Tags
AR-15, Bruen, Calvin Coolidge, Chicago, D/S/Cs, Dobbs, Eric Swalwell, gun violence, Heller, Highland Park, Kathy Hochul, Lauren Boebert, may issue, McDonald, New York City, outmoded Constitution, Philadelphia, radical Christians, rural Americans, second amendment, Supreme Court, The Constitution
If it were not clear before the Bruen (2nd Amendment) and Dobbs (abortion) decisions, it is crystal clear now: America is in real danger of splitting apart. I’ve already written on the Dobbs decision; this article focuses on the schism over the Second Amendment. Consider these headlines:
Our Democrat/Socialist/Communist Congress is no longer hiding its intentions:
Representative Mondaire Jones (D-NY) said Monday on MSNBC’s “Deadline” that if the Democrats win two more Senate seats in the upcoming midterm election, they will get rid of the filibuster to pass gun legislation.
Nor are the rulers of other D/S/C cities:
…Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney said only cops should have guns even though the only victims, in this case, are police officers…[skip]
‘I was in Canada two weeks ago and never thought about a gun,’ he said. ‘The only people I knew who had guns in Canada were police officers.’
‘That’s the way it should be here,’ Kenney stated.
There is little remaining comity in Congress:
Boebert told Fox News Digital she gets ‘that Eric Swalwell isn’t a fan of our Constitutional rights and is desperate to distract from his repeated political failures, but the only straight line that needs to be drawn is from Eric Swalwell to Fang Fang to the Chinese Communist Party.’
‘I will make sure that line gets drawn when we take back the House,’ Boebert continued. ‘Law-abiding gun owners won’t be smeared and disarmed every time a California failed presidential candidate rolls out of bed with a Chinese spy and tries to blame us for the conduct of others.
I could go on endlessly illustrating the hatred not only of gun owners, but of Americans who fully support the Constitution, who recognize in it the glue that holds us all together, who willingly obey the supreme law of the land and the rule of law that flows from it. The Bruen decision, along with Heller and McDonald, have acknowledged the right to keep and bear arms as an unalienable, individual right, which applies not only in the home, but elsewhere. If there is a right to self-defense, this is unremarkable for one must be able to defend their life, and the lives of others wherever they are. This right extends to the weapons commonly owned and carried by Americans. The most obvious, circa 2022 is the semiautomatic handgun, but shotguns and rifles, including the AR-15–America’s most popular rifle–also qualify. In addition, “may issue” laws are unconstitutional, and states may not ban the bearing of arms by declaring the entire state a “special” or “sensitive” zone. Which is why we visit New York State:
New York Governor Kathy Hochul once again signed sweeping gun legislation into law on Friday that created several severe new restrictions on obtaining a gun in the state, including drastically increasing concealed carry regulations and requiring applicants to turn over social media history.
Acccording to the the legislation, part of Hochul’s new criteria to obtain a concealed carry permit will be an applicant giving the government a list containing three years of history of their current and inactive social media accounts. Applicants must also have 16 hours of firearm training, provide four character references, and list the contact information for any domestic partners or adults of any kind they live with.
Potential applicants will also be required to show ‘good moral character,’ meaning ‘the essential character, temperament and judgment necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself and others.’
At a press conference regarding the new legislation, Hochul said ‘we are creating a definitive list of sensitive locations where individuals will not be able to carry firearms.’
This list includes ‘schools, summer camps, libraries, daycares, parks and playgrounds, places children gather, theaters, museums, entertainment venues, places of worship for religious observation, polling places, educational institutions, and health medical facilities. Federal State Local government buildings, homeless and domestic violence shelters, places where alcohol is consumed, restaurants, bars, public transportation, subway buses, airports and at public demonstrations and rallies, and in Times Square.’
In other words, New York State, in clear violation of the Constitution, is banning guns pretty much everywhere, establishing near-universal gun-free/free-fire zones. Obviously, these restrictions are focused on New York City where D/S/C politicians try to force everyone onto public transportation, while continuing to disarm them. NYC’s subways have become notoriously dangerous.
Another new rule is a ‘Default of No Concealed Carry on Private Property and Businesses Unless Deemed Permissible by Property Owners.’ Hochul said of this law, ‘We are making ‘no open carry’ the default position for private businesses. That means that any business, grocery store, retail, private home, place that wants to allow guns on their premises will have to demonstrate that and establish that they put a sign out there that says concealed carry guns are welcome here.’
This law will make it all but impossible, particularly in any city, for anyone to avoid arrest, which is, of course, the point. Carrying a handgun is theoretically legal, but practically impossible, and New York residents, particularly in NYC, can be certain if they violate the slightest provision of New York’s anti-liberty/gun laws, prosecutors will be delighted to throw them in prison for years. These would be the same prosecutors loath to punish violent, armed felons in any way.
It is, by the way, illegal to wear body armor in New York State. Criminals, who don’t obey any law, virtually never wear body armor. The only possible reason the New York legislature banned body armor is to ensure the law-abiding remain at the mercy of criminals, a base D/S/C constituiency.
Will these laws be struck down? It’s highly likely, but unless state courts follow the Constitution—and in blue states many do not—it could take years before federal courts rule. Some Federal circuits also tend to ignore the Constitution. It could take a decade or more for the Supreme Court to agree to hear such cases–a properly packed court would not–which is what D/S/Cs like Hochul are counting on.
Every Fourth of July, Powerline posts a part of a 1926 Independence Day speech by President Calvin Coolidge. This paragraph is particularly pertinent:
About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning cannot be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.
This, gentle readers, is the crux of the problem. We have in America, July, 2022, two primary political philosophies. One recognizes the Constitution and all its parts and amendments as final. Of course the Constitution may be amended, but amendment is difficult. The Founders wisely didn’t want it changed for “light and transient reasons.” But absent amendment, the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, is final. In fact, all unalienable rights are final; they are not granted by government, nor can government rescind them. Either the Constitution speaks to a given issue, or it doesn’t, and if it doesn’t, it falls to the states or the people to decide. Because it is final, there are limits on government, and representatives and judges are not free to ignore those limits because they think their favored policies a morally superior good.
The other political philosophy holds the Constitution outmoded. They, the self-imagined elite, the intellectually and morally superior, recognize the Constitution only so long as it gives them what they want. The moment it does not, they either find what they want in its emanations and penumbras, or they ignore it altogether. They used to say the Constitution was “living,” which meant it is not final, but constantly evolving as the intellectual and moral elite evolve, but they now just generally call it, and those who support it, racist and a variety of other vile epithets. Their arguments for their policies are not legal or logical, but emotional, just as the Bruen dissent’s arguments were hysterically emotional, having nothing to do with the Constitution or law. Mostly, they find they hate the Constitution as much, if not more, than they hate America and Americans.
The Second Amendment, therefore, is a primary battleground. In response to the latest lunatic who murders multiple people, those holding to the Constitution will abide no limitation of the Second Amendment, because it is, absent Amendment, final. It is also the right that secures all other rights. If one does not have the right to self-defense, and the best means to secure that right, regardless of size, strength, gender, age, vigor or disability, what does any other right matter? They look at Philadelphia, New York City, Chicago, and Highland Park and understand those places are a gun banner’s dream. Every ban, every restriction anti-liberty/gun cracktivists want is in place in those blue utopias, and none of those laws prevent third world war zone levels of violent crime. None of them keep maniacs from obtaining guns and killing people.
But what about gun violence! We must stop gun violence! Here we see one of the strengths of D/S/Cs: the cynical, false manipulation of language. Inanimate objects do not commit violence; they cannot commit violence. Were this not so, why don’t we speak of “foot violence” or “hand violence,” because thousands are kicked and beaten to death every year? Why don’t we speak of “motor vehicle violence,” because far more Americans die by motor vehicle than guns every year? We are even told “silence is violence,” if we don’t say what D/S/Cs want in precisely the terms they want it said.
One need not be particularly well versed in history to know never were people’s rights to free speech and guns taken away for good and benign reasons. So where do we now stand? Until recently, most Americans knew there were lines they dare not cross, because once crossed, there may be no going back. We are a society built on trust, and once trust is lost, it may never be regained. Our participation in the Republic is voluntary, but many, it seems, no longer want to volunteer.
What are we to make of calls for the assassination of Supreme Court Justices, but not all, only those Justices who hold to the Constitution? What are we to make of the attempted assassination of one of those Justices, and of the refusal of our D/S/C President and Attorney General to enforce the very specific federal law protecting those justices? How does America step back across that line?
If Republicans retake one or both houses of Congress in November, will D/S/Cs dial back their anti-liberty/gun rhetoric, their calls for the deaths of their political enemies, their attempts to take the liberty of Normal Americans, or will they continue to cross lines, to redouble their efforts to establish permanent one-party rule? Will a Republican President ever again be able to govern without fending off impeachments, even when out of office?
And can our Republic survive as a house divided? If half-ish of America wants nothing more than to be left alone to live under the Constitution and the rule of law, and halfish refuses to leave them alone, demands the opposite, and demonstrates its bad faith and intentions by disarming Americans, yet allowing criminals to run free, how long can a constitutional America endure?
Will we find ourselves falling back to the usual political battles for the dissolution of the Constitution, and with it, individual liberties? Or will the angry, anti-American left who will not leave others alone force us into a Second Civil War to determine which philosophy will prevail? They think rural America will be easily conquered. They also thought inflation was “transitory.” If some things aren’t final, if they’re not beyond argument, we’ve never been closer.
UPDATE, 07-06-22, 1015 MT: Still not convinced D/S/Cs hate the Constitution—and Normal Americans? Try this:
Georgetown University Law School Professor Rosa Brooks said on MSNBC during Tuesday’s broadcast of ‘The ReidOut’ that Americans were “slaves” to the U.S. Constitution she said was written by ‘a tiny group of white slave-owning men.’ [skip]
The MSNBC guest added, ‘This is us. This is 100% us, and it’s because we are essentially slaves to a document that was written more than 230 years ago by a tiny group of white slave-owning men. And we cannot break out of the bondage that we have imposed on ourselves from feeling like we have to– everything by our Supreme Court is decided in reference to this ancient document which is just not serving us well. It is causing enormous problems and enormous tragedies at this point.’
See gentle readers? That damned ancient Constitution is why we can’t have nice things, and social justice, and woke for all, and pronouns, and no police, and socialist/communist utopia. Freedom is slavery! Free speech is censorship! The D/S/C Party loves you!
Who are you trying to warn? Oh wait.. you are not sending out a warning but rather broadcasting an ultimatum. But to whom? Anyone not accepting your interest in the Second Amendment? (no one following your blog in that category)
Ohhh… I get it. This civil war “thing” for you is all about the Second Amendment?? So, we go to war with each other.. which means kill fellow Americans… using guns you are afraid someone is trying to take away from you.. and fear they actually will succeed. Then you have this idea that you will win this civil war about the Second Amendment because you think rural America is more “patriotic” and that gives you an.. “unalienable” advantage. (Well, the “Onward Christian Soldiers” thing helps there I suppose as well.) I would guess you’d have this “struggle about guns” all wrapped up by the following Monday in time for a breakfast burrito on the way to work?
It boggles the mind, Mike.
Dear Doug:
You keep missing the point, and rather broadly too. One might be tempted to think you’re doing it on purpose.
All Americans need do to live in peace is to mind their own business, and honor the Constitution and the rule of law, which we pretty much did until things began to fall apart in the 60s.
Trying to disarm fellow Americans is rather telegraphing one’s intentions, wouldn’t you say?
Who is trying to disarm anyone?? More to the point.. who in power even has the power and influence to even do all that.. not to mention it would be impossible to do anyway. I’ve been in business management all my life, an entrepreneur three times. You’ve gone from cop to school teacher. We perceive differently. With each damn shooting the impetus do get increasingly more radical in gun control moves a step forward. The NRA.. is a total flop and a true ill-serving organization and has betrayed their membership, not to mention the country. I know the value of marketing and creating image as much as you know policing and teaching. Right now every Right Wing gun advocate is perceived as a “gun nut” and/or “gun worshipper”. Why is that Mike? Now.. if you are a “gun rights advocate” at least it appears you have an interest in human safety… maybe.. in some kind of compromise. In the least, it would seem to me the NRA and Second Amendment “enthusiasts” would be leading the nation on putting a priority on human lives first… and quit worrying about their trigger fingers.. compromising on some things.. and sounding encouraging to want to save lives. But 2A people are way too wound up with this political division with these ideas of government taking away your guns.
And please don’t cite some obsessive compulsive craziness about 2A being some sort of protective vigilance toward government. Self-defense on the streets and in the home is one thing (and bad enough). But there isn’t anyone in Washington D.C. sitting around in some dark star chamber thinking.. “Damn.. if there weren’t so many guns in private hands I could take over this country real easy.”
Dear Mike,
Marvelous & spot-on post! Thank you.
It is a worry these days as America is fractured. The long running campaign of hatred has worked so efficiently to divide a nation.
Dear mickmar21:
The worst part is it’s all on purpose. The remaining question is who is driving the plan and on what timetable? It certainly isn’t our mentally, and otherwise, compromised president.
Yuri Bezmenov outlined this and no-one wanted to know. I covered it in my major essay ‘Antipodean Angst’.
Spot on, Mike.
Doug – you’re really full of shit and a troll, besides speaking in a demeaning manner to Mike’s experiences. I met him when I was also a young police officer, worked for several different agencies across the country, went to law school and was a trial attorney for 23 years. Good enough experience for you ? Having lived in many completely different parts of this country, I have an even greater appreciation of gun rights issues than you, in addition to most certainly having a far greater education in Constitutional issues than you. I currently live in a part of the country where individual gun rights are a part of life, and can guarantee you that local law enforcement will not enforce any gun bans or confiscations. So who will do it ? You ?
Dear Al Booth:
What you said.
Oh good Lord….
1. Please specify ANYWHERE my demeaning of Mike’s past occupations.
2. “I met him when I was also a young police officer, worked for several different agencies across the country, went to law school and was a trial attorney for 23 years. Good enough experience for you ?”
Well, great. I hope he was an inspiration for your career later in life (and that’s not sarcasm). What’s your resume have to do with anything I said? So we’re (allegedly) a blog full of smart guys. We done comparing sizes now? I mentioned my brief resume to illustrate I had issues with the image 2A aficionados have created for themselves to the public at large. You guys (and girls) are not winning friends at all.
3. “I have an even greater appreciation of gun rights issues than you.”
I object, Counselor, statement is speculation.
4. “I currently live in a part of the country where individual gun rights are a part of life, and can guarantee you that local law enforcement will not enforce any gun bans or confiscations. So who will do it ? You ?”
I just checked… where in anything did I say “gun confiscation” or gun bans were a threat to you, your part of the country, or your neighborhood? But.. you certainly do make my point that it’s all pure emotion based on hearsay, myth, and conjecture that anyone is trying to grab for your guns via the Constitution, not to mention the physical impossibility that could ever occur even under Hitler, circa 1936.
Let me ask you this question… why are you so afraid of opposing argument in here when it’s your job in real life? I have a far better idea here… you being an attorney, there is no one (again allegedly) more appreciative of the juris prudence that the Constitution provides than yourself,.. few closer to arguing for the rights provided by the Constitution than yourself… and you do it all without.. let’s see, Jack Ross said “..without passion or prejudice.”
I prefer Aristotle,,
“The law is reason free from passion…Man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all.”
YOU tell me to leave here and I will. No joke.. no pissy challenge, no return later to gloat. I’ve been in here two years at least, testing Mike’s patience and being a thorn to the rest of you. What started as a bit of research into opposing thought worth following for a while to learn… has perhaps run its course. If my singular presence offends, or somehow by extension I represent everything in America you hate.. then tell me adios… and you can all return to your echo chamber… and thump chests together. In the end it simply doesn’t matter to any of us one way or the other. Let’s just call it nolo contendre.
Al Booth,
Doug is either unaware of the explicit
and implicit meaning of what he says,
or he is.
It’s a mixture of both with a good dash
of opportunism. Logic is a slippery façade
for him. But he is entertaining–which is
the danger inherent in “Dougism” in
education.
By the way, you are correct: the snark
expressed in comparing his work history
(so claimed) and Mike’s is palpable.
Doug, I’m positive Mike knows Lawdog so I hope he won’t object to me linking here.
This is what we hear when people like you talk about “compromise”.
https://thelawdogfiles.com/2013/01/a-repost.html
Yet what that post from Mr. Lawdog misses is that the lives of human beings are in the mix… perhaps we can call them the “frosting” on that cake. All I am saying is that each mass shooting.. with each assault weapon involved, the greater public gets that much more incensed. What does the NRA and their membership do? Circle the wagons with the “from my cold dead hands” rhetoric.. just itchin’ for some confrontation. I’ve said many times.. I’m a gun owner, I used to be an NRA member. But I can’t seem to get past the fact that our unhinged national divide, coupled with the pandemic, Ukraine war, and crapped out economy, has unhinged all our priorities. We have far more guns that any other country on the planet.. and do we feel any safer for it? Not me.
By some twist of fate and fortune, two.. count ’em.. TWO.. gun “enthusiasts” from Richmond, VA.. each with the usual AR-15 assault weapons and together with something like 300 rounds, were overheard planning a July 4th attack on the Richmond celebration by a citizen who turned them in to the police… and they got nabbed before they tried anything. TWO.. working together! A team! We don’t know yet if these are your typical sickos or a couple of guys on some mission… or the vanguard of some “kinetic” civil war. Does it even matter at this point?
Dear Doug:
Of course. Pot-smoking maniacs misuse firearms, so people who harm no one must be deprived of their guns and the ability to defend themselves. I investigated rapes, but for some inexplicable reason, never felt compelled to castrate myself to prevent them.
A simple condom would result in the same end. Unless of course, the pain of castration itself has meaning.
Dear Marty:
Thanks!
Mike, I think the real question is whether most of the people in the blue states really want what the states are selling. I know in California, a large number of people do not like what the state is doing. I also wonder just how much systematic cheating in elections has been going on here for years and in other blue states.
doug the legal gun owners are the only ones in this debate who have done any “compromising” AT ALL. until the people who scream about “common sense gun regulations” and “compromise” and “the children” are ready to COMPROMISE; as in allowing the police to go after the thugs, felons, gang members, and assorted violent offenders and target, stop, frisk and disarm and arrest them; and prosecutors are committed to prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the 20,000 gun laws on the books, then we don’t need to even talk about “compromise”. (HELL, THE PRESIDENT’S OWN SON SHOULD BE IN JAIL FOR VIOLATING AT LEAST 5 GUN LAWS!) i for one plan to completely ignore ANY more “compromise” coming from our side.
Dear ontoiran:
“Dialogue,” “conversation” and “compromise” these days consist primarily of “shut up you racist and give me what I want!”
You’re missing my point But no matter. Lives lost by firearms, especially random lives, are collateral damage to keep the 2nd. I find it a tad ironic… the weapons back in the day that the Framers penned the Second Amendment, and from which all current firearm ownership is based, were muzzle loaders. Today they are legal to own outside the purview of other gun restrictions. Seems to me “originalists” should think that the Second Amendment is only concerning the right to own muzzle loaders.
Dear Doug:
I don’t think you really believe that. The Second Amendment is not about specific classes of weapons, but the principle that the right to keep and bears arms is an unalienable right necessary to secure the unalienable right to self-defense, without which rights no other right matters.
Anti-liberty/gun cracktivists often say “if they knew about AR-15s, they’d never have written the Second Amendment.” Nonsense. The Founders, operating on principle, were more than pleased that Americans owned the most powerful military arms of their time, including, unlike what President Biden mumbles, cannon. They would have been delighted to have AR-15s, and understood advancements in weapon technology were rapid and never-ending. These were among the smartest and most honorable people of all time.
“These were among the smartest and most honorable people of all time.”
You gotta be kiddn’ me.
Dear Doug:
That you deny this says it all.
Had you said “.. of their time.” I’d likely give no argument, although common sense might suggest that’s even a bit of a stretch to claim.
Dear Doug:
Name anyone else who created anything remotely like the USA.
It would seem to me that what they “created” is also involved in the complex divisiveness existing today that causing you to write civil war posts. You’re suggesting that “they” (the Founders) created the rules.. and then along came “others” who you decide to declare are not following those rules. Yet, strangely, those “others” are thinking it’s YOU not following those rules. So that leads us to what those rules are, which includes a process for opposing sides to work through compromise together. But your side will have nothing of that, again accusing the other side of not following those rules.
You see, the problem with forms of government is that no matter how wonderful and high-and-mighty the ideological concepts are, it still requires humans to actually make it work… or not. We’ve made the rules work for 240 years so far because we’ve wanted them to work from a faith we had in the process. You see any faith in our government or its institutions anywhere around here these days, Mike?
Franklin might have been pretty spot on with the “..if you can keep it.” remark. But the threat was never from without from the beginning. The guns exist to kill each other… not some outside invader.
So the question remains.. is the Great Experiment over?
No, it’s not exactly over, but some
culling may be in order. Maybe exile or
work camps of course. We pretty
much got the statues; now for the
models.
Got to move before the midterms,
Brother Doug, one way or the other.
You keep them talking.