People on the left are often baffled by how little those on the far right are willing to budge on the controversial issue of gun control. But why is there such a vast disagreement on what measures the government should take to control the second amendment? Why do leftists get so upset with the apparent stubbornness of second amendment supporters? After all, most (not all) liberals support gun ownership, they just believe in having more regulations on it. What causes all this dysfunction when it comes to the debate of gun control? The main reason is simple: The vast majority of liberals do not support the right to keep and bear arms. On its face, that statement may seem a bit contradictory to what they say and do, but read on...

First, let me clear up a few things. Just about every anti gun politician is against most types of firearms. They'll only be satisfied when the civilian arsenal is neutered to being filled with only revolvers and double barreled shotguns, sending us little people back to late 19th century technology while they themselves plays with drones. (But hey, if somebody breaks into your home, just randomly and recklessly fire two blasts out the front door, and the intruders will run off, leaving you victorious! ...Joe Biden told me so.) The reason for this is because they want power. And since they're limited in how much more they can beef themselves up, they can only feel more powerful by weakening those whom they want to have power over.

...However, in this article I'm not talking about the debate that is had with the above mentioned, far leftist, power hungry, elitist politicians. I'm talking about the vast majority of the little people's branch of liberals. (Some of which are indeed far leftist, power hungry, elitists, but the vast majority aren't) ...You know: Those bloggers, TV personalities, newspaper journalists, twitter warriors (Because gun control is definitely an issue that can be explained and solved in 140 characters, right?) facebook and youtube commenters, etc. They're all saying the same thing: "We support the right to bear arms, but..." And many people mistake list of proposed restrictions that they then propose as 'middle ground, common sense laws.'

"After all, the government requiring that you must have a perfect criminal and mental health history before purchasing a gun isn't infringing on the right to bear arms, right? ...We don't want criminals and psychopaths owning guns, do we? Or requiring a 30 day waiting period? ...You can wait, can't you? ...Oh, and you don't really need a 30 round magazine, right? 10 is enough, right? We don't want to infringe on your rights, we just want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals." Their requests seem pretty reasonable on their faces; however, when those on the far right object to these proposed laws, the left throws a tantrum. After all, they're fully supporting gun ownership, right? They're not those dirty anti gunners who want to ban everything, right? They just want some 'common sense.' laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals! So, why do leftists get so frustrated with those on the far right for refusing to budge? Because they don't understand the goals of the far right wingers.

The reason why many leftists don't see anything wrong with waiting periods or tight background check requirements is because they simply don't believe in the right to keep and bear arms. They say they do, and a lot of them probably honestly think they believe in it. They believe you and I should be able to own guns, - but at the same time they also believe that the government has control over which arms we can keep and bear, along with what hurdles we have to jump to purchase, keep, and bear such arms. ... The problem is this: If the government can do those things, it is no longer a right. It has now been degraded into a privilege. And now I take issue.

See, privileges are gifts that are handed to us, while rights are what we're entitled to. Rights cannot be taken away, while privileges can. This is the entire problem with the seemingly harmless common sense 'middle ground' laws such as criminal and mental background checks, magazine limits, waiting periods, limits on which models of firearms can be bought, etc. They may be 'in the middle' to the defense of gun ownership, but they are detrimental to the defense of gun rights. They turn the right to bear arms into a privilege. Again, privileges can be taken away.

According to The Bill of Rights, "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So according to the highest law in the land, gun ownership is a right, not a privilege. Therefore, the government has no right to try to control it. Limiting what types of firearms can be purchased and saying that it's not infringing on the right to bear arms is like limiting which opinions can be voiced and saying it's not infringing on the first amendment. "...After all, you can still say what you want, just as long as you don't say these few things. You still have free speech, right?" Wrong. Because, as soon as you try and limit what type of free speech is acceptable, you have, by definition, violated free speech itself. The same applies for the buying and selling of arms. The Constitution doesn't specify which type or arms we can bear, so neither should the U.S. government.

Many on both sides support gun ownership, and I myself do too; but being pro 'arms ownership', and being pro 'right to bear arms' are two different things. (I support the latter) This is why there is so much disagreement when it comes to the gun control debate. Those on the left are arguing for the privilege to bear arms, while those on the right are fighting to keep it a right.

Meanwhile, the far leftist, power hungry, elitist politicians that we mentioned earlier are cheering their little people on, as they try to convince the country that the right to bear arms is not a natural human right protected by the constitution, but merely a privilege, given out on the government's 'say so.' The government is trying to force people to meet their special and specific criteria before they can exercise their right to bear arms. The Bill of Rights has only one criteria, and that is: Be a U.S. citizen. ...If you meet that requirement, then you are allowed to keep and bear arms. And that right shall. not. be. infringed.

...Until next time!