Opinion

Ft Collins, CO –-(Ammoland.com)- “I support the Second Amendment, but…”
Common refrain of mendacious gun-grabbers.
Any time a politician uses the word, “but,” he has effectively erased everything he has just said.
I am frustrated with politicians and political groups who pick and choose which parts of our Constitution, particularly our Bill of Rights, they like, and simultaneously pretend pieces that don’t fit their agenda don’t exist and can thus be ignored.
“Due Process,” for example is written in stone, particularly when it comes to the rights of accused violent criminals and illegal aliens.
Due process does not apply to innocent American gun owners, who have never even been accused of a crime.
If it did, “red flag laws” would never see the light of day.
On this issue, even the ACLU has finally found common ground with the NRA. Such a wake-up call for the ACLU required at least some intellectual honesty on their part, something for which the ACLU has never been famous.
Our Fourth Amendment rights are sacred too, for all Americans, except, of course, gun-owners.
And, our Second Amendment rights, as clearly, boldly stated in our Constitution, and reaffirmed by our Supreme Court, still don’t exist in the minds of many who otherwise “like” other parts of our Bill of Rights.
I identify these dishonorable “pick-and-choosers” for what they are: Constitutional criminals.
The presumption of innocence is another fundamental tenet of Western Civilization. It is increasingly abandoned in a rush to enforce orthodoxy. High-minded claims to act in the name of “tolerance,” “compassion,” and “diversity,” are all fluff, a commitment to these principles is purely abstract.
In practice, these Constitutional criminals are cruel, brutish, intolerant bullies, who demand total conformity. Their goal is never to persuade, nor debate. It is to humiliate and vilify all who hesitate to support them. Their ultimate objective is to destroy independent thought.
They are not good people, nor good citizens.
/John
About John Farnam & Defense Training International, Inc
As a defensive weapons and tactics instructor John Farnam will urge you, based on your own beliefs, to make up your mind in advance as to what you would do when faced with an imminent lethal threat. You should, of course, also decide what preparations you should make in advance if any. Defense Training International wants to make sure that their students fully understand the physical, legal, psychological, and societal consequences of their actions or in-actions.
It is our duty to make you aware of certain unpleasant physical realities intrinsic to the Planet Earth. Mr. Farnam is happy to be your counselor and advisor. Visit: www.defense-training.com
ALL RED FLAG LAWS are UNCONSTITUTIONAL and no state can make them LAW and be LEGAL.
We are getting shafted, time to SUE and regain ALL OUR rights.
GO ON THE OFFENSE.
Fortunately/unfortunately (depends on your perspective) we have the 8th amendment that keeps our government from that type of treatment. Not saying I’m against citizens doing it but that’s a whole nother topic.
Speaking of studying, there states with more lax firearm laws that have lower firearm related deaths than California. And let’s not talk about DC. If any firearms are allowed by “reasonable” laws, you’ll still have Chicago since there will always be access.
Don’t let your DI hear you call it a gun.
New Zealand shooter accomplished his goals successfully.
Both the Pittsburg shooter and the NZ hated Jews spurring more gun control, hatred of Jews furthering the goals of the left.
https://www.jta.org/2019/04/09/united-states/zionist-organization-of-america-head-tells-congressional-committee-that-new-zealand-shooter-was-left-wing-terrorist/amp
One of my favorite: “I support the Second Amendment but I don’t think civilians should own guns.” Makes my head spin all the time.
The only difference between a “gun control advocate ” and a nazi is when nazis imprison people exercising self evident rights they kill them , “gun control advocates ” dont advocate murdering the people exercising the right they are against.
I support the 2nd Amendment. BUT I want a government that supports: – Equal treatment for minorities and non minorities by law enforcement – A demilitarized law enforcement – one that’s not capable of seizing guns or oppression – Protection for our environment – Equal rights for women, minorities, and LGQTB people – Consumer protections for people vs predatory corporations – A free and open internet – Keeping the Russians in line – Defending our allies in Europe – Alternative energy sources so we don’t have to rely on terrorist funding nations for our oil – An actual free market… Read more »
Arms means guns. No? In 1755 Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”(*) The thing is, the 2A, not one time, grants rights to accessories. Sure. Have your AR-15 (I have two), but nothing guarantees anyone’s right to a bump stock… or a 30rd magazine, or a binary trigger, etc. Everyone’s rights have already been infringed by gun control acts in 1934, 1968 and 1986. While I’d think it’d be great to own a machine gun from pre-1986 (it’s really just a matter of $$), I… Read more »
I’m still waiting for the definition of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You have a tax system in place the basically does what it wants, you have an elected government that basically takes your money and spends it anyway they want. If you don’t comply you will go to prison. Please explain to me again the definition of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness…… But remember were only 21 trillion dollars in operating debt, only one president was able to eradicate the national debt most people don’t even know who it was, it was Andrew Jackson. Most… Read more »
Whenever I hear a politician use these words, my ears perk up and I become suspicious. That said, it is what comes after the “BUT” that counts. For instance, “I wholeheartedly support the 2A, but I fully support the Heller and McDonald decisions, to include the legal tests for what arms are protected.” is very different then, “I support the 2nd Amendment, but I also support an assault weapons ban.”