Of course he won’t admit it, but if you follow the logic of his argument at the debate last night (though I doubt he will), technology has evolved and as such, so has the weaponry.
His exact quote in rebuttal to Romney’s claim that we have less ships in the navy now than in 1917:
“Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets. … We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.
So, seeing how technology has changed for the military it would only be logical that the free citizens of this country have their Second Amendment rights grow and evolve accordingly. Therefore, we can set aside the silly musket argument that the gun control zealots like to talk about.
We are left with the only logical conclusion, using the President’s own argument, that the free people of this country’s right to keep and bear arms has evolved as well past muskets to not only semi automatic rifles but also to fully automatic machine guns.
And why would we need that? It sure as shootin doesn’t have anything to do with hunting i’ll tell you that. It goes to the fundamental law of nature that existed even before the right was enumerated in the Constitution. The American settlers understood that the right to keep and bear arms was important for these purposes:
- deterring tyrannical government;
- repelling invasion;
- suppressing insurrection;
- facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
- participating in law enforcement;
- enabling the people to organize a militia system.
Notice how hunting is not on that list. These are the real reasons why the framers of the Constitution enumerated our right to keep and bear arms.
A quote has been attributed to Admiral Yamamoto of Japan during the WWII in regards to the feasibility of invading the United States after the attack on Pearl Harbor:
You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.
Even if it is misattributed to the Admiral the sentiment is no less true. Gun owners number more than 80 million in this country and if allowed to fully exercise their God given rights, would be able to fully repel invasion and more importantly deter tyrannical governments.
For so long I have heard the argument by the gun control zealots that the Founding Fathers couldn’t imagine the type of firepower available in the future and as such the people should be limited to muskets and single shot pistols.
But as President Obama said, things have evolved and changed and the Founding Fathers envisioned that while the Right wouldn’t change, the manner in which it is exercised would.
The Founding Fathers distrusted government in general. Even the one that they created and as such enumerated the Second Amendment as a safe guard against tyranny. If the times change and the military is allowed to evolve, then to deny the expansion of the firearms available to free citizens of America would completely undermine and invalidate the Second Amendment and what it was intended to protect.
Of course, for the gun control tyrants, that’s kind of the point.
And for those of you with short memories, machine guns were once more readily available to the general public and not that long ago. Before the Hughes Amendment in 1986 (which passed by the house under questionable means) it was perfectly legal to purchase an automatic weapon and streets were not running red with blood.
But I digress. The fact remains that Obama would not only keep automatic rifles manufactured after 1986 illegal but has publicly stated he wants to reinstate the ban semi-automatic rifles that are the most popular firearms in America. The hypocrisy of gun control tyrants in power is nothing new but always stomach turning. Obama is more than happy to let the military evolve while the people are gelded in order to keep a dichotomy of power shifted firmly in the governments advantage.
This is the reason the Founding Fathers put the Second Amendment in the clearest language of the day: Shall Not Be Infringed.
The whole of the populace should be able to have the ability to counter the tyranny of the government. But if the former is limited to muskets and the latter allowed the technology of the day the ability is stripped and freedom dies.