Hard Questions for Anti-Gun Freak Family and Friends

By Rad Magnum / 8 February 2013 / 39 comments

Screen Shot 2013-02-08 at 7.27.01 AM Here are some questions for those trying to dump the second amendment…

If read, the first 4 amendments to the constitution answer most of the questions being raised by gun-o-phobics….

I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

II. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

III. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

A few questions about banning guns:

Should congress ban “the free exercise of religion” since it has been misused for Jihad or terrorism? How about limiting the number of worshipers allowed?

Should congress ban “the freedom of speech” for politically incorrect views or should all have the right ‘to keep and bear’ views contrary to others?

Should congress ban “the freedom of the press” (and limit their magazine sizes) because of copy-cat criminals who imitate their news reports?

Was the second amendment written about sporting rifles and gun collectors or was it written so that each civilian could protect “their persons, houses, papers, and effects”?

Is a “well regulated Militia” usually armed with bows an arrows, or with the most effective military arms available?

Were these rights considered to be temporary or are they necessary to the security of a free State?

Do countries with gun control eliminate terrorism, massacres and crime?

Were these amendments designed to encourage public massacres or to defend public freedom and safety?

Do individual criminal acts negate the rights and freedoms of the public or should criminals be restricted by “A well regulated Militia”?

If human rights are suspended by advances in weaponry, then does the freedom of the press not apply to modern forms of communication?

The clear purpose of the Second Amendment was so that each civilian could arm themselves with state-of-the-art military-capable weapons in order to fight against would-be tyrants to protect their life, liberty and property with the most effective advanced contemporary military arms available.

Check out Doug Giles' new book 'Sandy Hook Massacre'!

« Previous Post

Rad Magnum- Is a libertarian conservative who writes brilliant articles, and is really great on TV, radio and the internet too. You’ll love him. Rad dislikes taxes; big government; obnoxious and mannish looking lesbians, the “global warming” myth; bad food; weak coffee; the Nanny State; etc.

Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

Harvey817

Hoe is this for common sense? It seems that this is too complicated for some people to interpret or want to interpret. The Second Amendment did not mention hunting or inhouse proection.
- WellNowDear
  
  Of course not. It was strictly to be interpreted as a protection of the people against tyrannical government. Americans didn’t want another “king”. They wouldn’t tolerate King Obama if they were alive today.
  - TheTruth
    
    I think they’d impeach or tar and feather him for his actions. It’s not his color, it’s his POLICIES, for you racist liberals
Todd

Here’s a question for you. Are guns mean? Answer, yes. Idiotis.
- JaeDub
  
  are guns mean? really. that’s all you got on this one? so did a gun call you a mean name during recess?
  - http://www.facebook.com/people/Steve-Thomas/100000389310609 Steve Thomas
    
    I worry about Todd. Inanimate objects are talking to him? Oh well, just as long as he doesn’t answer them…too much.
    - Reb Biker
      
      I’ll bet Adam Lanza wrote similar Todd-like babblings. He bears watching.
- DrDulcamara
  
  An inanimate object now has human causal characteristics? Was your blow-up sex doll somehow mean when she deflated on you again? Did you force her to rub the lotion on her skin or she would get the hose again?
  
  BTW, I found your video on youtube. You have a very nice purse dog.
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYYOtgYlViQ
- WellNowDear
  
  How old are you, Todd? You sound so juvenile that I’m thinking you must be about 15 or 16. It would be so nice if you would justify your goofy comments at least with a little commentary.
- jamohio
  
  No!! Individual people are mean!!
- amandaleane
  
  really todd??? how exactly is the gun itself, just laying on a table, mean? how exactly is that same gun laying on a table all by itself going to hurt you? do you have a hammer? is it also mean? how is that hammer laying in the tool box going to hurt you all by itself?? how bout that knife you’re holding, ready to cut that steak you’re about to stuff in your yapper? is it going to hurt you all by itself??? NO??? None of the above can hurt you all by itself,,, so i guess the person holding the object is the one that inflicts the hurt… ya think??? inanimate objects are just tools–the person is the problem, and people like you are the problem.
- Steven McGinley
  
  What is in Idiotis??……..oh let me guess, its Todd!
- Wayne_1958
  
  Turd, Don’t you have a movie theatre to be at with pee wee herman ? Guns are not mean they are inatimate objects, They have no emotions, or evil or good intentions, They like automobiles require human beings to operate them and depending upon that persons state of mind and intentions can be used to protect/hunt/or just purely competitive sporting fun. Cars can assist a law officer in protecting himself or others either by quickly transporting he or she where they are needed or used as cover/they can be used to help hunt criminals or disable fleeing felons vehicles/or they can be used for competitive competitions such as nascar races. Or they can both be used to kill. Which one do you think kills more people every year Todd ?
- Lucky3511
  
  Those answering Todd, saying guns cannot talk, are really not understanding. Todd asked the question and I think I understand he meant the answer of “Yes” means the persons who answered yes have idiotitis or lack of sense
- Reb Biker
  
  For the first time, I agree with you. The answer would be “yes”, to an idiot!
Fred_K

Logic escapes the do-gooder leftist. The freedoms they enjoy are only available if they can personally defend them. The Constitution guarantees them, but each individual is responsible for defending them. The government is supposed to defend them from external attacks, but can not defend them on an individual basis. Since the government is not defending the people from attacks, the people are the last line of defence.
- Mike
  
  Keep in mind that the Police, BY LAW, are NOT obligated to defend or protect you. It’s the Law.
  - AL, Orange Park, FL
    
    I believe that all converstaions with Morgan should start out something like this:
    “Mr. Morgan I understand that you are “not” an American citizen and that you are wanted in your native country for “criminal activities” why are involving yourself in the American political discussions and not taking care of your own personal criminal activities in England as any law abiding American would”?
  - Reb Biker
    
    Correct. That’s why if a criminal commits a violent act against you, you can’t sue the cops for not stopping it.
    
    In all honesty, if Congress passed a law tomorrow that said cops are legally obligated to protect us all from criminals, there’s no way the cops could do it. They’d have to have at least two cops for every citizen, each working 12 hour shifts. Even then, crimes would still occur; and the police departments would all be sued out of existence within a month.
    
    Defending yourself and your family really is YOUR job. It’s impossible for anyone else to fulfill that responsibility and obligation that God gave YOU!
- Reb Biker
  
  Fred_K, I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but Diane Feinstein is NOT going to give your post the La La Land Seal of Approval!
conserve1

Here Here
- cambeul41
  
  Hear, hear = listen up!
jamohio

The problem is that all the “usefull, useless idiots” have no ability to comprehend The Constitution or Bill Of Rights and their intent to protect the American citizen from the federal government overstepping the authority given it by The States!!
del57

Over 11, 000 teens have been killed because of texting but we’re not banning cell phones or making it illegal to own a modern phone, rather we have a public campaign to change the behavior of texting and driving. It makes sense to adress the real issue. Yet when it comes to modern weapons the propagandist have done their job convincing people that an inannimate object, in this case a modern rifle or pistol,is the source of the problem. Instead let us consider that all…ALL of the recent mass killings have involved people on antidepressents in gun free zones (aka soft targets). Instead of labeling folks with opposing views as villains, let’s address the issue of behavior, soft targets and violent entertainment culture.
Harvey817

They know exactly what they are doing. By total elimination of firearms in the private sector the “government” will be in total control! Will you do your part to maintain our freedom? I damn sure will!!!!
Pakinpastor

They don’t have the votes to ban anything, but they are sure going to talk about it, so they can sway some people. I am afraid that our time is coming to an end. As we have gone on in our lives, we have left the GOd of Abraham Issac and Jacob. We left His Word, which He said if we would do, He would make us the tail and not the head. That He would make our enemies our rulers. And I believe He is doing just what He said He would. For the most part, we have not listened, and now we will reap what we have sown….
- larryincamden
  
  While what you are saying may be true, the religious focus turns many off. Yes, I undertand that this is your view, but it is YOUR view. You have every right to voice your strongly held beliefs, but no one has to follow your demands. The 1st Amendment protects everyone elses right to believe what they want, too.
  We need to find common ground not more reasons to dislike, or even hate, each other.
  - Pakinpastor
    
    It is very sad that the “Religious” aspect turns people off. But that does not mean that we water down the message. God is more real that you or I. And I think if a person would truly look at the evidences of God, they would be astounded. Just looking at the Hebrew language is more than enough proof of a higher intelligence, one that man cannot comprehend.
    But we have taken the Bible out of our schools and out of most churches today. I find it amazing that the first bibles printed here in America were printed by the government for the schools and the military. Like the Hebrews, we taught the bible to school children and later we taught them the three “R’s”. It has been perverted ever since.
    So I will continue to tell everyone I know, that it will take a return to God and His Word to make the necessary changes to this country that will save us from destruction. Wether or not we will do it is entirely up to us.
Abe

As Doctor Savage says “Liberalism is a medical disorder”, so they should all be institutionalized!!!!!
http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

The Amendment which includes the phrase “shall not be infringed” is, arguably, the most infringed of the first 10 Amendments. How can this be? Because that’s the nature and danger of alleged “rights.” Rights are bill of goods that have helped sell us down the river. Conversely God-expected responsibilities remain the same regardless what government says or does.

See blog article “Rights, Rights, Everyone Wants Their Rights” at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/.

Also, “You Can’t Win Bringing a Knife [ the Second Amendment "right'] to a Gunfight” on the same blog.
marineh2ominer

Don’t screw up the heads of the communist leftists with facts , reason , logic , and common sense . It will send them off the deep end as surely as that liberal rogue cop in Kalifornicate that is running around killing at will , as he outsmarts and has the whole law enforcement community in fear and panic to the point they are shooting innocent civilian women and kids .
- Graywolf12
  
  I read a comment on the Huffington post that said, ‘you can not argue with a conservative, all they want to do is talk facts, numbers, and other junk like that…’
Stealth

What it comes down to…is THIS: You either WILL go like a lamb ‘to the slaughter’, or you will be SMART and KEEP your firearms…
AL, Orange Park, FL

I believe that all converstaions with Morgan should start out something like this:
“Mr. Morgan I understand that you are “not” an American citizen and that you are wanted in your native country for “criminal activities” why are involving yourself in the American political discussions and not taking care of your own personal criminal activities in England and any law abiding American would”?
Rob

Justice requires the arms of men removing it when it raises it’s ugly demonic head.
Jack Griffin

Most libturds would start a hissy fit before you could finish this question list to them.
” It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use and athority of reason, as it is to adminster medicine to the dead” -Thomas Jefferson.
Ethan David Ellingson

My wife just informed me of Homeschooling Week at the Underwater World at the Mall of America up here in Minnesota. I told her we should invite Piers Morgan along for the shark feeding.
http://twitter.com/DannJakesDad Progressives Rule

News Flash To All of You Who Sleep With Your Guns: There is not now, nor has there ever been, any bill to ban guns or take yours away from you. Is it really that hard for ya’ll to follow current events?

Even tho SCOTUS right wing activist judges intentionally misinterpreted the intention of the 2nd Amendment, the right to own a gun is now the law. So, all you conspiracy nuts should take a deep breath and go kiss your guns. They are yours.

This NRA and right wing noise is all intended to get you brain dead gun lovers to oppose any law re: guns, so that gun manufacturers can sell as many guns and make as much money as possible – all at the expense of innocent Americans’ safety.

psst::: 90% of all Americans were in favor of mandating background checks for all gun sales. But, you wackos convinced the pussy legislators that they should oppose the country’s wishes.

In effect, you all favor allowing criminals to buy guns without undergoing a simple background check. So, future mass killings are on your conscience..
- NoLogicToLiberalism
  
  Not even sure where to begin with someone so ignorant of history (including that of our intrepid President’s voting record and desire for gun confiscation). If you really think that despite the Democrats’ call for confiscation of firearms they’re only “kidding”, you need to read up on WHY the Second Amendment was so important to the Founding Fathers.
  
  Then, if you still are under the influence of Obama’s lies, Pelosi’s and Feinstein’s video statements calling for confiscation, and your own delusions you may understand why the Democrats cannot be trusted, and even those who voted for Obama before are waking up to what he really wants. You might also investigate the George Soros connection too; see “finance” for that one.
  
  Your “90% claims” are from false polls – whose methodology was deliberatley never published, only stated by Obama for his purposes – and it would be better if you turned off MSNBC and CNN and learned what is REALLY going on rather than gulping what passes for knowledge from your current sources.
  
  Saying”in effect” is a cute way of misinterpreting and twisting words, and you’re not very good at it. Obama is.
  
  Saying

The Sandy Hook Massacre

The Sandy Hook Massacre: When Seconds Count, the Police are Minutes Away:

"Doug Giles and his team over at ClashDaily.com cut through the crap to expose what have become modern day human slaughter houses: gun free zones. Their candid arguments about allowing teachers to protect themselves and the students in their care through concealed carry should be taken seriously. As a result maybe, just maybe, we’ll be able to save some lives someday rather than call the cops to report the body count." - Katie Pavlich. News Editor,Townhall.com and NYT's Best-selling Author, Fast and Furious: Barack Obama's Bloodiest Scandal and Its Shameless Cover-Up

"There were many lessons to draw from the horrific Newtown, CT school shooting. Unfortunately, most of the media and political Left came up with the wrong ones. But not Doug Giles and his writers over at ClashDaily.com. In the wake of this horror, they offered a robust defense of American citizens' right to bear arms and common sense answers to societal violence. The Sandy Hook Massacre: When Seconds Count, the Police are Minutes Away is a great resource for those interested in this vital, Constitutional issue." - S.E. Cupp, MSNBC Host and The Blaze Contributor