Some helpful suggestions


In yesterday's post I pointed out that it is a very good thing indeed that the Hard Right is taking on the regressive Left on the issue of gun rights - by outflanking, out-memeing, and out-triggering our buddies over on the left side of the aisle. They really do not like this treatment, and some of them, the less crazy ones anyway, are beginning to realise that banging on about gun confiscation and the outright repeal of the Second Amendment is actually a really stupid political strategy in a country with over 70 million gun owners and over 330 million firearms.

Even so, it is important to ensure that our attention to this vital issue does not lapse or flag. For the fact is that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental, was given to Mankind by the Creator Himself, and cannot be taken or removed by any government unless you let it.

With that in mind, here are a few ideas for helping our liberal friends deal with their severe hoplophobia.


Idea the First: Support the Left's Attempts at Gun Control

No, I haven't lost my marbles. I didn't eat something odd for breakfast, unless you have issues with an avocado & banana smoothie with full-fat yoghurt, half & half, a scoop of whey protein, and peanut butter - which is extremely delicious, by the way. And I did not undergo an emergency ironioctomy between yesterday and today that excised the thinking half of my brain and thereby turned me into a liberal.

The idea is to follow Napoleon Bonaparte's (alleged) maxim, and essentially avoid interrupting our enemies while they are in the middle of committing a catastrophic error.

Let us have Paul Joseph Watson explain the basic reasoning:


By all means, let us support the Parkland students and their hilariously inept quest to secure ever more gun control. Let them preach their nonsense to anyone who will listen. Hell, let's give them their own soapboxes to stand on.

The reason is simple: the more that they talk, the more that they call for law-abiding citizens to be disarmed and thrown in jail for having the gall, the bare-faced cheek, to own a gun... the more the mood of the country hardens against them.

In the 1994 midterm elections, President William Jefferson Clinton took an absolute beating at the hands of an electorate that utterly loathed his gun-control agenda. (Not to mention, having to listen to his pinch-faced shrill-voiced gratingly evil demon-in-human-shape of a wife, the Hilldebeast, is enough to turn any sane man's stomach.)

He cost the Democrats more than fifty seats in Congress by signing into law the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act - known colloquially as the partial assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.

It is worth noting, parenthetically, that not only did the Assault Weapons Ban and other similar laws categorically fail to reduce gun violence in any meaningful way, but it has also been 14 years since that partial ban elapsed and was not renewed. And guess what: overall deaths by gun violence, including those committed with so-called "assault weapons" (which in reality are almost never anything of the sort) have been trending downwards for most of the past 20 years.

If liberal loonies everywhere want to crucify themselves on a ban on "assault weapons", then by all means, we should encourage them to do it. Americans are not like their European forebears - a large segment of this country still believes that, while it is the government's duty to protect its citizens, it usually does so fairly badly and is generally a bit tardy about doing so in terms of everyday policing and safety. So therefore it falls upon the individual citizen to look after himself and his loved ones.

Which, if one spends more than, oh, five seconds thinking about it, is exactly how it should be - because that is how God Himself intended it to be.


Idea the Second: Prosecute Gun-Grabbers for Seditious Libel

This one comes via our friends over at Men of the West. Lector authored an article yesterday in which he pointed out that the recently penned op-ed in ПРАВДА The New York Times was, quite simply, outright seditious libel:

By calling for the alienation of inalienable rights, and by calling for the destruction of the very foundational agreements that formed our Government, John Paul Stephens has committed Sedition. He is guilty. He should be arrested, tried, convicted, and punished. Freedom of Speech does not include the freedom of Seditious Libel. It is one thing to criticize a government or a government policy. It is another to call for the wholesale destruction of the formal agreements that formed our country.

Our rights do not come from government nor nature. They come from our Creator. Thus our rights cannot be stripped of us. They are unalienable. If they are alienated from us, the entire fabric of our government has been destroyed, and the government has been changed to the point that it is no longer the United States.
The Second Amendment is uniquely American. Those who do not support the Amendment, and those who openly call for the repeal of it, are not Americans. They are traitors. They are treasonous tapeworms leeching the freedoms that patriotic men and women have bled and died for; freedoms that the tapeworms are unwilling to bleed for themselves.


Now, this might seem a bit strong even to those of us on the Hard Right. Let me explain - mansplain, really, because I'm a shitlord and we like doing that - why it is perfectly appropriate.

First, it must be made clear that the right to free speech is not unlimited.

The right to free speech absolutely does guarantee freedom of assembly, conscience, religious worship, and the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. That is because the right to free speech supersedes government authority, as it comes to us directly from a loving and benevolent Creator who wishes for us to use that right that He gave us, to find our way back to Him.

But that right does not permit individuals to blaspheme against the Name and the Law without consequences. It does not permit individuals to call for acts of violence against their fellow citizens. It does not permit individuals to seek out the ability to strip other citizens of their rights - which, if you think about it, is merely advocacy of violence against others.

Most especially, that right to free speech does not permit its user to say whatever the hell he wants, free of all consequences. The right to free speech is balanced, as all rights must be, by equal and opposite responsibilities.

And any man who uses his right to free speech to argue that the rights of others should be stripped by the government, in defiance of the Laws of God, must face the consequences of his words.

As I wrote yesterday, the Bill of Rights is not negotiable or open to interpretation. Not one single word of it is unclear or ambiguous in any way. It means exactly what it says right there in black and white.

Therefore, those who call for the removal of the Second Amendment - which enumerates the right of free citizens to keep and bear arms, and as such guarantees that all of the other rights of free men are withheld from the government by force of said arms if necessary - are also guilty of calling for the removal of other rights from free men and women.

In other words, they advocate for supposedly free men and women to become slaves.

One can argue that this takes things really rather too far. After all, there are plenty of other nations around the world with very tight gun control laws - most of Europe is like this, as is Israel, for that matter, and therefore it is downright stupid to argue that people living in those countries are slaves.

I will give you a simple two-word response:

Count Dankula.



Free men do not have to worry about being imprisoned for mildly stupid and somewhat tasteless jokes.

Free men do not have to worry about having their rights stripped from them because they have the temerity to argue that Syrian "rapefugees" are actually a REALLY BAD THING now that they're invading Europe en masse.

And free men do not have to worry about being attacked in the streets by hordes of hysterical feminists and their white-knight orbiters for the "crime" of meeting up to have a few beers and engage in a good old-fashioned bull-session with their fellow men.


Not One Inch More

I am not American. I was not born in this country. I may well have to leave it fairly soon. (More on that in a later post.) I am not white. I am not Christian (though I attend church regularly nowadays.) I did not attend high school in this country - by the time I got here I was in my early twenties and was here to do my Master's degree.

So it is a source of never-ending mystery to me that I seem to have a firmer grasp of the Constitution of the United States of America, and the specific intent of the Founding Fathers, than most Americans my age and younger.

The Constitution was created to guarantee specific rights to the Federal government, and reserve all of the rest to the States and the citizens. Obviously, that original intent has long since been watered down almost to nothingness in the two hundred and thirty years or so since the ratification of the original document. But one right remains that guarantees the existence of all of the others, and prevents the both the regressive Left and the hyper-religious elements of the Right from reducing the rest of the country into conditions of absolute despotism.


Comments

  1. minor quibble:

    "The Constitution was created to guarantee specific rights to the Federal government, and reserve all of the rest to the States and the citizens"

    Not exactly, though I understand the spirit in which the quote is offered.

    The Constitution was created to reserve specific POWERS to the Federal government for the purpose of securing the rights of the people; and reserved all remaining powers to the States and citizens.

    The Constitution was intended to outline specifically what the Federal government can and should do (and what it was specifically prohibited from doing), solely and only to enable and empower the people to live, worship and work in liberty, and to govern themselves. It has failed, because we have failed to govern ourselves and because we have discovered we can vote ourselves goodies from the public treasury. Well, everyone except white working men can get public goodies.

    Happy Good Friday to you and yours, Didact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Constitution was created to reserve specific POWERS to the Federal government for the purpose of securing the rights of the people; and reserved all remaining powers to the States and citizens.

      Fair point. I stand corrected - you are right, the Constitution is very clear that certain powers are reserved to the Federal government and the rest belong to the individual States and the people.

      Delete
    2. Even that's not quite right. There are direct powers reserved to the federal legislature, yes, but something that people - especially libertarians and neo-confederates - usually miss is that the format for presidential power is different. He, rather than just express powers, has as much or more in the way of listed responsibilities, the powers to meet which must be inferred. Example: "Take care that the laws be faithfully executed." What does that mean? Well, among other things, it means that while congress and only congress can declare war, he is still required to wage war on his own ticket to defend the territory of the United States if invaded or fallen under a rebellion or he cannot take care about the faithful execution of the laws in those areas.

      Delete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Popular Posts