The Left's Hatred of the Second Amendment Is Both Inconsistent and Hypocritical
Jun 18, 2016 23:48:05 #
June 17, 2016 The Left's Hatred of the Second Amendment Is Both Inconsistent and Hypocritical
Thomas Wheatley
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/the_lefts_hatred_of_the_second_amendment_is_both_inconsistent_and_hypocritical.html
On the heels of the terrible Orlando terrorist attack came another tragic, albeit predictable, assault:
The obligatory vilification of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Indeed, before officials could even confirm the final death toll at Pulse, cries erupted from celebrities, politicians, and left-wing activists alike for tighter restrictions on Americans’ ability to access firearms.
These so-called “appeals to reason” ran the gamut of hysteria, from incoherent rants against the National Rifle Association/Republicans/white males, to one Huffington Post author demanding that we “ban every single gun within U.S. borders until we get our f*cking problems figured out.”
I have never understood this approach. For starters, the logic falls flat -- the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history happened in gun-free zones, and I am unsure why more laws will deter mass murderers (who are particularly adept at ignoring laws).
Nor is it clear if tighter gun laws will actually solve the problem of gun violence; studies designed to answer this question, in addition to their predilection for bias, are usually oversimplified and conflicting.
Perhaps most confounding is how gun control advocates view firearm ownership itself.
Specifically, they tend to forget the authority for individual rights to firearms is constitutionally enshrined in twenty-seven words:
“A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
(Note: In fairness, some argue there is no individual right to own a firearm, and instead insist that the Second Amendment is only a guarantee to a “collective defense” administered by each citizen’s state via the “well regulated M*****a.”
That interpretation, in my opinion, is dubious -- why would the Framers guarantee a state’s ability to defend itself against the federal government, only to then grant the federal president power over the same M*****as in Article 2?).
Take, for example, the recent decision in Peruta v. City of San Diego out of the Ninth Circuit, which held there is no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed weapon in public.
The case dealt with a California law requiring concealed-carry applicants to provide a “particularized reason” as to why they needed to carry a concealed weapon.
The statute stood as a part of a much larger, more invasive regulatory scheme, including a prohibition on carrying loaded firearms on the person or in a vehicle in any public place or on any public street, as well as a prohibition on carrying unloaded handguns openly on the person in a public place or street.
Imagine, for a moment, if the same restrictions were placed upon the First Amendment.
What if Americans had to provide a “particularized reason” before publishing an article, or saying a prayer in public?
What if there was a cap as to how many words a newspaper could print, as is the case with limiting ammunition and magazine capacity?
What if citizens were subject to a background check prior to organizing a peaceful demonstration?
Some might argue the Second Amendment is different; that an armed citizenry, if unchecked, would lead to a spike in violence and loss of life.
This may be true, but pointing to a risk of harm as justification to suspend constitutional rights is patently un-American, even by liberals' standards.
When the National Security Agency’s PRISM program came to light, did the left forsake the Fourth Amendment in favor of the extra security provided by the surveillance state?
As the blood dried in Paris following the attack on Charlie Hebdo, did the left question the legitimacy of the First Amendment and censor our art, speech, and culture to avoid provoking the Islamic State?
Did the left deny Yaser Esam Hamdi due process of law and the right to an impartial tribunal under the Fifth Amendment solely because his being free risked threatening American safety?
Of course not.
Such constitutional guarantees were viewed as unyielding and uncompromising.
Americans understood, without question, that the blessings of the constitution’s provisions form the bedrock of American exceptionalism, and required no explanation or defense.
Why, then, is the Second Amendment treated so differently?
Why does the left narrowly interpret the words “shall not be infringed” into virtual meaninglessness (as the Ninth Circuit did) but, in Roe v. Wade, broadly define “life, liberty, or property” to encompass the outright murder of unborn children?
How can the left consider commerce “among the several States” to include crops planted, grown, harvested, and consumed on a single family farm, as was the case in Wickard v. Filburn, but then contend the right to “keep and bear arms” contemplates not even a right to possess a firearm?
For reasons beyond my understanding, today's liberals remain fixated -- indeed, obsessed -- with arbitrarily singling out and destroying the one constitutional guarantee that is perhaps the most valuable: an assured means to defend against tyranny.
Currently, millions of people on social media are cautioning Muslims and members of the L**T community not to see one another as enemies, lest we undermine our values as a free and open society.
They may not realize it, but included in those values is the sanctity of the Second Amendment.
Like every other constitutional guarantee, the individual right to keep and bear arms is a mainstay in our republican form of government.
And like the Second Amendment, when other constitutional freedoms are vigorously enforced, the result can be sometimes heartbreaking and unfair.
That is, however, the cost of living in a truly free society, and we owe it to the victims and their families in Orlando, as well as every other place guns have k**led, not to betray this simple t***h.
Thomas Wheatley
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/the_lefts_hatred_of_the_second_amendment_is_both_inconsistent_and_hypocritical.html
On the heels of the terrible Orlando terrorist attack came another tragic, albeit predictable, assault:
The obligatory vilification of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Indeed, before officials could even confirm the final death toll at Pulse, cries erupted from celebrities, politicians, and left-wing activists alike for tighter restrictions on Americans’ ability to access firearms.
These so-called “appeals to reason” ran the gamut of hysteria, from incoherent rants against the National Rifle Association/Republicans/white males, to one Huffington Post author demanding that we “ban every single gun within U.S. borders until we get our f*cking problems figured out.”
I have never understood this approach. For starters, the logic falls flat -- the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history happened in gun-free zones, and I am unsure why more laws will deter mass murderers (who are particularly adept at ignoring laws).
Nor is it clear if tighter gun laws will actually solve the problem of gun violence; studies designed to answer this question, in addition to their predilection for bias, are usually oversimplified and conflicting.
Perhaps most confounding is how gun control advocates view firearm ownership itself.
Specifically, they tend to forget the authority for individual rights to firearms is constitutionally enshrined in twenty-seven words:
“A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
(Note: In fairness, some argue there is no individual right to own a firearm, and instead insist that the Second Amendment is only a guarantee to a “collective defense” administered by each citizen’s state via the “well regulated M*****a.”
That interpretation, in my opinion, is dubious -- why would the Framers guarantee a state’s ability to defend itself against the federal government, only to then grant the federal president power over the same M*****as in Article 2?).
Take, for example, the recent decision in Peruta v. City of San Diego out of the Ninth Circuit, which held there is no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed weapon in public.
The case dealt with a California law requiring concealed-carry applicants to provide a “particularized reason” as to why they needed to carry a concealed weapon.
The statute stood as a part of a much larger, more invasive regulatory scheme, including a prohibition on carrying loaded firearms on the person or in a vehicle in any public place or on any public street, as well as a prohibition on carrying unloaded handguns openly on the person in a public place or street.
Imagine, for a moment, if the same restrictions were placed upon the First Amendment.
What if Americans had to provide a “particularized reason” before publishing an article, or saying a prayer in public?
What if there was a cap as to how many words a newspaper could print, as is the case with limiting ammunition and magazine capacity?
What if citizens were subject to a background check prior to organizing a peaceful demonstration?
Some might argue the Second Amendment is different; that an armed citizenry, if unchecked, would lead to a spike in violence and loss of life.
This may be true, but pointing to a risk of harm as justification to suspend constitutional rights is patently un-American, even by liberals' standards.
When the National Security Agency’s PRISM program came to light, did the left forsake the Fourth Amendment in favor of the extra security provided by the surveillance state?
As the blood dried in Paris following the attack on Charlie Hebdo, did the left question the legitimacy of the First Amendment and censor our art, speech, and culture to avoid provoking the Islamic State?
Did the left deny Yaser Esam Hamdi due process of law and the right to an impartial tribunal under the Fifth Amendment solely because his being free risked threatening American safety?
Of course not.
Such constitutional guarantees were viewed as unyielding and uncompromising.
Americans understood, without question, that the blessings of the constitution’s provisions form the bedrock of American exceptionalism, and required no explanation or defense.
Why, then, is the Second Amendment treated so differently?
Why does the left narrowly interpret the words “shall not be infringed” into virtual meaninglessness (as the Ninth Circuit did) but, in Roe v. Wade, broadly define “life, liberty, or property” to encompass the outright murder of unborn children?
How can the left consider commerce “among the several States” to include crops planted, grown, harvested, and consumed on a single family farm, as was the case in Wickard v. Filburn, but then contend the right to “keep and bear arms” contemplates not even a right to possess a firearm?
For reasons beyond my understanding, today's liberals remain fixated -- indeed, obsessed -- with arbitrarily singling out and destroying the one constitutional guarantee that is perhaps the most valuable: an assured means to defend against tyranny.
Currently, millions of people on social media are cautioning Muslims and members of the L**T community not to see one another as enemies, lest we undermine our values as a free and open society.
They may not realize it, but included in those values is the sanctity of the Second Amendment.
Like every other constitutional guarantee, the individual right to keep and bear arms is a mainstay in our republican form of government.
And like the Second Amendment, when other constitutional freedoms are vigorously enforced, the result can be sometimes heartbreaking and unfair.
That is, however, the cost of living in a truly free society, and we owe it to the victims and their families in Orlando, as well as every other place guns have k**led, not to betray this simple t***h.
Jun 19, 2016 19:34:18 #
Doc110 wrote:
June 17, 2016 The Left's Hatred of the Second Amen... (show quote)
An attack on the second amendment is an attack on the constitution itself. If we let one part of it go, the precedent is set to let all of it go. Of course, President Obama isn't following the constitution anymore anyway. The constitution itself allows for a way to amend the constitution. It is a matter of a ratification of an amendment by a two thirds majority of v**ers. But they don't want to do it this way, because it might fail.
The idea that gun control can stop this kind of attack is ludicrous. If gun control is passed, the mafia will still have guns, and so will the terrorists. You cannot, absolutely cannot stop this kind of thing except by getting rid of it at the root. That means we have to stop aiding and abetting the enemy, fight seriously against the enemy, and at the same time change people's hearts and minds, (which at this point in time is mostly impossible.) This ideology is ludicrous beyond belief. Many people are capable of making and manufacturing weapons. And even if you could take guns away from everybody, (which is a ludicrous concept and impossible) people can make bombs, and other weapons of mass destruction. And they can make them out of almost anything.
The real problem is that America has lost its soul. It no longer wants to follow any legitimate type of morality. It wants no laws. It wants no rule of law. Everyone does what is right in his or her own eyes, and the outcome is mayhem. Because of this, the U.S. cannot continue to operate as a leader nation in the world. Our time is over. And time is over for most of humanity. We are bringing on our own demise. And this gun control thing is just another aspect of this. Anybody in their right mind would realize that if all guns are taken away, within a year we would be living under a tyranny. Not democracy. Not a republic. Our time is over. And you can blame it on ourselves for losing our compass and closing our eyes to reality. This anti gun hysteria is ludicrous. It will not help. It will bring disaster.
Jun 20, 2016 03:00:25 #
Jun 20, 2016 21:51:59 #
Doc110 wrote:
🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫
Second Amendment Freedoms, Shall not be infringed . . . . .
Second Amendment Freedoms, Shall not be infringed . . . . .
I agree. Everyone should be able to mount a Ma Duce 50 Cal on their pickup and keep a Nuke in their garage.
Jun 21, 2016 05:02:21 #
Tow and Laws Rockets also, Why not issue an Abrams tank while your at it, i***t. . .
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.