Liberals should embrace the second amendment

A fairly well written article actually.

The main point is, we shouldn’t pick and choose what amendments are applicable in the modern day and age. If one is obsolete, that means they all are obsolete. If the founding fathers didn’t envision machine guns, then they didn’t envision the internet, television, or radio. So why are those protected, but a different amendment is the only one that is obsolete?

Should the right to vote for 18-year-olds be revoked? So few vote, so maybe it’s obsolete as well. How about the thirteenth amendment, which got rid of slavery? Slavery isn’t seen in the modern world, surely that is obsolete.

The founding fathers couldn’t have imagined the internet, maybe free speech shouldn’t extend to the internet.

These same people also point out how others only pick and choose what laws they follow from religious texts. They criticize people harshly for saying they follow all the laws of the bible, expect for x, y, and z.

So, if you are going to say someone shouldn’t pick and choose, despite them disliking certain aspects of something, isn’t it hypocritical to then pick and choose with the supreme law of the land?

They are saying if you believe in the bible that you should follow all of the rules, like selling your daughter and stoning people to death, but they turn around and won’t follow every aspect of the Constitution!

I personally have a hard time believing the founding fathers couldn’t have imagined a machine gun. Multiple shot repeating guns already existed at that time, including superimposed load guns and even the Puckle Gun. The Puckle Gun was invented in 1718 and was a repeating gun that could 63 shots in seven minutes, in contrast to a musket, which could be fired three times per minute at best.

A machine gun isn’t exactly an advanced concept. One could be designed and built using 1700’s technology with relative ease, not to mention could be made to only use parts available during the 1700’s.

Bfore I digress more, maybe people shouldn’t be hypocritical. if you want to criticize someone for not following every rule in something, then maybe you should be willing to follow every law that you say you support.

If you supprot the Constitution, support it all. If you don’t support it, don’t support all of it. Don’t just pick and choose, it makes you worse than the people you criticize for picking from (holy book here) since they aren’t being hypocrites about it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s