Connect with us

Guns and Crime

NYT’s Bret Stephens is either a useful idiot, a leftist appeaser, or a fake conservative, if he’s one at all



As much as I am grateful to Bret Stephens for appearing to not toe the climate change line–and getting flack for it–and perhaps having realistic views on foreign affairs, he does not feel the same way when it comes to gun rights and our Second Amendment. The one-time editor and chief of The Jerusalem Post turned token “neo-con” columnist for The New York Times, just wrote a piece supporting the ideal of repealing the Second Amendment of our U.S. Constitution.

Stephens either is an idiot, trying to appease the leftist radicals and/or at least keep them quiet or, to paraphrase Pandolfo, just a downright fake conservative, if he’s one at all.


Stephens calls the support of the Second Amendment as “conservative fetish” and something he just not understands?

Conservative Review’s Chris Pandolfo does a great job of presenting counter stats to the stats that Stephens presented in his NYT piece. Stephens admits that gun control laws currently will not work in the states due to loopholes and the progressives’ own statistical errors. He also points out (correctly) that the NRA does not need to buy influence in Washington because they claim high membership. That is contrary to what late night talker Jimmy Kimmel said about the NRA, which I don’t want to repeat.


Stephens is now among those who are pushing for the repeal of the Second Amendment. He says that gun ownership should not be outlawed but not “a blanket constitutional protection.” He also thinks that James Madison would agree with the likes of him because of all the murderous acts in America that happened in recent years.

Stephens either is an idiot, trying to appease the leftist radicals and/or at least keep them quiet or, to paraphrase Pandolfo, just a downright fake conservative, if he’s one at all.

Let me say it one time. The Second Amendment is a statement towards the state telling them not to infringe on a well-regulated militia (not just our military and local police and law enforcement who thank goodness, answers to the U.S. Constitution and not the state). It is necessary to keep the peace in a free state.

If ever the Second Amendment was successfully repealed, it is only the first domino. More likely the next amendment to be called for repeal is the First Amendment (freedom of religion, free press, and free speech). Then any other amendments that empower the people instead of the state will also be put on the firing line. The end game for these gun grabbing progressives is for the political will to lie almost entirely with the state and with that will, the power to execute its agenda.

Those who will not submit to that agenda will likely be imprisoned and even killed by the now all-powerful state.


Come And Take Them, Bret Stephens mean, Stephens isn’t contending Americans shouldn’t own five AR-15s. He’s arguing that the state should be able to come to your house and take away your revolver or your shotgun or even your matchlock musket. Stephens might as well have written “Eww, guns take them away!” and left it that, but instead he offers debunked arguments and misleading statements that are likely borne out of the frustration of knowing his position is untenable.

Bret Stephens & Guns: Columnist Does Not Understand Gun Rights | National Review‘I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment,” writes Bret Stephens today. Indeed, it is barely a column so much as it is a brusque list of ill-considered assertions that do nothing to grapple with the many arguments to their contrary. Stephens asserts confidently that “more guns mean more murder,” a claim he bases on a single flawed study that is contradicted both by numerous others and by the recent experience of similar nations.

New York Times’ ‘Conservative’ Columnist: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’ | Daily Wire an age of active shooters, concludes Stephens, it’s time to repeal the outdated Second Amendment. Instead, it’s time to go all in on rewriting that troubling part of the Constitution that enshrines Americans’ rights to protect themselves with firearms. Stripped of that ability, citizens would demand an ever-increasing police state that would erode all other liberties, a trend which we see in other contexts — such as the war on drugs.

NYT’s phony house ‘conservative’: Repeal the Second Amendment understand that there must be some draw to being smiled at and welcomed by the liberal elites at those posh Manhattan cocktail parties, but he’d get more invites if he would drop the pretense of being a conservative — a pretense that will fool no one after his latest column. “I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment,” Stephens declares in the opening line of an article calling for the outright repeal of the Second Amendment. See, most liberals would be disingenuous about their desire to confiscate America’s guns.

Repeal the Second Amendment | Bret Stephens, New York Times the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage it’s worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones. Gun ownership should never be outlawed, just as it isn’t outlawed in Britain or Australia. But it doesn’t need a blanket Constitutional protection, either. The 46,445 murder victims killed by gunfire in the United States between 2012 and 2016 didn’t need to perish so that gun enthusiasts can go on fantasizing that “Red Dawn” is the fate that soon awaits us.

The Takeaway

As wrong as he is, Bret Stephens is right about one thing.

America is in need of moral and constitutional renewal and not a continuation of “our instinct for self-destruction.” I agree with that statement, but I have different direction than what Stephens calls for. How about, for starters, a push for a Convention of States (Article V) and a strong pushback against the first wave progressive groups (ALCU, AU, FFRF etc.) that are eradicating expression of faith in the public square and man’s need for God.

Then we can talk about liberty.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Entertainment and Sports

As Jussie Smollett story evolves, let’s not give it the Covington Catholic School treatment



As Jussie Smollett story evolves lets not give it the Covington Catholic School treatment

When a juicy story hits social media, the instant reaction is to run with it and all the implications. That’s the nature of our on-demand, always-on, real-time media world. The only thing faster than hot takes from the first hint of a story are the assumptions made by both sides regardless of the details.

Such is the case with Jussie Smollett, the actor who was allegedly attacked by MAGA-loving bigots. Smollett, a gay man of color, was allegedly targeted on the streets of Chicago, but now reports are coming in that it may have been an elaborate hoax designed to help him save his job on the cast of Empire.

But so far, police have only confirmed that Smollett is still being treated as a victim. Yes, there were two persons of interest questioned by police. Yes, Smollett skipped a voluntary interview with police this morning. Yes, the story was strange from the start and this new narrative seems to match much better regardless of which side of the political or cultural aisle you’re on.

And yet, nothing has been confirmed.

NOQ Report Needs Your Help

It’s incumbent on us, whether journalists or simply social media users, to wait for the facts before jumping to conclusions. It works in both directions.

Was it all a hoax? Possibly. Some who are looking at he evidence today and the report released by local Chicago news may come to the conclusion that a hoax was likely. But let’s not assume until the truth is revealed by officials.


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading


Democrats push background check bill in the House



Democrats push background check bill in the House

As social media buzzes about the one-year anniversary of the Parkland shooting, Democrats hope to put their latest iteration of gun control on the floor and onto the Senate. Called a “bipartisan” attempt to initiate more background checks on firearm purchases and sales, many conservatives on Capitol Hill are speaking out against it.

The House Judiciary Committee advanced the bill yesterday.

My Take

Gun control bills, of which this is merely the first to be pushed by the current iteration of Democrats, usually have two things in common. First, they don’t address the problem they’re allegedly trying to solve; neither the Parkland shooting nor any mass shooting in the 21st century would have been prevented had this bill been in place. Second, they are a stepping stone through which leftists will attempt to initiate more draconian laws that eat away at our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

As with the abortion issue, the gun control issue is one in which “common sense” is used to push harsher laws down the line.

It should be strange to cognizant Americans that Democrats continue to push laws that make it easier to kill preborn babies while making it harder for innocent people to defend themselves with firearms. Are you seeing a trend in their mentality?


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Freedom-lovers, keep an eye on AG William Barr



Freedom-lovers keep an eye on AG William Barr

Today, William Barr is likely to be confirmed to be the next Attorney General. While he’s a qualified leader to take the reins over the Justice Department and a strong patriot, there are concerns that we must remember as he joins the Trump administration.

First and foremost, Barr’s record on the 4th Amendment is abysmal.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

One would hope the top law enforcer in the nation would be an ardent defender of the 4th Amendment, but Barr has demonstrated not only a willingness to circumvent it at times but has also expressed annoyance that it prevents law enforcement from doing its job, particularly as it pertains to stopping terrorism. He’s also a fan of the Patriot Act, though if anything it didn’t go far enough.

Sadly, only a tiny handful of Republicans in DC seem to be concerned.

The tribalism that has infected the country and plagued groups on both sides of the political aisle has struck once again. There would be plenty of objections from conservatives if Barr had been nominated by President Obama or another Democrat, but since he’s a Trump nominee it appears he’s going to fly through with no GOP Senators objecting other than Rand Paul.

It’s a shame that the President decided to go with Barr. It’s likely he did so based on Barr’s objections to Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian hacking of the election, but otherwise Barr’s record is one that doesn’t seem very conducive to freedom. We’ll be keeping a close eye on him.


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading



Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report