False Choices
By Mitch Berg
I’m trying to imagine the depths of Kamala Harris’s, er, nuance when it comes to civil liberties. Perhaps…:
“It’s a false choice to say you support free speech, or censorship. I am in favor of the First Amendment, and I support a disinformation ban, licensing the press, and Governor Walz’s thoughtcrime database, like when I was born into the middle class!”
Or maybe…:
“It’s a false choice say say you are either for or against the Fourth Amendment. I support the 4th Amendment – and I think cops shouldn’t have to ask for search warrants before tossing your house and car, unburdened by what has been.”
Hmmm. How about…:
“It’s wrong to say you either support or oppose the 5th Amendment. I support the 5th Amendment – but it makes life easier for our First Responders in the County Attorneys office if we presume people guilty until proven innocent, abolish juries and defense counsel”
Oh, was there even a need to guess?
Her principles are, in fact, as convenient as her ethics.
September 24th, 2024 at 7:49 am
High school English skills test: can you read a paragraph or two, then describe in your own words what the writing was about? The subject, the purpose, the intent? That’s reading comprehension, and it’s sorely lacking these days.
Read the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. What were the writers talking about? They were explaining why the colonies were justified in breaking away from England. In other words, it’s a manifesto written to justify overthrowing the government.
The Declaration was signed in 1776 and the Constitution in 1787, eleven years later. Why so long? Because the Founders DID fight a revolution to overthrow the government, then tried an experimental form of government (Articles of Confederation) which failed, before adopting the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution, considered in the historical context, is not about hunting. It’s not about home defense. It’s not about crime. It’s about overthrowing the government. It’s about making sure The People have the means and the power to keep the government in check and if necessary, to end it so they can form a replacement. That was the Founders’ Original Intent.
The Constitution originally applied only to the federal government but after adoption of the 14th Amendment, the protection of the Constitution was extended to cover state government. Any attempt by any unit of American government to infringe or limit the weapons which law-abiding adult citizens might use to overthrow the government, is unconstitutional.
There is no technology clause in the Second Amendment, limiting it to weapons which existed at the time. That would defeat the Original Intent. Whatever weapons the government might use against its citizens, citizens must have to use against it – swords, tear gas, hand grenades, machine guns, anti-aircraft shoulder-fired missiles and anti-tank rocket launchers.
Yes, it’s a terrifying concept, that honest, law-abiding citizens might be entitled to possess weapons of war. The only hope is we raise our children with the moral compass to keep those weapons in reserve for a desperate time, and remove such weapons from those who lack the intellectual and moral fiber to use them wisely – children, criminals, the insane – which means bringing back insane asylums and prosecutors who will do their jobs.
Can it be done? Or is it already too late to save the nation?
September 24th, 2024 at 9:04 am
Regarding Democrats, the Second Amendment, and a proposed assault weapons ban, even beyond the reality that the 2nd Amendment is more about insuring the nation against an aggressive government, you have to wonder what is wrong with a political party whose solution to a problem that gets ~15000 people murdered and somewhere north of that dead by suicide is to regulate weapons that only account for a few hundred of those deaths. Haven’t they ever heard of the Pareto Principle?
I guess the reality is that if they address the major causes of the murder epidemic–the cross border drug trade and inner city gang activity–they end up ticking off their illegal immigrant and inner city constituencies. So it is, as always, pandering for votes.
September 24th, 2024 at 3:31 pm
BB -Democrats haven’t heard of the Peter Principle or they wouldn’t have nominated Kamala Harris!
September 24th, 2024 at 4:24 pm
True, but I was referring to the Pareto Principle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
More or less, you deal with the biggest problems first, unless your goal is simply publicity. Which, IMO, explains the Democrats, because voting progressive all too often means you don’t understand that icky math.
That said, isn’t it amazing that almost all Democrats satisfy the Peter Principle?