Connect with us

Everything

Bastille Day reminds us why we DO need to defend personal Second Amendment rights

Published

on

Noah Shusterman wrote a stirring essay in the Washington Post on the history of the French Republic and the storming of the Bastille, and how that may have influenced America’s founders in writing the Bill of Rights, specifically the Second Amendment.

How could a society defend itself, though, without relying on professional soldiers? The 18th-century answer to standing armies was the citizens’ militia, in which all citizens were part-time militiamen. In any other society, freedom existed at the whim of the military leaders, but an armed, trained, and organized society depended only on itself. Hence the militia’s necessity to a free state.

He then destroyed his own point by veering off into the “well regulated militia” dry well in justifying trashing “the modern Second Amendment.

As a result, it has become harder to understand what these “well regulated militias” were and why they were “necessary for the security of the free state.” But the storming of the Bastille serves as a reminder that those who would haul out the founders to defend the modern Second Amendment would do well to remember how much American society has changed since the 1790s.

I say it reminds us even more why we need to aggressively defend individual liberty, including the right, and even the responsibility, of citizens to be armed.

This country has changed in technological advancement and our approach to many social problems–solving them with money and Uncle Sugar versus individual ingenuity. But it hasn’t changed in the fact that America alone stands against tyranny in the world.

As wonderful as the French Revolution and the storming of the Bastille were, we need only advance a decade to see where it led. The Revolution turned on itself, with 10,000 dead by execution, and Napoleon Bonaparte took over as dictator. France’s reliance on its professional army put it squarely into World War I, and handed the country to the Nazis in World War II.

America certainly has geographic advantages that make invasion of our home land rather impossible. And Switzerland also has some geographic protection, but that wasn’t the main reason Hitler refrained from invading that small nation. Multiple stories have circulated around the Internet (many apocryphal):

When the German Kaiser asked in 1912 what the quarter of a million Swiss militiamen would do if invaded by a half million German soldiers, a Swiss replied: shoot twice and go home. Switzerland also had a decentralized, direct democracy which could not be surrendered to a foreign enemy by a political elite.

There is some truth to the story about the Swiss. Each citizen owns a government-issued rifle, and is trained in the military of how to use it. Shooting is their national sport. No nation on earth would be insane enough to try to take and hold Switzerland.

It’s the same with America. Even if a foreign enemy forced a political surrender (yes, unthinkable but possible) by our government, each citizen would repel and resist the enemy. We are armed and dangerous.

The only argument against citizen ownership of guns is crime. Yet in states where legal gun ownership is highest, crime is lower than areas where gun ownership is lowest. Citizens who defend themselves against violent criminals aid and assist law enforcement over and over again.

Since the crime argument doesn’t hold water (though anti-gun activists keep trying to fudge numbers), they resort to Constitutional pretzeling, and essays on “a well-regulated militia.” These twisted arguments are simply not the intention of our founders in writing the Second Amendment.

The founders wanted individuals to have the right to bear arms–individually. Because at the time the militia is necessary, it will form, organically. Attempting to keep a well-regulated militia active at all times isn’t possible without a reason for it to organize. America, through our history, has at times eschewed a large professional army, and at times built one, and maintained it.

Discarding the possibility that our professional army would ever falter or turn against its citizens is incredibly short-sighted–and naïve. Our nation has already consolidated far too much power in the federal government. Arguing that an armed citizenry is unnecessary because our government is the essential will of the people is foolish and history shows that.

French history shows that.

The fact that 1789 is a long time ago doesn’t change human nature. Power still corrupts. An armed citizenry is a natural check against that power and corruption. Watch Europe over the next few decades and where it’s heading, then tell me we should all disarm. And don’t cite Japan, Australia and Canada as examples.

Japan is a homogenous island. Australia is a lightly populated isolated island. And Canada is a more pluralistic, lightly populated nation with the longest undefended border in the world and two oceans separating it from everywhere else. America is the bulwark against tyranny in the world, and the only way we can retain that power is by having an unconquerable, large, productive, democratic nation.

And that means an armed nation.

Bastille Day is a great reminder–and thank you Mr. Shusterman for your essay. But instead of reminding us to question why we need a personal right to own guns, we should be reminded why it’s more important than ever to defend that right.

Advertisement

0

Culture and Religion

The false narratives behind Portland’s Antifa versus Proud Boys

Published

on

The false narratives behind Portlands Antifa versus Proud Boys

Depending on which news outlets you use, there are two primary narratives that are being pushed. Narrative one is, “Far-right group and Antifa clash in Portland.” Narrative two is, “Antifa gets violent. Again.”

The first narrative is what you’ll get from progressive legacy media outlets as they offer cover for the violence being perpetrated almost exclusively by Antifa as they clash with the Proud Boys. The latter is being classified as a “far-right” group, but they’re actually more of an “alt-right” group that does not believe in true conservative principles. Nevertheless, anything “right” is painted by the media as part of the conservative movement, the GOP, and President Trump’s base. This is important to understand because in the narrative the left is painting, their goal is to make the Proud Boys appear to be white supremacist and therefore attached to President Trump because according to their latest agenda, they have to portray him as a racist at every turn.

The second narrative is the reality, and you won’t find it reported this way by many news outlets, even on the right. There’s a disassociation some publications are actively engaged in where they believe reporting that seems to favor the Proud Boys makes the news outlet seem like it’s supporting white supremacy. This is the progressive propaganda machine at work; even conservative journalists are hesitant to lose credibility over perceptions.

Quillette journalist Angy Ngo is reporting live on Twitter. We’ll try to update it as he adds more:

As you can see from Ngo’s reporting, the violence seems to be undertaken exclusively by Antifa. But legacy media will only report it as clashes “between” the two groups and not as violence instigated solely by the side that holds the left’s progressive mantle. All of this is secondary to the overarching narrative they’re driving, that the Proud Boys represent the right and their white supremacy beliefs are defended by the President.

On cue, the President chimed in:

The left pounced, as they’re wont to do, by saying this is evidence the President is sympathetic to the Proud Boys because he singled out Antifa in a “mutual” conflict. What they won’t tell you is Antifa is starting the fights. They’re bringing the weapons. They’re pepper-spraying people. They’re attacking buses. One does not have to believe in the Proud Boys’ rhetoric to realize Antifa is instigating violence here.

As Beth Baumann reported, even journalists are being targeted:

So Much For Being ‘Peaceful’: Antifa Attacks Reporters And Conservatives In Portland (Again)

Not quite seven weeks ago, conservative journalist Andy Ngo was attacked while covering an Antifa protest in Portland, Oregon. Mayor Tom Wheeler ordered police to stand down at the time and received backlash for doing so. The city prepared for the Proud Boys to hold a rally on Saturday, with Antifa showing up to counter protest. Wheeler made it clear that Portland is taking a “zero tolerance” policy during Saturday’s activities.

Despite the warning, Antifa, once again, became violent.

At one point, Antifa protestors had The Washington Examiner‘s Julio Rosas surrounded. They wanted him to report on what was taking place from the other side of the street because he “wasn’t with” them.

Rosas attempted to explain that he was simply reporting on the events for his job but Antifa didn’t care. They thought he was “spying” on them.

The irony in all of this has become a recurring theme between Antifa and their supporters in progressive media and the Democratic Party. They claim Antifa is simply “anti-fascist” while ignoring the fact that they’re the ones using fascism to promote their ideas and to quash opposing ideas. Reports on the ground in Portland demonstrate this clearly.

Here are Rosas’s Twitter reports:

The left’s narratives: (1) Proud Boys and Antifa are equally to blame, (2) Proud Boys are white supremacists while Antifa are anti-fascists, and (3) President Trump support white supremacists. Don’t believe the lies.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Democrats

Dianne Feinstein’s comment on Dayton shooter skipped one important point

Published

on

Dianne Feinsteins comment on Dayton shooter skipped one important point

Gun control is the talk of the town as the week comes to a close. Well, that and Greenland. And Jeffrey Epstein. But the mass shootings two weeks ago has DC buzzing, media furiously reporting, and activists on both sides of the debate furiously Tweeting at each other. Senator Dianne Feinstein weighed in on the discussion by pointing out some important facts about the alleged Dayton shooter, Connor Betts.

Her facts are correct. Her analysis is off because it missed one important point. We’ll get to that in a minute, but let’s declare once and for all (though I’m sure I’ll have to repeat myself later) that the 2nd Amendment IS NOT ABOUT HUNTING OR HOME PROTECTION. Our right to keep and bear firearms was put into the Constitution by our founders because they recognized what could happen if the people had no recourse against an oppressive government. Just as Venezuelans didn’t realize they danger they were putting themselves into when they allowed their guns to be taken away, so too do many Americans put way too much trust in government.

The authoritarian left wants guns because they know they’ll never achieve their endgame as long as the people can defend themselves from tyranny.

Feinstein is correct that the Dayton shooter was able to cause an extreme amount of death and injury in a short period of time. Police were quick to respond, otherwise it could have been much worse. But as our EIC pointed out in a Tweet, Feinstein’s narrative is worthless when you look at it from the opposite perspective.

Gun control is not the solution to our mass shooting problem. If anything, gun control has enabled shooters to enact their crimes without fear of many “good guys with a gun” to stop them. We must never give up our 2nd Amendment rights.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Media

With ‘collusion’ out and ‘racism’ in, legacy media scrambles to write the anti-Trump narrative

Published

on

With collusion out and racism in legacy media scrambles to write the anti-Trump narrative

There are things that are often so obvious to me, I actually ignore them as stories to consider reporting when in reality they’re big news. It’s part of the myopia journalists often get when their days are spent researching and analyzing a topic so much, we assume certain things are common knowledge when they’re not. Case-in-point: The fact that legacy media establishes narrative plans to achieve goals that promote their agenda.

It took my wife’s aghast response to learning the NY Times was setting up a gameplan to attack President Trump from now until the election. I asked her what she thought newsroom’s did. After all, she knows I used to sit in meetings about how to cover particular topics, and affecting the 2020 election is obviously something newsrooms will try to do. But to her (and probably a lot of our readers), it’s assumed journalists aren’t crafting stories based on a playbook but are simply taking each individual piece of news and spinning it as they see fit.

Nope. That’s not how it works. We’ve seen comical examples of media coordination to push very specific narratives that often match the talking points of Democrats. This isn’t new. It’s as old as journalism itself. Propaganda isn’t a rare occurrence. It’s an ongoing battle to appear to be unbiased while conveying bias subtly. But today, there’s no longer subtly involved. Both progressive and conservative news outlets unabashedly spin stories to suit their agendas.

The latest example came from a leak of a NY Times staff meeting transcript that detailed how the Russian collusion narrative was a dud and they needed to go after the new Trump narrative, that he’s a racist. I saw the story yesterday and myopically assumed, “Duh, it’s obvious. This is a nothingburger.” But as my wife pointed out, there are plenty of people who don’t realize this is how newsrooms in every major outlet operate.

Leaked Transcript Of NYT Staff Meeting Reveals Leadership’s Plan For Reporting On Trump For Next Two Years

As revealed in the leaked transcript, Baquet began the meeting by referencing the paper’s “significant missteps” and then explaining how these “missteps” stem from “something larger”: the paper’s approach to reporting on Trump. “This is a really hard story, newsrooms haven’t confronted one like this since the 1960s,” said Baquet. “It got trickier after [inaudible] … [it] went from being a story about whether the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia and obstruction of justice to being a more head-on story about the president’s character.”

Baquet then admits that the Times had “built our newsroom” around covering the ultimately debunked narrative that Trump “colluded” with Russia. “We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well,” said Baquet in comments highlighted by the Washington Examiner‘s Byron York. “Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story.”

As early as it may seem in the election cycle, this is actually crunch-time for journalists with an agenda, which is essentially all of us. The narratives take time to stick, and so if progressive media is going to get enough Americans to believe their racism narrative, they need to be hammering it today and all the way through until the election.

Their plan has three steps:

  1. Paint Trump as a racist
  2. Paint the whole GOP as either racists or enabling racists
  3. Make voters believe that if they vote for Trump and/or Republicans, they’re racists as well

If that sounds familiar, it’s because you’re paying attention as the narrative unfolds before our eyes. They realize the President hasn’t said or done anything that’s racist. They can attach the race card to certain comments he makes, but even then it’s a stretch. But they need to hold this as their message because his policies tell a completely different story. Black and Hispanic-American unemployment numbers are at all-time lows while prosperity is spreading to minorities faster than ever in our history, including (especially) under President Obama.

The left will try to divide us and then claim President Trump is the great divider. They want to draw distinct lines between those who support him and those who may be willing to oppose him. Then, they’ll do everything in their power to pull people on the fence over to their side. What they can’t understand is why things are working, why the economy is humming, and why violence seems to be coming more from the left than the right. That’s not what they expected to happen. Many assumed his presidency would be so bad so quickly, he’d never be allowed to finish his first term. But as it becomes increasingly likely he’ll get a second term, they’re scrambling to derail him.

The progressive narratives in legacy media are 100% intended to subvert the 2020 election and remove President Trump from power. The best thing conservatives can do is continue to point out their complete journalistic hypocrisy.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending