Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Saturday, January 20, 2007

There's still a bit too much freedom in Maryland--but the state Senate is working on fixing that

The anti-Constitution crowd in Maryland hasn't yet managed to pass a statewide ban on so-called "assault weapons," but they certainly keep trying. This year, a bill that would do so has been introduced by the newly elected Senator Mike Lenett.

Brian Fosh, the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee Chairman, is 100% on board with the idea:

"I’m for it. There’s no reason in the world why people need to have these guns on the streets," Frosh said.
Ah, yes--the always popular "a right you say we don't need is no right at all" argument. For that matter, Brian, there's no reason in the world people need to vote, or to petition the government, or to do anything else protected by the Constitution--I guess you can ignore the whole thing if you want.

Senator Robert Garagiola, lead sponsor of a similar bill in the past, laments the fact that many of the people of the state (you know--the people who are supposedly represented by these jackbooted clowns) are opposed to it:
"This state is a conservative state overall, and ... there are many aspects of the state where there are just stronger Second Amendment sentiments," he said.
"Stronger Second Amendment sentiments," eh? There's another, less awkward way of saying that--more patriotism. He goes on to explain why those holding these "stronger Second Amendment sentiments" are in error.
"But I think a line needs to be drawn somewhere. These don’t need to be available for the public."
So . . . not only should arbitrary limits be placed on the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, but you drones should be the ones to decide just where those limits should be placed. And that placement, apparently, comes back again to your side's favorite argument about what firearms the rest of us need (according to you).

Lenett, apparently worried that Garagiola was stealing the spotlight for most idiotic pomposity, had more to say.
"It’s the responsibility of every public representative to lead their constituents," Lenett said.
No, Mike--the responsibility of a public representative is to represent the public (hence the term "representative"--starting to make sense yet?). Another term for public representative is public servant--your job is to serve the public. If you were hoping to "lead" by imposing laws on people who do not wish such laws, then you took office in a country with the wrong kind of Constitution. Sounds as if you need to find someplace to set up a nice, cozy little dictatorship. Good luck with that, and please send us a postcard to let us know how it's going.

Finally, Lenett gives us his take on the Second Amendment (and it's every bit as fascinating as you no doubt expected it to be).
"I recognize that the Second Amendment provides some gun ownership rights, and I wouldn’t infringe on those. But I don’t believe that any self-respecting hunter needs a military-style assault weapon."
Gee, thanks for "recognizing" that, Mike, but no thanks. First, the Second Amendment, like every other part of the Bill of Rights, doesn't "provide" anything--it guarantees a fundamental, natural (or God-given, for those inclined to look at it from the angle of religious faith) right. Second, my copy of the Constitution must be defective--it doesn't say anything about "the right of the people to keep and bear some kinds of arms . . . ," or "the right of some of the people to keep and bear arms . . . ," and it says "shall not be infringed"--not "shall not be utterly ignored." Third, infringing on those is exactly what your bill is designed to do. Fourth, regardless of what you "believe" about what we "need" (the "need" argument once again), so-called "military-style assault weapons" fulfill a variety of uses for civilians, from target shooting, to home defense, to deterring would-be tyrants. Lastly, what the hell do hunters ("self-respecting" or otherwise) have to do with the Second Amendment?

I wonder if the voters of Maryland realize that the Senator they elected seems to think he has been raised to a position of sovereignty over his "subjects."


Anonymous said...

A gov't official telling us we don't need such guns is the very reason we need such guns.

Kurt '45superman' Hofmann said...

Yep--and a bunch of such officials would be why we need large magazines.

John R said...

Great commentary. I found your site earlier in the week and have been waiting since then to make it my "Sunday's Blog of The Week".

Kurt '45superman' Hofmann said...

Thanks for reading, and for the kind words, JR (but I take Sundays off).

me said...

Hmmm, Fosh must have a slick polished look and big wallet...but you know what they say, you can't polish a turd.


Xyba said...

One thing these nit wit politicians fail to understand is the weapons that were in the hands of citizens at the writing of the Constitution were in many ways superior to those of the military, i.e. rifles vs muskets.