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

Published

on

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.

Background

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.

Analysis

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If ever the Second Amendment was successfully repealed, it is only the first domino.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.

Perspectives

Come And Take Them, Bret Stephens

https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/05/come-take-them-bret-stephens/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.

Bret Stephens & Guns: Columnist Does Not Understand Gun Rights | National Review

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452368/bret-stephens-guns-columnist-does-not-understand‘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

http://www.dailywire.com/news/21990/new-york-times-conservative-columnist-repeal-james-barrettIn 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

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/nyts-phony-house-conservative-repeal-the-second-amendmentI 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

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/guns-second-amendment-nra.htmlRepealing 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.

Guns and Crime

Intellectual ammunition, part 3: Armed with logic and a mistake by SCOTUS

Published

on

By

Intellectual ammunition part 3 Armed with logic and a mistake by SCOTUS

Is nuclear annihilation less of a threat than purchasing a lower parts kit?

In the third part of a multipart series, Gardner Goldsmith @gardgoldsmith of MRCTV addresses the issues surrounding Liberty Control, destroying some of the prevalent mythologies in the process.

Which is more intimidating: purchasing an inanimate object or the threat of gun confiscation?

In the beginning of the video, he asks the very pertinent question:

“Who engages in threats of gun violence, the civilian who owns, or attempts to own, a firearm, or the civilian or politician intent on passing ‘gun control’ statutes?”

Which is quite an interesting point in light of the comments from Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) who wants the government to make gun owners an offer they can’t refuse on their freedom. Rejecting said offer could see them and millions of other die in a thermonuclear style gun confiscation.

That threat being just the latest of the long list of over 70 instances of Leftists demanding gun confiscation. Note that number could easily be doubled or tripled if one were to account for the number of times those demands were syndicated or excerpted in other publications.

The video details the point that it is the people wanting to impose controls on freedom that are threatening violence – up to and including nuclear genocide. But perhaps if one if of the Liberty grabber set on the Left it’s possible that someone having a scary looking rifle is far more of an issue than the wiping out of an area via nuclear incineration with fallout contaminating everything down wind.

The illogic of so-called ‘Gun-free’ zones.

Further on he addresses question of whether the passage of more and more restrictions on freedom and setting up ‘gun-free’ zones keep people safe? Consider the scenario he proposes in how a mass murderer might select is his target:

And what of the idea that, practically, passing gun statutes will make areas safer? In Part One of this series, we looked at the real-world numbers on that question, but here is a logical argument to pose to gun-grabbers.

Suppose you are in a paintball game. You have a paintball gun, and you will win $10,000 if you enter one of three houses and, in five minutes, hit ten people with pellets. If you get hit by a pellet, you will have to pay $200,000… There are forty people in each house. In House One, you know that there is no one with a paintball gun. In House Two, you know that there are a few people with paintball guns, and in House Three, you know that there are many, many people with paintball guns.

Which house would you choose?

The answer is obvious. Let’s not be foolish about pretending that we would choose anything other than House One.

The logic of self-protection through firearm possession and use is irrefutable. The statistics of it are clear. The history of despots disarming citizens prior to destroying their lives is also clear, as is the history of what the Founders thought when they wrote the Second Amendment.

 

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

When gungrabbers like Eric Swalwell say they respect the 2nd Amendment, don’t believe them

Published

on

When gungrabbers like Eric Swalwell say they respect the 2nd Amendment, don't believe them

It’s a lie. Every time, it’s a lie. Most leftist gungrabbers will add a note at the end of their gungrabbing rhetoric by pretending to respect the 2nd Amendment. They want you to think they’re pushing “common sense” gun control, because who doesn’t like common sense?

There isn’t a lick of common sense in any gun control measure. Anything that could have been considered common sense gun control, such as the Gun Control Act of 1968 that kept regulated interstate commerce to hamper mail-order gun purchases, have already been put in place. Anything going forward that appeals to common sense is unnecessary and damaging to the 2nd Amendment.

Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) once said he respects the 2nd Amendment.

“I support gun safety measures, and I’ll tell you, I grew up in a family of gun owners and hunters, and I went hunting with my dad as a kid, and you know, I have deep respect for the Second Amendment and the culture of our country.”

His statements on Twitter yesterday said all we need to know.

 

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Gun rights activists: Stop acting like we don’t hold every high ground

Published

on

Gun rights activists Stop acting like we don't hold every high ground

Forgive me if I offend any of my fellow gun rights activists. It’s my intention to educate, not irritate. But I’ve become increasingly annoyed by arguments that play into the leftist agenda. We have the high ground. When you have the high ground, you don’t go down to the enemy’s level. We hold the high ground.

We hold the moral high ground. For every mass shooting incident that takes lives, there are dozens of stories that don’t get nearly the same attention but demonstrate how gun owners prevent crimes. They’re out there defending themselves and others from people who would do them harm.

We hold the intellectual high ground. Where do most gun crimes occur? Where gun laws are obtuse. Chicago is the shining example of how obtuse gun laws prevent citizens from defending themselves. How often do we see gun violence in gun free zones?

We hold the historical high ground. The first thing a government does before turning against its people is take away the people’s ability to defend their rights. One of the most common leftist arguments is that Americans have no reason to fear oppression from the government. This is a backwards argument as it has been shown on multiple occasions that the government was hampered from oppressing American citizens because of the presence of weapons. It’s naive to think the government would never try to oppress us. History shows they already have at times and certainly will again in the future.

We hold the constitutional high ground. This needs no explanation.

We hold the emotional high ground. This is hard for most to understand since it’s emotional responses to mass shooting that usually prompt calls for gun control. That’s exactly why we hold the emotional high ground. As long as we remain consistent and stop operating in the leftists’ emotional echo chambers, we can maintain control of the emotional argument. It’s easy for people to be affected by senseless violence, but that’s no reason to ignore common sense or logical discipline.

What gets to me is when gun rights activists start making arguments such as logistics. I cringe every time I see stats about how many AR rifles are owned. The argument that there are so many out there it would be impractical to take them away is ludicrous. It’s like saying, “You may be right to want to take away guns but it would be too hard.”

The push for gun control is gaining momentum. We cannot give the gungrabbers an inch. We don’t need to. Our arguments are righteous. The only way they’ll win is if we let them distract us and bring us down to fighting on their level.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report