Beto's Gun Grab and Constitution Day

September 17 is Constitution Day and Peter Francis O’Rourke plans on celebrating it by gutting the document’s Second Amendment, infringing on the right to bear arms that the Constitution says shall not be infringed. Of course, O’Rourke also shares the Democrat belief that the Constitution’s “penumbras and emanations” confers a right to privacy allowing unborn children to be aborted until the moment of birth.

There he was on Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” his dental work complete and ear hair properly trimmed, to claim his plan to confiscate from law-abiding citizens by force and under penalty of law their AR-15s was in fact constitutional under the Constitution’s Commerce clause. As the Washington Free Beacon reported:

"This is something that we're able to do through the Commerce Clause, and this is something that is not prevented from, wouldn't prevent the United States from doing by the Second Amendment," O'Rourke told host Chuck Todd. "So this is constitutionally sound."

No it is not. It is not even common-sense sound. The writers of the Constitution, fresh from a war using guns to overthrow British tyranny and oppressive government, put the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights to protect the other nine. There is no asterisk after the words “shall not be infringed.” The power to regulate interstate commerce, of which guns may be a part, is not the power to neuter the right to keep and bear arms.

Gun grabbers such as O’Rourke insist the AR-15 is a weapon of war, not intended to be protected by the Second Amendment for personal protection.

When the Constitution was written, both the government and the people had the same weapon -- the musket -- which could be called the semi-automatic weapon, the AR-15, of its day, capable of being used both  in war and for personal protection. The Second Amendment did not come with an asterisk nor is any of our rights enshrined in the Constitution in any way dependent on technology. The argument that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to bear an M-1 Abrams tank is valid. But tanks are designed to be used against other tanks. Guns that fire bullets one at a time such as the AR-15 are useful both in war and peace and are in fact in “common use” by the civilian population of the United States.

Former Navy SEAL Dean Raso is quoted in the Federalist as describing the AR-15 as the ideal defensive weapon against heavily armed predators:

In the wake of the Orlando terrorist attack, the deadliest strike on U.S. soil since 9/11, Democratic lawmakers and progressive activists have responded by attempting to limit access to firearms -- particularly the AR-15, which was incorrectly reported as the weapon the terrorist used to kill at least 49 people and injure another 53.

In a new video, former Navy SEAL Dom Raso explains why the AR-15, the most popular rifle in the country, gives Americans the best chance of surviving in an age of terror.

Choosing to defend one’s home with an AR-15 is a commonsense choice, as it is powerful, accurate, and easy to shoot, Raso said.

Gun control legislation doesn’t stop terror attacks, he explained, citing the two terrorists who weren’t deterred by California’s assault weapons ban when they killed 14 people in San Bernardino last year. Nor would any gun ban have stopped the Boston Bombers when they detonated a bomb at the Boston Marathon, killing three and wounding at least 260 others.

Ironically, both of those incidents of terror were brought to a stop by armed police officers responding to the scene with AR-15s -- the same weapon legislators are trying to ban.

“Why would you want to ban the gun you pray for police to show up with?” Raso asked.

Indeed, why would you? As one wag put it, a gun in the hand is better than a cop on a phone and the response time for a bullet from an AR-15 is a lot quicker than calling 911. The AR-15 has been chosen by popular demand as the defensive weapon of choice, despite a similar earlier nonsensical ruling by another federal judge:

As the Ferguson riots raged, U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake, appointed by President Clinton, issued a ruling that upheld the Maryland law, saying, "the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes... and is inclined to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual."

Now the Second Amendment, written in the era of muskets, does not mention what arms we have the right to keep and bear. But we have an idea, based on how they were used: to protect their owners' homes, businesses, farms and families, and to fight the tyranny of the British crown. It's been said that the Second Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights to protect the other nine.

Gun control advocates say, with some snarkiness, that the Second Amendment doesn't allow one to own nuclear weapons or tanks, so it's merely a question of where we draw the line. They would draw the line at the AR-15 and its counterparts -- which, despite the judge's claim, are commonly used for legal, defensive purposes.

The AR-15 is among the guns that must be registered. They've made up 50%-60% of U.S. rifle sales in recent years, federal figures show. The New York Times recently called the AR-15 "The Most Wanted Gun in America." Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has been pushing a bill to reintroduce the ineffective assault weapons 1994 ban that expired in 2004 with no impact on the crime rate.

While used in several high-profile mass shootings, the AR-15 is favored among homeowners, hunters and sport shooters. It's popular for both sport and self-defense among women, who find it easy to carry and handle.

Crime rates and homicides have dropped as concealed-carry laws spread nationwide. As more citizens are armed, predators find it harder to find unarmed victims except in gun-free zones such as the school in Newtown, Conn., or the theater in Aurora, Colo.

Critics of the Second Amendment say that they are not going after guns used for legitimate activities such as hunting. But when the Founders wrote the Second Amendment, it was because the British were coming, not because it was the start of deer season. As Fox News contributor Judge Andrew Napolitano notes:

The historical reality of the Second Amendment's protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer," wrote Judge Andrew Napolitano recently in the Washington Times. "It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis had, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust."

The AR-15 is a defensive weapon, such as when it was used by a 15-year-old who grabbed his father’s AR-15 and used it to ward off home invaders:

Not only did this brave 15-year-old defend his home against 2 burglars, but also his 12-year-old sister who was in the house with him. He grabbed his father’s AR-15 and shot one of the burglars multiple times. They got away but had to go right to the hospital where the minor was arrested and the adult who was shot was flown to a different hospital.

If the AR-15 had been available in 1776, George Washington would have fielded an army armed with it, but just as surely every farmer, blacksmith, carpenter, and shopkeeper would have grabbed an AR-15 on their way to the village green to protect our freedoms from the same government tyranny the writers of the Constitution  sough to protect us from, and Peter Francis O’Rourke would impose on us.

Come and take them, O’Rourke -- from our cold dead hands.

Daniel John Sobieski is a former editorial writer for Investor’s Business Daily and freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.               

September 17 is Constitution Day and Peter Francis O’Rourke plans on celebrating it by gutting the document’s Second Amendment, infringing on the right to bear arms that the Constitution says shall not be infringed. Of course, O’Rourke also shares the Democrat belief that the Constitution’s “penumbras and emanations” confers a right to privacy allowing unborn children to be aborted until the moment of birth.

There he was on Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” his dental work complete and ear hair properly trimmed, to claim his plan to confiscate from law-abiding citizens by force and under penalty of law their AR-15s was in fact constitutional under the Constitution’s Commerce clause. As the Washington Free Beacon reported:

"This is something that we're able to do through the Commerce Clause, and this is something that is not prevented from, wouldn't prevent the United States from doing by the Second Amendment," O'Rourke told host Chuck Todd. "So this is constitutionally sound."

No it is not. It is not even common-sense sound. The writers of the Constitution, fresh from a war using guns to overthrow British tyranny and oppressive government, put the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights to protect the other nine. There is no asterisk after the words “shall not be infringed.” The power to regulate interstate commerce, of which guns may be a part, is not the power to neuter the right to keep and bear arms.

Gun grabbers such as O’Rourke insist the AR-15 is a weapon of war, not intended to be protected by the Second Amendment for personal protection.

When the Constitution was written, both the government and the people had the same weapon -- the musket -- which could be called the semi-automatic weapon, the AR-15, of its day, capable of being used both  in war and for personal protection. The Second Amendment did not come with an asterisk nor is any of our rights enshrined in the Constitution in any way dependent on technology. The argument that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to bear an M-1 Abrams tank is valid. But tanks are designed to be used against other tanks. Guns that fire bullets one at a time such as the AR-15 are useful both in war and peace and are in fact in “common use” by the civilian population of the United States.

Former Navy SEAL Dean Raso is quoted in the Federalist as describing the AR-15 as the ideal defensive weapon against heavily armed predators:

In the wake of the Orlando terrorist attack, the deadliest strike on U.S. soil since 9/11, Democratic lawmakers and progressive activists have responded by attempting to limit access to firearms -- particularly the AR-15, which was incorrectly reported as the weapon the terrorist used to kill at least 49 people and injure another 53.

In a new video, former Navy SEAL Dom Raso explains why the AR-15, the most popular rifle in the country, gives Americans the best chance of surviving in an age of terror.

Choosing to defend one’s home with an AR-15 is a commonsense choice, as it is powerful, accurate, and easy to shoot, Raso said.

Gun control legislation doesn’t stop terror attacks, he explained, citing the two terrorists who weren’t deterred by California’s assault weapons ban when they killed 14 people in San Bernardino last year. Nor would any gun ban have stopped the Boston Bombers when they detonated a bomb at the Boston Marathon, killing three and wounding at least 260 others.

Ironically, both of those incidents of terror were brought to a stop by armed police officers responding to the scene with AR-15s -- the same weapon legislators are trying to ban.

“Why would you want to ban the gun you pray for police to show up with?” Raso asked.

Indeed, why would you? As one wag put it, a gun in the hand is better than a cop on a phone and the response time for a bullet from an AR-15 is a lot quicker than calling 911. The AR-15 has been chosen by popular demand as the defensive weapon of choice, despite a similar earlier nonsensical ruling by another federal judge:

As the Ferguson riots raged, U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake, appointed by President Clinton, issued a ruling that upheld the Maryland law, saying, "the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes... and is inclined to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual."

Now the Second Amendment, written in the era of muskets, does not mention what arms we have the right to keep and bear. But we have an idea, based on how they were used: to protect their owners' homes, businesses, farms and families, and to fight the tyranny of the British crown. It's been said that the Second Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights to protect the other nine.

Gun control advocates say, with some snarkiness, that the Second Amendment doesn't allow one to own nuclear weapons or tanks, so it's merely a question of where we draw the line. They would draw the line at the AR-15 and its counterparts -- which, despite the judge's claim, are commonly used for legal, defensive purposes.

The AR-15 is among the guns that must be registered. They've made up 50%-60% of U.S. rifle sales in recent years, federal figures show. The New York Times recently called the AR-15 "The Most Wanted Gun in America." Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has been pushing a bill to reintroduce the ineffective assault weapons 1994 ban that expired in 2004 with no impact on the crime rate.

While used in several high-profile mass shootings, the AR-15 is favored among homeowners, hunters and sport shooters. It's popular for both sport and self-defense among women, who find it easy to carry and handle.

Crime rates and homicides have dropped as concealed-carry laws spread nationwide. As more citizens are armed, predators find it harder to find unarmed victims except in gun-free zones such as the school in Newtown, Conn., or the theater in Aurora, Colo.

Critics of the Second Amendment say that they are not going after guns used for legitimate activities such as hunting. But when the Founders wrote the Second Amendment, it was because the British were coming, not because it was the start of deer season. As Fox News contributor Judge Andrew Napolitano notes:

The historical reality of the Second Amendment's protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer," wrote Judge Andrew Napolitano recently in the Washington Times. "It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis had, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust."

The AR-15 is a defensive weapon, such as when it was used by a 15-year-old who grabbed his father’s AR-15 and used it to ward off home invaders:

Not only did this brave 15-year-old defend his home against 2 burglars, but also his 12-year-old sister who was in the house with him. He grabbed his father’s AR-15 and shot one of the burglars multiple times. They got away but had to go right to the hospital where the minor was arrested and the adult who was shot was flown to a different hospital.

If the AR-15 had been available in 1776, George Washington would have fielded an army armed with it, but just as surely every farmer, blacksmith, carpenter, and shopkeeper would have grabbed an AR-15 on their way to the village green to protect our freedoms from the same government tyranny the writers of the Constitution  sough to protect us from, and Peter Francis O’Rourke would impose on us.

Come and take them, O’Rourke -- from our cold dead hands.

Daniel John Sobieski is a former editorial writer for Investor’s Business Daily and freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.