasion in the entryway? Something you really need to think about, America, is just where that dubiously interpreted 2d Amendment draws the hard, black line of reality:

Do you doubt that it's at the front door of the sanctuary you have created for your children?



Crass, heartless liberals, heeding Rahm Emmanuel's admonition to let no crisis go to waste, have seized upon the Sandy Hook killings to ram through as much gun-restricting legislation as they can. Doing their very best to channel public emotions into pressuring legislators across the country, and in Washington, to quickly, emotionally and unthinkingly enact restrictive measures against gun ownership and possession, they are shameless in their exploitation of the deaths of those children and their teachers.

No doubt, should their efforts prove successful, they will someday erect a monument on the front lawn of that tragic school, celebrating the death of the 2d Amendment and proclaiming the murdered children as liberal martyrs to the cause.

But not so fast there all you gloating liberal gun haters; for there is growing evidence that your shameless exploitation of those children's deaths has provoked a rapidly expanding counter-outrage among that far larger cohort of Americans who own guns, wisely for protection of what they hold dear. It is a concept that only blooms in the minds of parents as they become responsible for lives other than their own.

How many young American couples have come to realize, upon the birth of their first child, that they now bear the responsibility to protect something more precious to them than life itself? And do you suppose that as a family grows to include more children that sense of needing to protect those little ones doesn't grow as well?

There is ample evidence to show that the original intent of our Founding Fathers, in guaranteeing our right to bear arms, was for the purpose of the people being able to oppose the tyranny of a standing federal army. In our present circumstances, can we believe those stalwart men would take issue with the reality that the crucial right they gave us to bear arms now serves to protect us from criminal tyranny in our homes?

Although the Castle Doctrine was not yet a promulgated legal standard in their time, there should be little doubt that those brave men who stood against the British Army with weapons they had stored in their homes, would approve whole-heartedly of our keeping and bearing arms to protect all which we hold dear.

In the spirit of fighting fire with fire, a concept which the Founding Fathers likely grasped in its entirety, do you suppose they would now deny us the ability to be at least as well armed as those who would criminally abuse us? When a home invader can knock down your door and point an illegally obtained, fully automatic machine pistol at your face, do you really believe your Founding Fathers wouldn't want you to have, at the minimum, a 17 round semi-automatic handgun to abort that planned home invasion in the entryway? Something you really need to think about, America, is just where that dubiously interpreted 2d Amendment draws the hard, black line of reality:

Do you doubt that it's at the front door of the sanctuary you have created for your children?