I find it odd that so many people who are anti-gun like to call themselves "pro-Second Amendment". It's obviously not true. Of course, they usually have a big "but".
How can you be for something you willfully misunderstand?
They may believe the Second Amendment "gives people the right" to have guns while misunderstanding that it doesn't. And the Second Amendment doesn't have a "but". Plus, the right exists regardless.
What the Second Amendment does is place guns off-limits to government. "Gun control" [sic] is a serious crime. The Second Amendment doesn't leave room for licenses, permits, limits, registration, "red flag laws", background checks, waiting periods, "taxes" on guns/gun accessories or ammo, or any gun "laws" of any sort. If you don't understand this, to say you are "pro-Second Amendment" is to lie.
And yes, charging a "tax" on anything associated with guns (or the exercise of any natural human right) is an unacceptable violation of that right. This point is important. You can't have a right to "tax"/steal, and doing so to make a right more expensive to exercise-- do discourage the exercise thereof-- is doubly evil.
I am pro-gun rights; pro-human rights. I don't really care if the generally ignored Second Amendment exists or not. And I'm opposed to government employees (and other archators) owning or carrying guns, even though I wouldn't prohibit them from doing so. I'm opposed to them breathing, too, but preventing that isn't my responsibility in most cases, either.
I would be generally "pro-Second Amendment" if it actually did what it was supposed to do. But it doesn't. And it is used by anti-gun bigots as a way to justify their rights violations. They choose to misdefine "militia" (all the people capable of bearing arms in defense of the society) and "well-regulated" (practiced to the point of effectiveness) to suit their purposes. And they love to ignore "shall not be infringed".
The meaning of "pro-gun" is even less clear.
Cops can be "pro-gun"... as long as you obey the unconstitutional and unethical "laws" controlling gun owners. They probably like having their guns, but are often skeptical of you having any gun you want, on you everywhere you go, without getting government permission first. Many "elite" gun owners and fudds are the same way.
Just because someone is "pro-gun" doesn't mean they support your right to own and to carry them. And this is how they justify their sneak attacks on your natural human rights that they really don't like much, while semi-honestly calling themselves "pro-gun".
A "pro-gun" individual could still be against you having a gun on you because they might not be pro-gun-owner; a real "pro-Second Amendment"/gun-owner rights supporter can't be. Not if they are honest. And someone who really respects the natural human right to own and to carry weapons doesn't rely on the existence of the Second Amendment to support the right and doesn't look for ways to violate or limit your rights.
Now, is that person who claims to be "pro-Second Amendment" telling the truth or are they not?
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so... Donations and subscriptions are always appreciated!
Find me on Patreon
Cell phones are not in the Constitution. Nonetheless, I have a right to a cell phone. I have the responsibility to buy it for myself if I want it, and I have to pay for a provider if I do not want to just use it on WiFi. No one has an obligation to provide me with a cell phone, pay for my service plan, or even offer free WiFi if they do not wish to. My right to a cell phone does not grant me the right to use it to commit fraud or use it in a place where it could realistically interfere with sensitive medical equipment and thus directly endanger lives.
The same principle applies to all rights. Guns, speech, medical care, etc.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit