(Danny Tarkanian) – You don’t have to be a Constitutional scholar to know that the Second Amendment to the Constitution isn’t ambiguous – any more than freedom of speech or the right to assemble. The words are written clearly for all to see, in the Bill of Rights. Yet it never ceases to amaze me how enemies of freedom in the guise of societal do-gooders want to pretend that the words don’t exist.
Our military provides for the “Common Defence” against threats outside our borders, but as a part of the Bill of Rights, the right to bear arms isn’t just about guns – it is part and parcel of the Framers’ unyielding defense of the right of each individual to protect their life and liberty within their community and in their home.
My wife Amy has a gun because I bought it for her. Both Amy and I hope we never have to use it, but it’s there for our protection, guaranteed by our Founding Fathers.
Still, the Second Amendment, like all freedoms we cherish, needs constant tending and defense. It seems like every day, some tragedy is leveraged to justify another gun law. We are fortunate to have right on our side – most of the gun-grabbing legislation eventually falls under the weight of its false logic.
Take the assault weapons ban – unconstitutional prima facie – as an example, a political maneuver by the left-wing to demonize guns and institute federal regulation. All it took was a simple study to reveal that banning assault weapons has no effect on gun violence.
Never forget, whether we are talking about guns or another issue, it’s a slippery slope to passing laws like the assault weapons ban with a false premise to eventually passing laws with no basis at all. That can only lead to one thing, a government by individual fiat – a dictatorship. We must always be vigilant.
And vigilance starts with the courts. In 2008 the Supreme Court upheld as an individual right our right to keep and bear arms through its ruling in Heller v. District of Columbia. This historic decision has set the stage for a similar case, pending before the court today.
Harry Reid is anything but vigilant and he can’t be trusted with our rights. What good does it do if Harry Reid supports all the so-called “pro-gun legislation” in the Congress, but supports Federal judicial nominees like Sotomayor who are ideologically disposed to strike down those laws?
Sounds like double talk to me, but then again, I’m relatively new to politics. As Nevada’s Senator I will only vote to confirm Originalists who abide by the intent of our founding fathers, and decisions like Heller will be safe from the Revisionists.
The Supreme Court is now considering the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago. This case has prompted responsible Senators like Sen. Hutchison and Sen. Tester, and several U.S. Congressmen to demand that the court uphold the same fundamental rights that the court confirmed in 2008. When the court issues its decision, remember to notice which Justices support freedom, and how Harry Reid voted in each case.
Let me conclude with a final thought. When we talk about threats to our freedom, many on the left try to portray our worldview as fringe (for the left, freedom IS a fringe idea). We need to stand together in pointing out that their naïve attitude is dangerous.
The last several years have seen the threats emerge that we always knew were possible: terrorist attacks on our soil, federal government bailouts, an unaccountable Federal Reserve, encroachments on our rights and government involvement in our most private health care decisions.
More than ever, we are being proven right in our core belief that freedom isn’t defended by government – it is – in the end, defended by the individual. And sometimes, at the point of a gun.
God Bless America and may its freedoms endure through continued vigilance.
(Mr. Tarkanian is a Republican candidate for the United States Senate in Nevada. This column was originally published on Examiner.com)