Chris Muir's Day By Day

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Second Amendment But-Heads

These are people, mostly Democrats, who give lip service to the Second Amendment in the wake of the US Supreme Court's Heller and MacDonald decisions. They take their cue from President Obama, and preface their call for new gun control by giving lip service to the Constitution with some variation of the following line (this one uttered by a Republican prosecutor in West Virginia:

"I am a very strong supporter of the second amendment, but there must be some common sense applied here."

It's always a variation of that construction: I am a supporter of the Second Amendment, but...

These are the same people that denied the main clause of the Second Amendment because of the prefatory clause: 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.

Let's apply some actual common sense here. If you're one of these Second Amendment But-Heads, what you are proposing is that law-abiding citizens who have undergone the necessary training and background checks to become legal gun carriers have their right to do so infringed. You're not proposing additional laws that would penalize criminal misuse of a gun, nor are you proposing that already-existing laws against criminal misuse of guns be more rigidly enforced. No, what you are proposing is that law-abiding gun owners give up their right, because they scare you. You don't want them in a restaurant with you, nor in a mall with you, nor in a workplace with you. In fact, you don't want them anywhere with you, but you're not allowed to say that anymore, because the Supreme Court ruled against people like you, much to your horror and chagrin. So if you're a gun-hating politician of the Barack Obama sort, you have to give lip service to the Constitution by saying I support the Second Amendment but... all of the time.

Sucks to be you, doesn't it?

h/t Lagniappe's Lair for the WV story.

14 comments:

wally said...

In Bob World, you're either a gun lover or a gun hater. There's no room for the rest of us. You're surrounded by gun-hating, Obama-duped enemies. I don't know, kinda feels like it sucks to be you.

Bob said...

@wally: embrace your but-headedness, Walt. A right isn't much of a right if it's fenced in with so many exceptions and qualifications that the law-abiding citizen inadvertently becomes a criminal without intending to. It'd be like me telling you as an editorial cartoonist, "I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment, but I don't want you to call Tea Party supporters "teabaggers" and I don't want you comparing Republicans to Adolf Hitler. If necessary, I'll get a law passed preventing you from doing so."

And frankly, I think that if someone handed you a Magic Wand that, when waved, instantly made all guns and knowledge of guns in this world disappear, you'd hesitate only an instant before waving it, and then you'd go to work making editorial cartoons advocating length limits on swords, and trying to get "assault swords" banned, and instituting waiting periods for purchasing swords, etc., the same "reasonable restrictions" that incrementalist gun banners currently apply toward firearms.

wally said...

I'm a comic book hero! I can't blame you, this is a lot more fun than reality. Sounds like you could use a good night's sleep, though. Just sayin'.

Bob said...

@wally: "5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage." - - Saul Alinsky, Rules For Radicals.

wally said...

Dang, Robert, I was actually doing you a favor by employing ridicule. The alternative would have been to accuse you of lacking integrity for purposefully mischaracterizing me and my motivations, and I'm sorry, I just won't do it!

Bob said...

@wally: I don't think I've mischaracterized your motivations at all. In past conversations you've supported just the type of incremental bans (high capacity magazines, "assault" weapons, etc) that, taken piecemeal, might seem to be "reasonable," but taken in toto, represent a substantial erosion of the Second Amendment with no real proof that such measures will keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

And, since you mentioned Obama in an earlier comment, it's sort of hard to assume the moral high ground when the Justice Deparment was busily shipping "assault weapons" to Mexican drug cartels with no mechanism for tracing them, thus making the US government accessories before the fact in the murders of dozens, if not hundreds, of Mexican nationals, and also, incidentally, a US Border Patrol policeman and an agent of ICE. Had we done the same to a country such as Russia or China we might well be at war over such a provocation.

wally said...

I refer you to your first comment, second paragraph. Nothing there about high-capacity magazines or Fast & Furious. You can prevaricate all you want, but it don't fool me.

Bob said...

@wally: first comment, ly paragraph is an opinion, Walt, based on your past support of such incrementalist meaures as "gun show loophole" bans, magazine capacity bans, etc. Luckily for gun owners there are no "magic wands" for you to be tempted with. If you disagree with my assessment of your views on guns, then...too bad.

wally said...

I have made it clear several times that I am not an "incrementalist". I have no desire whatsoever to ban all guns. When you weave fantasies of me doing just that, you're essentially calling me a liar in public. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

Bob said...

@wally: Have you done even one published editorial cartoon in which you came down on the side of gun rights? If you can, I'll happily admit you're not an incrementalist.

Do you feel that Barack Obama is being truthful when he describes himself as "a strong supporter of the Second Amendment?"

wally said...

You'll stop calling me a liar only if I do an editorial cartoon for you? In your dreams!

Bob said...

@wally: well, that answers that question.

"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

BobG said...

Your troll certainly babbles a lot, doesn't he?

Bob said...

@BobG: He's actually a friend, or so I consider him. I actually met him when I was vacationing in Norfolk, VA a couple of years ago. His blog is called Crack Skull Bob, he's a skilled artist and does editorial cartoons for The Virginia Pilot. Hell of a nice guy, but 180 degrees my opposite ideologically.