Connect with us

Culture and Religion

When have the Enemies of Liberty on the Left ever compromised on the 2nd amendment?

Published

on

The history of freedom always has been one of it’s enemies slowly ratcheting it down with restraints in the name of equality or security.

Everyone knows the drill by now, a ‘Serious Crisis’ takes place, the Left immediately demands the surrender of more human rights forcing the innocent to pay for the sins of the guilty. Meanwhile, those who dare defend those rights are pilloried with almost every pejorative in the book.

The history of Liberty Control has always been one of unending incremental infringements on our rights. The enemies of Liberty on the Left always follow the same progression. They begin with spurious claims over the ‘easy access to guns’, getting whatever they can, after which they reset the sequence for the next go around.

The Left’s idea of ‘progress’ is always one direction, with demands that the pro-liberty side give up as yet more of their freedom. Each time around it’s the same story, with only ever worsening regularity. But why is this the case? When have the Liberty controllers on the left ever compromised on the common sense human right of self-defence, or any other liberties for that matter?

Liberty Control down through the ages.

The dirty little secret of Liberty control is that it has it’s roots in racism, epitomised in the infamous United States Supreme Court case DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, (1856):

It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

Please note that it specifically mentions “the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”, as the partial rationale for the decision.

Further on, the past century has saw an inexorable sequence of infringements with the examples ranging from the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 to the Brady act of 1993.

In some rare cases, the Republican party spearheaded some partial relief of earlier infringements, but these were always accompanied with other restrictions. The overall trend has always been ever intensifying restrictions on the rights that are supposed to be free from infringement.

The Left’s idea of ‘compromise.’

It should be obvious by now that the enemies of Liberty on the Left do not want anyone to have the basic human right of self-preservation. They have made that clear in many articles, editorials and videos on the subject of repealing the 2nd amendment or outright gun confiscation.  Consequently, it can be presumed that anything short of that immediate goal is a ‘compromise’ to them.
The win-win eventuality for them is that their ‘compromise’ positions sets up for their ultimate goal none the less. Asserting government control over everyone’s private property with ‘Intergalactic’ Background Checks followed on with the governmental permission requirements in gun registration that will eventually lead to gun confiscation. They would also like to control free-speech with the expedient of ‘Political correctness’ or entirely undefined ‘Hate speech’. But for now they merely want to get people used to these restrictions on Liberty.

The Takeaway

The Left’s increasing stridency towards Liberty has intensified as of late, which is quite odd given that they supposedly support the concept with the self-labeling as “Liberals”. The Left has become single-minded in their pursuit of gun confiscation(and it’s precursors), to the point of rejecting measures that would actually serve to protect the children. As is typical of the nation’s Left, they self-label their obsession with taking guns away from the innocent as being ‘reasonable’. Meanwhile, they vehemently oppose workable solutions to the problems they caused in the first place.

Their latest tactic is to exploit the victims of mass murder in a bid to shut down debate and impose their unworkable ‘solutions’ to the exclusion of anything else. Do they even sound ‘reasonable’ or ‘Liberal’ for that matter? They incessantly complain that the proponents of Liberty won’t surrender their principles and once again yield to their demands, but when will they ever compromise and defend liberty?

 

 

Advertisement

0

Culture and Religion

Anti-Semite Tom Wright-Piersanti is the true heart of the NY Times

Published

on

Anti-Semite Tom Wright-Piersanti is the true heart of the NY Times

Progressive journalism is a double-standard wrapped in hypocrisy and served on a plate with no self-awareness. That’s why revelations that NY Times senior staff editor Tom Wright-Piersanti posted several racist and anti-Semitic Tweets in the past came as absolutely no surprise to me when Breitbart broke the story this morning.

The Tweets insulted Jews, Native-Americans, and Hispanics and date back as far as 2009. But even as he scrambles to remove official record of his feelings, the remnant of them remain. Some have grabbed screenshots. We’ll go ahead and post the text from some of his Tweets so the words remain in text-form indefinitely.


CINCO DE DRINKO aka CINCO DE STINKO aka STINKO DE DRINKO aka DRINKO DE STINKO, what upppp, who out there mexican can verify

— Tom Wright-Piersanti (@tomwp) May 5, 2011


@douggpound I like to make it rain when I perform at my authentic Native American dance strip club

— Tom Wright-Piersanti (@tomwp) June 6, 2010


I think I just heard him say “Hoes, Hoes, Hoes! Merry Cripmas!” Does anyone know who it could be???

— Tom Wright-Piersanti (@tomwp) December 24, 2009


http://bit.ly/QCGfF WEIRD. This woman’s Spanish jumps back and forth between a pleasant Mexican “distinción” and a halting Spanish “ceceo.”


Is Wright-Piersanti a unique case? No. Progressive journalists such as the vast majority on staff at the NY Times have been shielded from scrutiny. It’s not that anyone is actively trying to cover up for the racism or anti-America sentiment that flows freely in newsrooms across the country. It’s that the people who normally engage in investigating people’s history on public sites like social media are searching for conservatives to bash. This is a leftist technique, one that more conservatives should adopt as the cries of “Republicans are racists” continue to be bellowed out by mainstream media.

The saddest part is the NY Times is unlikely to act and leftist media is unlikely to report on this much. If these Tweets were posted by someone at Breitbart or One America News, it would be the top story in the news cycle and every Tweet supporting President Trump by the journalist would be used as evidence for the racism narrative the left is trying to paint about the right. But Wright-Piersanti is not a Trump supporter and neither is the NY Times.

Tom Wright-Piersanti isn’t a one-off case. He’s indicative of the hypocrisy that’s rampant throughout mainstream media as they seek evidence that conservatives are racist while ignoring the racists in the mirror.

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

Culture and Religion

After indignant virtue signaling costs billions, Gillette quietly ‘shifts’ away from social justice

Published

on

After indignant virtue signaling costs billions Gillette quietly shifts away from social justice

Social justice backfired for Gillette. Despite innumerable complaints and an exodus of customers, the razor maker remained fervently proud of their ad campaigns attacking “toxic masculinity” to the point that CEO and president Gary Coombe said it was a “price worth paying.” They’re standing by their ads and are claiming they helped them reach a younger millennial audience, increase brand awareness, and put forward the type of company message they want portrayed.

If losing $8 billion was worth the message, they’re stronger activists than most.

“P&G reported a net loss of about $5.24 billion, or $2.12 per share, for the quarter ended June 30, due to an $8 billion non-cash writedown of Gillette. For the same period last year,” Reuters reported, “P&G’s net income was $1.89 billion, or 72 cents per share.”

Despite the massive loss over the controversial ads. they claim to have no regrets. This claims were made three weeks ago and delivered with bluster in multiple interviews for damage control. This week brought a different tone as they’re now “shifting the spotlight from social issues to local heroes.”

The new campaigns have already launched in Australia with a slow rollout in the United States expected next month. Here’s the local Australian hero they’re focusing on. Needless to say, he’s not representing a social justice cause, nor is he worried about exuding toxic masculinity.

This is an unambiguous attempt to escape the controversial corner they painted themselves into that cost them billions, but don’t let progressive media know because they’re certain the social justice campaign was wonderful. They’re so certain about this that they’re blaming the loss on men suddenly loving beards. Seriously.

Companies like Gillette are learning being “woke” makes you broke. That’s how business works; alienating half of your customers for the sake of politics is never a good move. Stick to business. Leave social justice to the basement warriors.

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

Culture and Religion

We don’t need ‘red flag’ gun confiscation laws. The solution to the problem is already in place.

Published

on

By

We dont need red flag gun confiscation laws The solution to the problem is already in place

Laws for Civil Commitment procedures that also protect due process are in place in every state -‘crisis’ solved QED.

The Authoritarian Socialist Left keeps on insisting that there is a ‘serious crisis’ and that Gun Confiscation SWATing laws are desperately needed before anyone can rationally think through their true implications of destroying due process and the presumption of innocence.

The problem for the Left is that there really isn’t a ‘crisis’ since there are laws on the books to handle situations where someone may be a danger to themselves. We have already proven this here, therefore, there is no reason to implement these draconian measures that will serve to eviscerate multiple parts of the bill of rights in one fell swoop. Thus the solution to this problem should be pretty straightforward, point this out to everyone and move on to other issues of greater importance.

Solving the problem by simply pointing out that the solution already exists.

We supposedly need to discuss this issue immediately, without any delay. Fine, it is just a matter of having President Trump or Senate Majority Leader McConnell schedule a formal announcement on this allegedly intractable issue. This announcement would simply reiterate that laws for Civil Commitment are already on the books, so there is no reason to waste precious time in debating a non-issue. We also have the added bonus that these laws also protect civil Liberties, something of primary importance for those of us on the pro-Liberty Right.

It will be a formal announcement that there is absolutely no reason for these laws, followed with a press kit detailing Civil Commitment procedures in every state. Then it will be logical to ask why the authoritarian Left keeps on demanding news laws for a problem that has already been solved. Please note that they are essentially doing that on the Intergalactic Background Check issue, since these also already exist, but that’s a separate issue.

Consider the reasons why the politicians should accept this elegant solution to the problem:

  • It wouldn’t require any new laws.
  • It wouldn’t take any political wrangling.
  • It would solve the problem immediately.
  • It would protect the bill of rights –specifically the 2nd, 4th, 5 and 6th amendments.
  • It will resolve the situation with minimum trouble.

Why aren’t the politicians already calling for this perfect solution to the problem?

There are only two reasons why this perfect solution has not been brought forward by the legislators on either side. Either they don’t know the law – which is absurd – or they want the power they would attain from ‘Red Flag’ Gun Confiscation.

Legislators really have only one job – to understand and perfect the law. They should have already known about this solution. This means they only have one reason to push for Gun Confiscation SWATing laws. These politicians would clearly like to expand their own power, even now, Democratic presidential contender Kamala Harris is salivating at confiscating the guns of those merely accused of ‘thought Crime’.
Who know what clever ways they will develop for their new-found power? We’ve already shown that these laws don’t work as advertised, that they have caused more problems than they have solved and they are a civil rights nightmare. Why are they being imposed by the government to solve a problem that has been already addressed?

The Bottom-Line.

This editorial could have been just two lines – the headline and the subhead – summarizing the whole point. Solving the problem that gun Confiscation SWATing is supposed to address is simply a matter of following existing law. The same could be said for liberticidal Leftist power grabs – Intergalactic Background Checks, the ‘Assault Weapon’ scam.. er ban and most everything else. It’s already illegal for felons and others to possess firearms. Thus, these measures are like making things double secret, illegal, in the vain hope that people who don’t follow the law [hence the term ‘lawbreaker’] will suddenly do so because of the magic of a new law on the books.

In the specific example here, the laws already exist and they protect due process. Politicians on both sides of the aisle simply need to step up and use them instead of trying to use the latest ‘serious crisis’ to grab even more power for themselves.

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