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If ever the Second Amendment was successfully repealed, it is only the first domino.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.
I 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.
‘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.
In 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.
I 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.
Repealing 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.
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.
Video: Celebrate the “Assault Weapon*” Tricentennial!
How time flies, it’s been 3 Centuries [1718 – 2018] since the invention of the Puckle gun – one of the many early “Assault Weapons*”
Image Credit: littlegun.be
When they aren’t spouting nonsensical lines such as “30 magazine clip in ½ a second”, Liberty grabber Leftists love to parrot the lie that back before the ratification of the Constitution, (1788) they only had one shot muskets that took 5 minutes to reload. The reality is that repeating and other early versions of ‘automatic weapons‘ were in existence long before this time period. Imagine that, the national Socialist Left lying about an important historical fact that furthers their agenda?
This is a full video exposition of this historic gun from Forgotten Weapons
The Puckle Gun, or Defense Gun as it was also known, was invented and patented in 1718 by the London lawyer James Puckle.
This was an early ‘automatic weapon’ was capable of firing 63 shots in 7 minutes in 1721.
It utilised a revolving cylinder to bring a projectile and powder charge to the breach of the gun. In essence, it was a manual revolver, but it was in existence 70 years BEFORE the Constitution was ratified. So much for the ‘One shot musket Lie’. One could have several of these revolving cylinders loaded and ready to be placed on the gun – making them something akin to the first “High capacity magazines*”.
*Yes, we’re playing it a bit fast and loose with these terms, but since they have no set definition, that doesn’t matter. In point of fact, that term (and others) were made up by the Liberty grabbers as a way of destroying the basic human Right of self-defense while maintaining the fiction supporting it. The tactic is to use a term such as this so it’s an easy progression to destroy any civil or natural right. In the case of the Liberty of self-defense, the definition is simply expanded to include just about every gun in existence.
College professor wants Trump to use troops as police to end gun violence in Chicago
Earlier this week, I wrote an article about how school shootings could lead us to the creation of a nationalized police force. In that piece, I documented how groups like the Congressional Black Caucus and race-baiting activists like Al Sharpton teamed up with Barack Obama to lay the foundation for the federal government to assume power over local police using the DOJ and a Police Czar.
Always willing to use the color of a person’s skin as a basis for creating policy, Obama had some limited success in moving the country toward a police state, but he stopped short of using America’s armed forces to accomplish his goals. However, if a professor of philosophy at De Paul University in Chicago has his way, Donald Trump may end up going where Barack Obama has never gone before.
In a public plea to Trump, published at TheHill.com, Jason D. Hill—whose specialties as a professor include ethics, social and political philosophy, and the philosophy of education and race theory—wants to bring an end to “genocide among black Americans” in Chicago.
To do this, Hill wants Trump to send in the military to “quiet our streets and restore safety to at-risk neighborhoods.” Hill is suggesting that Trump “use his powers to suspend the Posse Comitatus Act” to free up the military resources “necessary to stem the violence overrunning Chicago.”
“I implore you to use your powers to suspend the dated Posse Comitatus Act, which unfairly limits your ability to use domestic militarization to respond to crises, and send in the resources necessary to stem the violence overrunning Chicago.
“Posse Comitatus makes no mention of the use of the militia, the National Guard, the Navy or the Marines. You can suspend this law and send in the forces necessary to quiet our streets and restore safety to at-risk neighborhoods.”
The Posse Comitatus Act is a federal law signed in 1878 by Pres. Rutherford B. Hayes, designed to limit the power of the federal government to use the military to enforce domestic policies within the US. Though updated since its inception, and even though there’ve been a few tweaks since 911, the original intent of the act remains in effect.
Can Trump override PCA? Yes and no. It can be suspended for things like natural disasters and terrorist attacks, but it can’t be overridden for the purpose of enforcing state laws. This question is secondary, however, to the disturbing suggestion that we create a militarized home front.
By the way, Trump has already shown a willingness to use federal power to deal with gun violence in Chicago.
If Chicago doesn't fix the horrible "carnage" going on, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings (up 24% from 2016), I will send in the Feds!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 25, 2017
Besides being inconsistent with the values of liberty and freedom we enjoy as a Constitutional Republic, Hill’s request perpetuates a growing acceptance in America that we should voluntarily surrender our Constitutional rights to the federal government in exchange for safety.
Additionally, Hill holds a position of power as a teacher where he is free to spread Democratic-Socialist ideals such as this to the next generation—a situation made more dangerous by Washington politicians who have made destroying the Constitution standard operating procedure in order to increase their power over us.
Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.
David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.
Let’s Just say it: The Left Hates the Culture of Liberty. Part II
While it hides behind the false label of Liberal, the nation’s Socialist Left continues to expand its assault on Liberty culture.
In Part I we began this discussion on how the Left is coming out of the authoritarian closet displaying their abject revulsion to the Culture of Liberty. In Part II we will detail the major aspects of their assaults on freedom. While it may sound shocking to many, deep down everyone should realise that the Left is becoming increasingly adverse to Liberty. Aside from wanting the freedom to wage the violence of abortion, they have little use for the concept in any other form.
Down through history Leftists have used and then disposed of democratic institutions to obtain power. The Bolsheviks and Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiter-Partei being good examples from the storied past. At present, their favourite tactic involves the use of negatively termed alternative phrases to attack basic Liberties. They use these phrases to suppress these freedoms while maintaining the fiction of being ‘Liberal’.
“Hate Speech” used to attack Free-speech.
Here we see the first of many negatively charged phrases the Left uses to attack freedom of speech. As in most cases the term is undefined, allowing them to expand it to encompass whatever they wish to suppress. As in the other cases, this let’s them pretend to advocate free-speech while working against the concept.
Their recent expansion of assaults against the basic human Liberty of self-preservation has seen them us this convenient expedient to arbitrarily censor speech with regard to this fundamental natural right. Of course, they like to use the excuse that they are private entities unencumbered by 1st amendment issues. But this is a discussion on the Culture of Liberty and as Matt Christiansen pointed out, quite often the cultural value that is changed first, followed by restrictions from the government.
“Fake News” used to attack Freedom of the Press.
This is a new term in the pantheon of Leftist phrases, but once again it’s an undefined term used to go after those they deem to be unworthy of the vaunted title of ‘Journalist’. The national Socialist Media has always been disdainful of those who are not part of their elite cadres. At one point they labelled those outside the industrial media complex as being pajama clad, now they just brand them as being “Fake News”. Certain ‘social media’ sites have begun using this excuse to censor what can be stated on them. To be clear, the issue isn’t the veracity of the content, but it’s political point of view.
“Military Style” used to attack the Commonsense human Right of Self-Defence.
This was one of the first instances where the national Socialist Left developed the idea of assaulting a basic human Liberty an alternative phrase while still pretending to support it. This began with the undefined phrase “Assault Weapon” transitioning into even more nebulous terms such as “Military Style”. As with the other terms these have a twofold purpose – convey a negative feeling over a fundamental right while feigning it’s support.
Having once set the precedent that certain means of self-defence are verboten, it then becomes a simple matter of expanding the reach of these terms to include all firearms. This while Leftists parrot the fiction that they “believe in the 2nd amendment”.
“Background Checks” [ Intergalactic, Enhanced, Universal ] used to also attack Private Property Rights.
First of all, background checks have been in existence for almost 25 years, but one would not know it by the oft repeated talking points of the Left. Their well seasoned unfamiliarity with the facts will see them demand that which already exists. As is the case in other realms, they use their inability to base arguments on facts to their advantage. So when they repeat this demand, people get the impression that background checks are desperately needed.
Or they will use the ever popular tactic of moving the goal posts, demanding that these be even more intrusive in our private lives seizing control of our private property.
The basic premise for these “Intergalactic Background Checks” is that the government somehow has the ‘right’ to control certain items of one’s private property because they are dangerous. Well, there are three glaring issues with this false premise.
- One is that private property is a foundational element of Liberty, one does not ‘own’ something if they cannot control it, such as in the purchasing or selling of said property. Leftists would love to negate this fundamental freedom with some sort of societal ownership regime as part of their collectivist ideology. “Intergalactic Background Checks” would impose a government edict over everyone’s property that would be greater than one’s ownership of those possessions.
- Two, since restraint over the government is the fundamental purpose of the 2nd amendment and the Constitution in general, IBC’s would place control of these restraints in the hands of the government. In essence removing any limitations on the government. History is replete with examples of why this is a very bad idea.
- Third, “Intergalactic Background Checks” would be the first and very critical step towards registration and the inevitable confiscation of guns. For once the government has purview over one’s private possessions, it can easily transition to tracking them in this control regime. History is also replete with the tale of the registration leading to confiscation. Meanwhile the national Socialist Left has made it quite clear this is their ultimate goal.
In many ways the Parkland Kids have done everyone a great service in exposing once and for all the Left’s disdain for freedom. Instead the slow creep of the collectivist mindset overtaking the country until it’s too late for anything that can be done, we have been forewarned of the danger. The Parkland Kids and the rest of the Authoritarian Socialist Left will have to be honest for once about their true intentions.
Were they to do so, they would drop the mask and stop hiding behind the Liberal label. They could then try to sell everyone their true socialist national agenda of égalité minus the Liberté or even fraternité.
At least then the people would know what they are getting instead of the farcical Utopian fantasies that have been part and parcel of the Leftist propaganda for centuries now. Were they to win on the basis of said honesty, they would have a mandate to rule over Liberty as they have promised, freedom be damned.
But the past has shown that people never willingly vote for this type of draconian rule. Instead they have to be enticed into enslaving themselves with the false promises of “Free Healthcare”, “Free college” as well as marginal safety from harm for the low-low price of sacrificing their Liberty.
Which is why the Left’s deceit and deception will continue, no matter how it’s been exposed in the past. They will still try to keep up the false pretence of being ‘Liberal’ or in favour of ‘Progress’ and if everyone is informed enough, they will end up on the ash heap of history as is rightfully the fate of all tyrants.