I said years ago that the best possible strategy for anti-gun people is to shoot and kill a bunch of innocent victims. Because every time there’s another highly-publicized shooting, the Left uses it as an example of why they believe we need more gun control. In fact, the only people who actually benefit from gun violence are the people who want to put more restrictions on our guns.
So, whenever I hear of another shooting with multiple victims, which is typically widely publicized by the Liberal media, I wonder if maybe someone has manipulated a mentally ill person to do unthinkable things just to further a cause.
It’s not that crazy. I mean, we’ve seen the FBI manipulate folks in Michigan into plotting to kidnap the governor. And we’ve seen the FBI manipulate people into breaking into the Capitol building. So it’s not that much of a stretch to think that maybe someone is also manipulating already-unstable people into shooting a bunch of other people. So they can use it as a talking point.
Just this past week, in Louisville, some asshole, I’m not going to dignify him by mentioning his name, killed five people. His top reason? To prove how easy it is to buy a gun.
I haven’t put a lot of thought into this, but it seems to me like it should be possible to demonstrate the ease at which someone can purchase a weapon without…you know…using it.
You have to look no further than his LinkedIn profile, where he stated his pronouns as “he/him”, to see that he’s easily manipulated. And these Left-wing whackos tend to run in packs. So, it’s not outside the realm of possibility that someone convinced him to shoot up that bank to help further the cause of the anti-gun lobby.
These senseless acts of violence inevitably fire up folks against the 2nd Amendment. And, also inevitably, someone will make the argument that the founding fathers could never have imagined what the ignorant refer to as an “assault rifle”.
I’m not so sure about that.
The main weapon used during the Revolutionary war was the muzzle-loading, smoothbore, flintlock musket. These guns were extremely unreliable and inaccurate. A good shooter could maybe fire 3 or 4 rounds a minute. Maybe. And that’s in ideal conditions, which rarely happen on the battlefield.
Soldiers everywhere, since the very first time soldiers were deployed, have wished for better weapons than their adversaries. It would be unreasonable to think that soldiers during Revolutionary times would be any different. And the first thing they’d wish for is a better rifle. One that was more reliable and fired bullets faster and more accurately than the soldiers they were shooting at.
The thing that makes modern rifles possible is the cartridge bullet. The first “bullet” was created in 1808. That’s only 27 years after the 2nd Amendment was ratified. Which wasn’t a long time in the lifecycle of technology during the latter part of the 18th century.
So, it’s not crazy to think that the founding fathers had at least an inkling of the possibility of guns that would shoot farther, faster and more accurately than what they had.
Now, if we were talking about nuclear bombs, drones, M1A1 Tanks or anything to do with radio, that would be a different story. But we’re not. We’re talking about a better rifle. Which is entirely within someone like Ben Franklin’s ability to think of.
So, I don’t think the “the Founding Fathers could have never thought of it” argument has much weight.
But, let’s assume that it is a valid argument. That anything the Founding Fathers couldn’t have thought of isn’t covered by our Constitution and its associated Amendments.
The Left probably doesn’t realize it, but that’s an argument that they don’t want to win.
Because there are LOTS of other things the Founding Fathers couldn’t have thought of.
I’d be willing to bet that back in the late 1700’s there were a few men pretending to be women. But men believing that they are women? Not so much.
Mental illness isn’t a new thing. And neither are men with feminine traits. So, it’s entirely feasible that the Founding Fathers knew of the possibility that a man could be pretending that he’s a woman. What is a new thing is men believing that they can become women, and people trying to force other people to completely throw out grade-school biology and believe the same thing.
Throw in men having their dicks cut off, women having their breasts cut off and both men and women believing that somehow doing so makes them the opposite sex? Now we’re firmly in the realm of “there’s no way the Founding Fathers could have thought of this”.
And, if we believe that AR-15s aren’t protected by the second amendment just because Ben Franklin and the team might not have imagined them, then all this trans-rights bullshit must also not be protected by the Constitution for the exact same reason.
And if the ability to cut off your balls and call yourself a woman isn’t protected, then no one can trample on my First Amendment right to say whatever the hell I want and expect me to call some mentally ill dude a well-adjusted chick.
Same thing goes with abortion. The Founding Fathers were a God-fearing bunch. Back in their time, there were about 2.5 million non-native people living in the United States. These days, there are nearly a million abortions performed each year. To God-fearing men, that’s an unthinkable number.
So, it’s unlikely that they could anticipate a future where killing unborn babies is the primary form of birth control for tens of millions of women.
And if the Constitution doesn’t give someone the right to use a particular type of deadly force to protect their life, then it sure as hell doesn’t give someone the right to use deadly force to protect their way of life.
If we’re going to limit the Constitution to only things that weren’t unthinkable to the Founding Fathers, then we need to completely ignore pretty much everything after the Bill of Rights.
Which means that women, black people and those under the age of 21 don’t have the right to vote, income taxes are illegal, and Black Lives Matter only three fifths as much as White Lives Matter.
So, Liberals can continue to use the argument that things unthinkable to the Founding Fathers have no constitutional protection. But like I said, it’s an argument they don’t want to win. Because, if we apply their logic across the board, many of the things they currently hold dear will disappear.
But I’ll still have my Second Amendment.
