By Christopher Skeet
After every mass shooting (particularly the vast majority upon which white supremacy cannot be blamed), leftists renew demands to repeal the Second Amendment as part of their Do Something!!! campaign, and this past month’s evil in Uvalde was no exception.
Discussing gun control options with
the eunuch classmembers of the press, President Biden quipped, “You couldn’t buy a cannon when the Second Amendment was passed. You couldn’t go out and purchase a lot of weaponry.” He continued: “It makes no sense to be able to purchase something that can fire up to 300 rounds. The idea of these high caliber weapons – there’s simply no rational basis for it in terms of, about self-protection, hunting – and, remember, the Constitution, the Second Amendment was never absolute.”
In four sentences he told five lies, which is impressive even for him. But these five lies are central to the anti-gun argument, so I’ll briefly expound:
- “You couldn’t buy a cannon…” Actually, you could. In both the absence of a standing army, and in the war against the British, private American militias procured cannons at their own expense.
- “You couldn’t go out and purchase a lot of weaponry.” Actually, you could. There were never any colonial laws limiting the number of guns or amount of ammunition you could purchase.
- “It makes no sense to be able to purchase something that can fire up to 300 rounds”. This would be news to gun owners, as no ammunition magazine holds anywhere near that amount. The standard magazine capacity for an AR-15 is thirty rounds.
- “…there’s simply no rational basis for it in terms of, about self-protection, hunting…” The Second Amendment offers no such basis. The purpose of the Second Amendment isn’t for self-protection or for hunting. The purpose of the Second Amendment is in its “being necessary to the security of a free State.” And for that purpose, there is an overwhelming rational basis, of which Joe Biden is Exhibit One.
- “…the Constitution, the Second Amendment was never absolute.” Actually, it is. Amendments can be overturned, and Biden is free to try. But until then, the Constitution and its amendments are not subject to change at the whim of the mob. They are the absolute foundation from which all our laws derive. That’s the whole point.
Joe Biden has never needed to own a gun for self-protection or otherwise, seeing as he was able to defang the mighty Corn Pop utilizing nothing but the ol’ Scranton One-Two. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that Biden is able to either 1) get the Second Amendment overturned or, 2) forum shop to get an anti-gun ruling by a favorable court, appellate court, or the Supreme Court. This would all no doubt be conducted in the name of “public safety,” or “protecting our children,” etc. The Constitution and its Amendments, we are told, are ossified relics of white supremacy.
But if that’s the case, why stop there? In the interests of “protecting our children,” why not re-imagine, as they say, additional amendments? As these mass shooters are attempting to create as much carnage as possible publicity, why not deny them this by revoking the freedom of the press under the First Amendment? How many children would be protected by criminalizing the publication of any information about mass shooters, their backgrounds, their motives, their manifestos, indeed even any information about the crime itself? How many would-be mass shooters would be dissuaded by the knowledge that the world will never know what they did?
If only our nation had a free and independent press, you can imagine the howls of outrage such a move would elicit. But what’s more important to the court jesters at CNN and MSNBC? Smearing their juicy school shooter stories across their screens? Or “protecting the children”? If “protecting the children” takes precedence over the Second Amendment, shouldn’t it also take precedence over the First Amendment?
How about the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures, and requires a warrant for searches of homes? Well, what is “unreasonable”? If our goal is to “protect the children,” wouldn’t any search be reasonable? Imagine if police had the authority to enter the homes and cars of known gang members and criminals, at any time and without warning, to conduct random weapons searches. How many children and other innocents would be alive today in Chicago, New York, Detroit, etc., if we jettisoned the Fourth Amendment and gave them this authority? And if you oppose this, does this mean you hate children? Especially children of “color,” who fall victim to gang violence more than children of, er, non-color? Are you complicit in their murders? What’s more important to you, the antiquated relic of English law known as a warrant, or “protecting the children”?
Rational Americans, both left and right, can agree that the legal system is broken (albeit for different reasons). Can our current deadlock not be traced back to the Bill of Rights? The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of the accused to counsel. The Seventh Amendment guarantees a right to trial by jury. These Amendments form the legal standards upon which the State is burdened and are intentionally difficult to overcome, and are a reflection of the idea that it would be better to potentially let criminals free than it would be to wrongly imprison a single innocent person.
But these Amendments prioritize the individual over the overall safety of the collective. And if the Left wants to reverse this prioritization, does it not stand to reason that these amendments are obsolete inhibitors to a better society? Why should the accused have so many safeguards? The truly innocent, if indeed they be of noble and “woke” character, will gladly accept the burden of proving their bona fides…just like they do in corporate anti-racism workshops, in public schools, and on Twitter. And if a few innocents do get imprisoned with the criminals? Meh. To paraphrase the New York Times’ Walter Duranty’s defense of the Ukrainian genocide, you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. What’s more important? The fate of a few so-called innocents, or “protecting the children”?
What about the Eighth Amendment, which protects against both excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishment? Many leftist DAs are trying to eliminate bail altogether. But in the interests of “public safety” and “protecting the children”, shouldn’t we instead push for excessive bail? And why not inflict cruel and unusual punishment? If you apply the punishment a certain number of times, it ceases to be “unusual” and becomes “usual.” And wouldn’t so-called “cruel” punishment, if applied unsparingly and uniformly to every violent criminal, not deter others? If criminals realized that their crimes would be answered not by the usual slap on the wrist, but by being drawn and quartered in a public square, would this not drastically reduce crime? Is not “public safety” and “protecting the children” worth it?
When ever there is mass shooting the left always demands more Gun Cotrol Laws they never talk about getting those Maniacs off the Street or sending armed robbers and rapists to Prison they always prefer to blame Guns,Sun Stores the Gun Lobby(NRA)and Gun Owners since liberals(Especialy the M.S. Media)always look for scapegoats
Actual rights mean nothing to our government, not a jot or tittle. Everything is compliance by force.
It went bazerk after 9/11, The patriot act, the most unconstitutional piece of shit ever passed. It has morphed into a monster a partisan monster, not as if there is a great deal of difference between the two major parties.
Mob rule, thing of the hour vigilantism, no equal rights under the so called law.
The few rare representatives that have some respect for our Constitution are vilified.
Our last chance is the America First movement, not Trump first vet each candidate down to dog catcher. Any donations directly to that person not the party.
The GOP money grubbers junk mail goes directly to the recycle bin cause we all need to do our part for the planet.
Save energy turn off the operation mockingbird, MK Ultra TV, its in every bit of “news” and “entertainment”.
Have a weapon, learn both how to shoot accurate and maintain the tool, pass that to the next generation.
For the children repeal the 16th.
Not only was the 2nd Amendment not written to state “shall not be infringed, except for cannon” but a cannon could be loaded with grape shot which essentially turned it into a giant shot gun. In the day of one-room schools, someone could limber a cannon up to the door and take out the entire class in one shot. The only difference is, no one ever thought to do it. Liberal media hadn’t been invented yet.
The 2nd Amendment right that “shall not be infringed” has been, with our own permission. We are reasonable and we are objective. We have elected and reelect those who have negotiated away the “absolute” right and left us with a restricted right. We were convinced these restrictions would make society safer and would satisfy those making demands. But none of that has happened; the restrictions agreed to weren’t even related to the actual problem and the left is never satisfied until they have absolute power over citizens they have rendered defenseless. Well, no more. We’re done.
“No right is absolute”, yet “Stop and Frisk” was ruled unconstitutional even though it was resoundingly successful in fighting crime and putting criminals in jail. It didn’t harm anyone (I’m sure some innocent people got stopped and frisked, though), but the criminals were allowed the argument, “Sure I was illegally carrying an illegal gun for no good purpose, but they caught me unfairly” and the left gobbled it up. Because the rights of criminals means more to them than the rights of law-abiding taxpayers.
We’ve seen how much Democrats respect 5th and 6th Amendments by how they pursue their political enemies while using corrupt judges and prosecutors to protect their own. Schiff spoke for the entire Democrat party about their respect for the Constitution when he held his mock impeachment trial, made everything “classified” (but leaked whatever helped him), blocked exculpatory evidence and witnesses for Trump and blatantly LIED about what it was they were even prosecuting Trump for.
The left sees their goal so close they can smell it (and believe me, it STINKS). The 2nd Amendment stands in the way.
We now see the Democrats are one of the Domestic Enemies of the U.S. Contitution no matter what we get from the Gutter Dwellers in the M.S. Media