Penn Valley, CA — Area gun collector, Donald Trump supporter and 2nd Amendment activist Jason Dant announced on his Facebook wall that he probably needs just one more gun to secure his Constitutional freedoms and protect his family against, in his words, “Tyranny.” The status update’s intention, posted at 11pm earlier this week, was designed to taunt Government bureaucrats who will probably never read his page. Mr. Dant’s collection of 27 guns not only includes historical weapons, but a few modern assault type weapons. He hopes to buy another assault-type weapon soon to round out his anti-tyranny arsenal.
“The Second Amendment is there to protect us from the people,” said Mr. Dant in his Facebook post. “And the more protection I have, the better. It’s different for everyone tho[sic]. I think I need 28 weapons to defend myself from either the government or the coming Islamist invasion.”
The issue of gun control in the United States has become a recent hot debate topic. Pro-gun rights supporters maintain that gun ownership is a guaranteed civil right as provided by the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. And that only criminals use guns to commit gun crimes. As the arguments heat-up, the pro-gun factions rhetoric has also heated to absurd levels. Often supporters will advocate arming all citizens, including teachers, doctors and dog groomers as defensive measures against “the bad guys.” They also assert somehow gun ownership will somehow be an effective deterrent and defense against an Abrams Tank.
“The Founding Fathers were clear,” said Mr. Dant in a followup and somewhat paranoid Gish Gallop interview. “Who’s going to protect us from our own Government? The answer is people like me.”
The anti-gun crowd is convinced that more gun laws will somehow stop bad people from getting guns and killing and injuring people, because criminals are quite good at following the laws. And even as household gun ownership has been steadily declining over the past 30 years, pro-gun hardliners have been hoarding more weapons in preparation to events that will never happen. Like never except in the minds of conspiracy quacks on the Internet, and in the scripts of poorly written, jingoistic Hollywood B-movies that occasionally appear.
“I’m going to vote for whoever is not going to take my guns away,” continued Mr. Dant. ‘These liberals don’t understand that it’s always a conservative like myself who has to pull their asses out of trouble. And the only way they can gain power over me, is by seizing my weapons via the Government. It’s mob rules.”
Academics and left-leaning anti-gun advocates believe that the 2nd Amendment is being used outside of its original scope.
“The Second Amendment is nothing more than an antiquated and obsolete national defense strategy that leaned on the existence of state militias â€” known as the National Guard to us now â€” instead of one standing army. ” Said Professor James Badwater of the University of Illinois. “Over time, the gun lobby has co-opted the Second to mean all sorts of things that just don’t jibe with the historical record or its context. And that’s the real problem here. Cultural conservatives see historical context as some kind of revisionist ploy to reduce their rights. In this case, their gun rights, not the voting rights of minorities. They believe that historical context is a made-up fiction to seize their guns, when ironically, it’s their modern narrative that has been fabricated out of thin air.”
As for Mr. Dant, he’s not buying any of what he calls “a bunch of liberal bullshit.”
“Look, I may not have a degree in law or speech or whatever, but I know what’s right,” continued a somewhat indignant Mr. Dant. “The Constitution was written the way is was. Don’t like it? Change it. But you better not change it to take away my guns, if you know what’s good for you.”