Walter Williams: Americans misunderstand point of the Second Amendment [VIDEO]

[LibertyEagle]

Walter Williams: Americans misunderstand point of the Second Amendment [VIDEO]

Author and economist Walter Williams told The Daily Caller that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect Americans from their own government — not simply to ensure hunting rights.

Williams, a syndicated columnist and the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University, suggested that common misconceptions about the Second Amendment undermine the gun control debate.

“[The Founding Fathers'] stated reason was to allow the American people to protect themselves from the United States Congress — that is, government. That’s why we have the Second Amendment,” he said.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/13/w...-point-of-the-second-amendment/#ixzz2HzXtNtPN

 

[shane77m]

too bad the gun control wackos will not listen to what he is saying.

 

[Joseph de Maistre]

The left's line of argument is fallacious from the beginning, and fails to explain why we have the right to bear arms in the first place. It is akin to arguing that you don't need a butcher's cleaver to make pancakes.

There is this consistent starting point the Left starts from that "you don't need 10 rounds to shoot a deer." They begin from a true statement that intentionally leads to obfuscation. Their argument inexorably leads into a 1 shot per magazine rule. You only need 1 shot to kill a deer, after that, it's scared off.

But, the Beltway Sniper only needed one shot. He took one shot each and killed many people. Thus, if we wish to be truly safe, we won't allow even one shot. And that is where they wish to lead us.

 

[Pericles]

The reason I need whatever arms I possess is in order to protect myself from whoever would try to take them from me.

I can't be convinced that the founders of the United States were so concerned about the ability to hunt ducks, that the right to do so was placed in the supreme law of the land.

 

[The Freethinker]

The left's line of argument is fallacious from the beginning, and fails to explain why we have the right to bear arms in the first place. It is akin to arguing that you don't need a butcher's cleaver to make pancakes.

There is this consistent starting point the Left starts from that "you don't need 10 rounds to shoot a deer." They begin from a true statement that intentionally leads to obfuscation. Their argument inexorably leads into a 1 shot per magazine rule. You only need 1 shot to kill a deer, after that, it's scared off.

But, the Beltway Sniper only needed one shot. He took one shot each and killed many people. Thus, if we wish to be truly safe, we won't allow even one shot. And that is where they wish to lead us.

As annoying as the left is, I at least acknowledge that they know theirs is a liberal agenda of social revolution, wealth redistribution ("shared prosperity"), and an ever-growing expansion of the state's power and reach over the lives of citizens. What annoys me are people who call themselves social conservatives (those who are strictly in favor of straight-only marriage, who have no gay friends and find gays freaky, who would never out of pride allow themselves to go on welfare, who preach and live by hard work and earning one's career, who wish to have nothing do with the "have-nots," etc...)... who swallow the anti-gun crowd's arguments hook line and sinker without even so much attempting to get familiar with the pro-2nd Amendment camp's arguments, and summarily dismiss firearms as innately evil - all while being ignorant of the fact that guns are involved in far fewer killings per year than other methods, including non-firearm weapon assaults.