The right to keep and bear arms is one of those fundamental rights that our Founding Fathers knew someone would try to infringe upon unless it was specifically protected. The Tenth Amendment makes it clear that the Bill of Rights isn't the totality of the rights we have, which just means those that were protected are especially important.

But we also know that a lot of people aren't really fans of those rights, though most seem more inclined to mess with other people's rights while resisting any infringement of their own.

It shouldn't be that way, but it is. 

Most of the time, it's not a huge deal. It's an annoyance, but most people aren't in any position to do anything more than vote and be loud. 

A police chief, though, could be another matter, and when a leading candidate for a large city's top cop job and currently chief of a city dealing with a school shooting says something negative about the Second Amendment, well, it's time to talk about it.

Shon Barnes, the rumored frontrunner for the top job with the Seattle Police Department (SPD), has said he doesn’t believe in the Second Amendment. The comment came to light as Barnes gained national attention in the aftermath of a deadly school shooting in Madison, Wisconsin, where he currently serves as chief.

In a May 25, 2022 interview with Fox 47, Barnes argued against the Second Amendment, which guarantees a fundamental right to bear arms. But in the wake of a school shooting at the time, Barnes leaned on the go-to argument from the Radical Left that because the Constitution is outdated, it should be ignored.

“Sometimes, it requires an evolution of our thinking. What was written in 1789 may not be appropriate for 2022 unless we’re OK with kids being killed,” Barnes explained, referencing the Second Amendment.

The right to keep and bear arms is always appropriate. The "kids being killed" thing is a common enough talking point, but it has no basis in reality since far more kids are killed with guns that are illegally obtained, meaning those who pulled the trigger would still have guns no matter what laws you put on the books. 

I get that he's upset with what happened in Madison, but we don't even know where the gun the killer used came from. He himself noted earlier today that it doesn't appear the killer's parents were negligent, which kind of negates the idea that our gun laws weren't extensive enough.

The author, talk radio host Jason Rantz had this to say:

The lazy argument implies that rights enshrined in 1789 have an expiration date, but it’s absurd to assume that the Founders, who anticipated future developments, intended the Second Amendment to only apply to muskets. Barnes likely doesn’t even believe his argument. He’s just anti-gun — so long as it is everyday citizens without a badge who don’t get to own a firearm.

I'd love to say Rantz is wrong, but he's not.

A lot of big city police chiefs have similar enough views to Barnes that it's not particularly shocking to see, but the argument that somehow the Founding Fathers were completely unaware of what the future might hold. There were repeating guns in their day. They knew that firepower was likely to continue developing and they wanted us to have access to those firearms.

Look at why they preserved the right in the Second Amendment, for crying out loud. It's not for hunting but "the security of a free state." They wanted us to have the means to resist tyranny. That means guns that are at least the equal to what militaries possess.

The Second Amendment is most definitely appropriate for that purpose and anyone who can't comprehend that needs to educate themselves.