from Brent Smith for World Net Daily:
The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to prevent government infringement on our natural rights as Americans. It was designed to prevent government the ability to bestow and therefore rescind the rights of the individual.
To that, there was an interesting and thought-provoking article in the Washington Post recently. I’m not sure I’ve ever uttered those words in the same sentence: thought-provoking and Washington Post.
The Post article is entitled, “Why not try to amend the Second Amendment?”
The writer’s point is that attempting to “amend” the amendment might be easier than the near-impossible task of repealing it altogether.
The WaPo writer begins as so many others on the left have – by not allowing a good crisis to go to waste. In this case – another mass-shooting.
He writes: “The Virginia Beach massacre again raises the question of why the United States can’t do more to combat mass murderers wielding guns. It can – but only by amending the Second Amendment.”
To be sure, completing a highly improbable task, amending, will technically be easier than a near-impossible one, repealing, but in this case, I have confidence that neither will occur.
But it’s not just the idea of amending the Second Amendment that’s the problem. It’s his suggested amendments themselves.
The WaPo author gives every appearance of being a reasoned thinker until this: