Good day all. The founders of the Greatest Nation ever seen, the United States of America, wrote the Constitution of the United States to restrict the power of the government. However, they saw a few possible holes in it and then wrote the first 10 amendments to the Constitution called the Bill of Rights.
The first of these amendments is called, unsurprisingly, the 1st Amendment. It provides protection from the government in a person’s exercising of their religious beliefs. It also protects people’s right to speak their minds or peaceably assemble.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
They also understood that the people of this great nation might one day find themselves under a tyranny, and so they wrote the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, which provides the people the right to keep and bear arms.
Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed..
This amendment has been hated by those who would enslave the American People. The governments of the several states and the Federal United States Government have repeatedly passed laws to suppress the 2nd Amendment. The current President* has stated that he doesn’t believe the 2nd Amendment does give the people the right to keep and bear arms, and has also stated that he would like to ban most if not all of the firearms currently in the hands of the Citizens.
It’s not just a certain group of politicians, (Democrats), who want to see the 2nd Amendment ended, the so called “Main Stream Media” who rely in the 1st Amendment, have also been calling for the suppression of the 2nd Amendment. One of these is a newspaper in New Jersey, The Star-Ledger. Their editorial board recently published a commentary calling the 2nd Amendment a “Curse.” Since the editorial is paywalled, I can’t refer to it. However, Fox News has also written a story about the editorial. Here are their details from Fox News:
The editorial board of a major New Jersey newspaper recently claimed that the Second Amendment “is a curse.”
The Star-Ledger published an editorial on Tuesday titled, “The Second Amendment is a curse,” which railed against Americans’ gun rights, claiming they’re making it difficult for state lawmakers to enact gun safety measures, like gun free zones.
The piece argued that while the Supreme Court and pro-Second Amendment lawsuits make it harder for New Jersey to pass gun control, “300 people” are “shot every 24 hours” in the U.S.
Since I am not able to read the actual editorial, I will have to rely on the Fox News article about it. Now, I am assuming that the Star-Ledger didn’t bother to mention that most of those people doing the shooting are probably criminals, who have lost their right to keep an bear arms, and are in the process of committing another crime. A few of those shootings are armed citizens shooting back and the criminals.
The editorial began with the board slamming the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to strike “down a more-than-century-old state law that restricts the right to carry a concealed handgun in public.”
If I recall my history correctly, the Sullivan Act was put in place primarily to prevent immigrants from having guns. It was also selectively enforced. If you were white, had money and were in the right social group, getting a license was not a problem. For anyone else? It wasn’t going to happen.
The board lamented how the court’s decision has made it easier for lawsuits to dismantle any attempt by the New Jersey governor to “sharply limit where guns can be carried in New Jersey.” The board said, “Where you have fewer guns and stricter laws, you have fewer gun injuries and deaths, research has shown. Yet while most people are solidly on his side, the law may not withstand legal challenges.”
That is not actually true. In places where you have Constitutional Carry, you actually see a major decrease in crime. Why is this? It’s simple really. An armed citizen who is being victimized, or witnesses someone else being victimized, isn’t going to worry about the rights of the criminal. They’re just going to do whatever it takes to stop the criminal, up to and including shooting them. The tyrant of New Jersey is fully aware of this, but he is a Progressive Liberal Totalitarian Democrat who thinks that people have no rights, just privileges granted to them by their masters.
The piece then invited readers to imagine a society where establishing gun control wasn’t hard. It provided the example of Canada and its pro-gun control activist leader, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, as the embodiment of this ideal place.
Trudeau has turned Canada into a virtual police state and the only reason he hasn’t been assassinated is that the Canadians are both to polite and to beaten down. In case the Star-Ledger editorial board has forgotten, Trudeau’s answer to truckers protesting his Covid restrictions was to go full on martial law.
It said, “Now imagine a world where we didn’t have to struggle with this. You don’t have to look far for inspiration: There it is, just north of our border, where Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is almost reaching the point of banning gun sales in Canada.”
While I don’t follow the goings on up there, I also hear that the western provinces have just about reached the point of rebellion with regards to Trudeau’s actions. Now if you want to imagine a world with no firearms in the hands of private citizens, allow me to provide some examples, both current and historical.
- The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Nazi Germany - Cambodia
- The People’s Republic of China
- North Korea
- Cuba
- Iran
That’s just a few of the countries that either did not or do not allow their citizens to be armed. How did and is that working out for those people?
The editorial added, “They have no Second Amendment, no constitutional right to gun ownership. Guns are treated the same as any other consumer good that the government can regulate.”
You like that idea so much, move there. No one will stop you. Many will wave goodbye as you leave.
It then blasted the rationale behind the Second Amendment, stating, “The core rationale is that we need guns for self-defense, but what we have is a public policy in which nearly 49,000 people a year are killed by guns and nearly 400 million firearms flood our streets – more than one for every citizen.”
The board further described this idea of guns for self-defense as a “fanatical interpretation of our Second Amendment” and claimed that the country has a “fetish with gun culture.”
I assume these elitists live in gated communities and work in locations that have armed guards or police on site at all times. They’re also morons who won’t consider the estimated number of defensive uses of firearms per year. It’s running about 1-3 million times a year that a firearm is involved in a defensive situation.
Now that doesn’t mean the gun was actually fired and a criminal shot. Sometimes just the act of displaying it causes the criminal to run away. I know of three cases, all within walking distance of the Anger Central Primary Dwelling where a firearm was used but no shots were fired.
One was a gas station/convenience store where someone came in with a knife and tried to rob the night clerk. He pulled his gun, the criminal dropped his knife and ran away. Another case was in the parking lot of a hospital. A carjacker got into the passenger seat of a car and threatened the driver. The police were called and found the driver pressing a gun to the head of the carjacker.
The third instance was an older gentleman walking from the local supermarket who was attacked by three miscreants. This one was amusing. The older gentleman punched the first attacker in the mouth. He then kicked the second one in the groin and then drew his concealed pistol and smacked the ringleader in the jaw with it.
The police arrived and found him sitting on the ringleader. The other two miscreants had staggered off and were later captured. The gentleman in question? He was a retired Marine. I understand that police were laughing hysterically at the security video that caught the whole thing. In all three cases, not one round was discharged.
The board further described this idea of guns for self-defense as a “fanatical interpretation of our Second Amendment” and claimed that the country has a “fetish with gun culture.”
It compared America to Canada one last time, stating, “Now even Canada finds its level of carnage unpalatable, and is embracing real change in 2023. If only we could summon the will do to the same. But no: On this side of the border, gun safety is just another broken resolution.”
As I said before, if they like Canada’s way of doing things, move there, become citizens and give up your American citizenship. Not only will you no longer have to worry about the 2nd Amendment and privately owned guns, you won’t have to worry about free speech, freedom of the press, being secure in your home and papers, (4th amendment), or any of those other pesky things in the Bill of Rights.
This is what these Progressive Elitists fail to understand. The 2nd Amendment was written so that the people would have the tools they need to protect all the other parts of the Constitution as currently amended, as way as remove a tyrannical government from power, if needed.
I am assuming that the writers of that load of crap they call an editorial all voted Democrat and consider themselves to be good Progressives. As such, they are probably racists, they think that anyone who is not in their “circle” is inferior, and have no problem with forcing people to provide free labor for any “cause” the government and the Progressive Elites find worthy. In other words, they have no problem with slavery, as long as they are the masters.
It will be interesting to see what other cases hit the Supreme Court regarding the 2nd Amendment. It’s not impossible that someone will challenge the National Firearms Act. There has only been one challenge and it was never properly adjudicated. If such a case hits the Supreme Court, you might just see an end to the NFA and all the gun laws affecting honest, law abiding citizens. Won’t that cause the Star-Ledger’s editorial board to load up their underwear?
Thatisall
(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...
~The Angry Webmaster~
