Second Amendment Watch: We Need Guns and Armed Guards, You Don’t, Say the Wealthy and Politically Connected
What do presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and President Obama have in common? And what do President Obama and Hillary have in common with Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor of New York City? All three of these famous individuals have around the clock armed guards guaranteeing their personal security and protecting their property.
The similarities of this renown American trio doesn’t end with the commonality of their particular security details. These three folks all have a well-publicized desire to limit the average American’s access to the Second Amendment: in other words, this renown trio is in favor of stringent gun control. In fact, President Obama has recently gone so far as to make it known that he now plans to use an executive order, if need be, to institute the tougher gun laws that he’s been unable to move through Congress in the last seven years.
Since the recent extremist Islamic terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California, gun sales and gun permit applications are at all-time highs. Why is that? It’s due to the average American’s sincere belief that their city streets, shopping malls, schools, and social venues have grown increasingly vulnerable to terrorists of every stripe, and especially attractive to extremist Islamic terrorists.
To these Americans – who feel abandoned by the government they rightfully expect to protect them – it’s time to take matters of self-defense into their own hands, like never before. Critics of the Second Amendment may call it paranoia or exaggerated fear for personal safety – this desire to arm oneself – but the drive to protect oneself, one’s loved ones, and one’s property is as old as time and as elemental to survival as fresh air.
That President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Michael Bloomberg want to curtail, if not outright repeal the Second Amendment, is hypocrisy of astounding magnitude. Their gun control philosophy could be summarized as, “We’re important and wealthy Americans. We deserve and need firearms and armed guards in order to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and our property, but the rest of America shouldn’t have these same rights of personal protection.”
Oh, really? The Second Amendment has no income test. It wasn’t written with the upper class or those of vast wealth specifically in mind. Quite the contrary it was written for all Americans as was the Constitution. Is the Clinton compound in Chappaqua, NY more important than your modest homestead? Does Michael Bloomberg deserve special rights to personal protection because he lives in an exclusive penthouse and owns a fleet of jet helicopters that he enjoys flying as a hobby? Because Barack Obama lives in the nation’s White House is his house more sacrosanct than your house?
Is the Constitution, and specifically the Second Amendment, more applicable to some and less applicable to others based upon income, social standing, or political office? No. Not at all. My home, your loved ones, our neighbor’s small business, and all of of our individual personal property is every bit as deserving of protection by firearm as that of the wealthiest and most influential among us. More money or more influence is not translatable into more constitutional rights.
In America everyone is equal. And nowhere is this truth more evident than through an historically accurate interpretation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
