gun control Media activism media bias Media malfeasance Media Skullduggery

Finland: Helsingin Sanomat journalist Saska Saarikoski bemoans US gun rights under 2nd amendment…….


Saska bloviates: ”I love many things about America, but gun nuts are impossible to understand. Why should everyone be armed like the military?”

 

I keep saying it, HS (dolt) foreign news ‘journalist’, Saska Saarikoski, knows nothing about America that he regularly rights about. Anything that he says about the US has been filtered through a leftist sieve. His perspectives are screwball.

 

Here’s an excellent understanding of the US’s 2nd Amendment clause regarding the right to bear arms.

The discussion about our right to own firearms completely misses the point. The writers of the Constitution were not worried about our ability to hunt, nor were they concerned about assuring that we could ward off burglars. The sole reason that firearms were important enough to be included in the Bill of Rights was to guarantee our ability to protect ourselves from OUR government.

If we are armed in order to keep the government in check, to keep it from taking away our rights, then our weapons have to be threatening to the government. In 1791 the citizens of this country were armed almost as well as the army was. The government had many reasons to protect the rights of the citizenry: one of those reasons being the last resort of revolution. The arms of the citizens kept the government honest.

 

But that is only one of the reasons as to why the 2nd Amendment exists, another crucial reason is the right to self defense, something of which I blogged about from a personal perspective a few years ago. A relative of mine was saved through the actions of a spouse who kept loaded guns throughout their house. Two cop killers planned their execution in the basement of their house, and if not for a misfired gun by the perp and the quick actions of my brother-in-law, both my sister and he would be dead right now.

 

That said, the right to own military-style weapons is highly regulated, and we can debate whether that is unconstitutional, but the need for such weapons is only for such a situation in which the government has become so tyrannical that voting is suspended, judges are jailed and martial law rules the land. In such a time and place, then yes, insurrection is a constitutional safeguarded right, and right to hold those weapons become amazingly clear and justified.

One Response

  1. It is always disheartening to read or hear statist’s grossly ignorant or propagandistic comments against
    our Constitution. As I observe mankind around the globe, I recognize man’s imperfections which are magnified and distorted through the statist’s fun house lens of so-called government. I no longer do any international travel. That fire in my belly was stomped out years ago because of state worship around the globe. The illogical display by Saska is but one symptom of those who believe the state has replaced God. Our Constitution has proven to be the best contract between God, man, and government yet devised. But perfect? Are we?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *