Let’s Stop Pretending that the Second Amendment is for Only ‘Self-Protection’ and ‘Recreation’


Vice President Biden has been on a roll lately. As he crusades against our Second Amendment rights, he has become, apparently, more and more irate as people pose questions directly to the heart of his unconstitutional crusade.

Earlier this week, he sat for an interview for Parents Magazine and got incredibly testy when asked about his efforts to ban what the left deems “assault weapons” and what effect a prohibition on them would have considering the lack of effectiveness of a prohibition on drugs.

After he had a juicebox and a good, long nap, Joe was back at it. Yesterday, Biden went to Connecticut to once again, pounce on the collective sorrow of a nation in the aftermath of the horrific shooting in Newtown.

Insisting that the world had changed since Newtown and that Americans do not need effective weapons, Biden evoked the “Do it for the children” rhetoric and asserted,

“We have to speak for all those voices, speak for those 20 beautiful children, who died 69 days ago, 12 miles from here.”

Biden also took exception with the truthful accusation that he and President Obama are seeking to curb our Second Amendment rights. Noting the recent encounters he has had on social media sites where people had the audacity to ask him about his efforts, Biden seemed upset about Americans being hesitant to simply give up their rights.

“’It’s amazing some of the questions that seep in,’ Biden complained, insisting that the Obama administration was not going to take away gun rights from law-abiding citizens.

‘Not true!’ Biden insisted.

Biden also criticized gun rights supporters, saying they were wrong for thinking they needed so-called ‘assault weapons.’

‘They say assault weapons like the AR-15 are needed for self-protection and recreation. They are not!’ Biden shouted. ‘There are plenty of ways to protect yourself and recreate without an AR-15!’”

No, Joe; our assertion is not that we need them for self-protection and recreation. Our assertion is that those are just a couple of the uses for rifles.

It’s our fault, really; we should really not dignify the left’s questions of, “Why do you need an ‘assault weapon’?” Let’s not pretend any further that the burden is on us to justify why we need a right that is already guaranteed to us. Let’s stop feeding the narrative that our rifles are only for shooting tin cans, deer or the occasional intruder.

The truth is, if Joe, Barack, Dianne or anybody else have any questions as to why I need an AR-15, I suggest they read carefully the wording of the Second Amendment- especially the part about it not being infringed.

And while we’re on the subject, I will also not be explaining why I wish to remain free from unreasonable searches and seizures, why I wish for due process and why I will not be quartering soldiers in my home.

Also see...


Related Articles

12

NY Times Really Concerned About Newest “Die Hard” Movie And Link To Gun Violence

Here’s Joe Nocera writing an op-ed for the NY Tomes, The ‘Die Hard’ Quandry, in which he’s really, really concerned

5

Strict Gun Laws In Chicago Can’t Stop Gun Violence Says….NY Times? Climate Astrology Added

A random act of journalism from the Paper Of Record (NY Times): Not a single gun shop can be found in

23

Ukrainian Lesson: Fools and Their Guns Are Soon Parted

Thanks to Germany’s violation of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, which turned the Left against Hitler, information gatekeepers have done an admirable