An AC Friend of Mine and I Disagree on Guns

First off let me say this in no uncertain terms. The person who I am referring to in this piece is indeed a FRIEND of mine, in the Internet sense of never meeting face-to-face friendships. He is a stand up guy who has been very kind and in fact very generous to me privately, so I AM NOT attacking my friend. He's a lefty and clearly I am not. We have always been friends and disagreed in a friendly manner and we will continue to do so. Again, this isn't about cracking on my pal but I am using his comment as one of demonstration to my point here and to bolster my points in my previous article.

In said article I took Tom Brokaw and progressives in general to task for their characterizations of American gun owners, private gun ownership, concealed carry laws and the Arizona tragedy of last Saturday morning. Tom Brokaw made a point of describing armed Arizonans as dangerous for carrying concealed weapons as is their right in that state if they meet the law's requirements for lawful gun ownership.

My objection was not so much Brokaw's opinion, as he's as entitled to have an opinion, stupid though it is, as is any other American. My objection was based on the bigotry of progressives, who treat and characterize American gun owners as dangerous merely by virtue of owning a gun. Of course I get the point overall - If NO ONE had guns, no one would ever be shot. But if no one was ever born, no one would die. If one has never been on a plane likely they will not die in an aircraft accident. See my point?

Guns and our Constitutional right to own them is clear and not in debate, and no one I know is up in arms, pardon the term, about our right to own guns. SCOTUS has ruled definitively, so the issue is closed for all time. But that still does not mean I will smile and blithely accept being defamed by Brokaw who paints me and all gun owners as dangerous for merely owning guns, again, as is MY CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED right!

The disagreement I refer to in this piece is one based on a comment my friend left on the article prior. He said, and I quote "Tom Brokaw, that notorious sh_t disturbing leftie goes stirring things up yet again. I don't see why he just doesn't either 1) change his mind or 2) shut his mouth and let the armed armies of constitutional literalness all shoot each other. Problem solved."

My real issue is with the "armed armies of constitutional literalness all shoot each other." Ahhhh, what armed armies? Sure, there are some armed nutjobs who think they are a private army. When they break the law, lock 'em up! But to characterize gun ownership as some ephemeral association to militia types is BS of the highest order.

I am real sorry the Founder's wanted me and directed me to fairly LITERAL interpretations of the Constitution. I am sorry Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, etc, were clear that the Document is to keep government off my back and small. The Founder's were clear - big government is dangerous and bad. Only progressives, in their wishful interpretations of the Constitution, seem to find the Document to be one that every word must be discerned and nuanced as to "what it means," and to defame others for accepting that SOME of the Document is literal and clear as a crisp Winter night.

The Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed," caveat IS NOT OPEN TO INTERPRETATION!!!!! It means EXACTLY what the Hell it says - SHALL NOT! It is tiresome having to argue these points with people. No one I know believes the Constitution must be translated literally in every word, but dammit, literal interpretations are necessary to understand the document. Of course some of it, the Commerce Clause for one, are more nuanced and has been interpreted in ways some may not agree with, but what kind of person tries to interpret the meaning of the phrase "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?" Doesn't "shall not" mean NEVER or something damned close to it? It damn sure does and I don't care if others like it or not. Get over it!

I am way tired of having to stand up and scream that I am not dangerous because I have guns. I am law abiding and have been for all my 54 years. How does my wearing a gun to the grocery store endanger others? I am tired of having to defend myself for exercising my rights. If a lefty wants to spout off, that is their right under the First Amendment. Have at it. I may disagree as I am now, and I may not like it, but I would NEVER try to demand their right to free speech be curtailed, even if that right defames me.

Who is it who is forever screaming that conservative political speech is hate? Who is it generally who claims conservative speech needs to be curtailed? Yet the same progressives who will use the First Amendment to defame, libel and slander conservatives will scream my right to the First should be curtailed cause it's dangerous.

Any American who tries to characterize my right to exercise my liberties are dangerous is treading on thin ice. And NO, that is not a threat. It is a statement of fact. The law is the law is the law. As long as I obey it, and I do, I'm good no matter if lefties like it or not. That being said, I think it fair to caution that to try and trample my rights will lead to bad stuff. In case one missed it, that is the ENTIRE reason for the Bill of Rights. Go back and look it up! To allow each individual their right to exercise their Constitutional liberties lawfully and legally.

So feel free to defame me. Libel me. Slander me to one's heart's content. I get a good laugh out of it. It's a fool's errand and who am I to stand in the way of a fool making a fool of themselves? It's entertainment. I don't know anyone who will harm another for making ignorant statements that have no basis in fact in any way, at least politically speaking. We will continue to endure, with grace, perhaps not in silence, but will obey the law, and listen as we are talked about as if our rights are not worthy and as if we are the scum beneath your feet.

Like I said,wouldn't want to offend a Muslim by profiling, but by all means, falsely profile fellow Americans whose entire crime is not a crime at all - owning and legally carrying our firearms. And my friend, we're still okay as far as I'm concerned. You are entitled to your opinion...doesn't mean I have to agree or like it, merely that I must accept your rights, even when your exercise of them does not agree with me. Wonder, will progressives grant me and mine the same dispensation? Anyway, thanks for the comment that allowed me to make my point with a crystal clarity that is blinding and undeniable.