Liberal Logic Demands Supporting Second Amendment

Liberals who want more gun control will tell you they support the Second Amendment. They will tell you that nothing they are doing will interfere with people and their right to keep and bear arms. This is a lie because the things they enact infringe. Maryland is a prime example where the Nazi Governor and his minions have imposed unconstitutional gun laws that restrict law abiding people. The tragedy is that these gun laws will do no good which will lead to calls for even more gun control.

Liberal logic (if you can call what liberals use logic) demands supporting the Second Amendment.

In light of this week’s revelation that the Department of Justice has obtained phone records from the AP the media is up in arms and there will be backlash. The first thing to note is that what Justice did might not be illegal under the law.

But what they did is much larger in scope than anything that has happened before and though the reason given is to find the source of a leak the reality is it gives the appearance that the First Amendment right of the media has been violated. It looks like Justice is trying to intimidate the media (in this case specifically the AP but indirectly all media) and is sending a message that it will go through huge amounts of records to get what it wants.

The media are out discussing how this took place and expressing their outrage while those at the AP have expressed anger, shock and disbelief. They feel their communications are being monitored and that their rights have been violated.

They have the support of conservatives who are also wary of these kinds of government tactics. In other words, conservatives support these organizations in their belief that even if it is legal to do (and that is a questionable thing right now) the idea of trampling on a right is sickening.

I only wish the media and other liberals outraged by the AP records scandal felt the same way about other rights. When other rights are violated, particularly if the violations affect conservatives, the liberals say it is OK and justified. Look at how the former head of the NAACP and others have reacted to the IRS violations of the rights of conservative groups. They have said that it is OK because those groups are racist. First of all, they are not racist BUT even if they were they have the same rights as everyone else.

Racist groups like the KKK, the Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers all have rights and those rights should not be violated just because we do not agree with the message.

Once we start rationalizing the violation of our rights it becomes easier to rationalize other violations until pretty soon we have no rights left.

The left loves to push gun control even though most gun control laws violate the Second Amendment. They rationalize that it is for safety or for the children or that no one needs certain types of firearms. This allows them to continue eroding our Second Amendment right until the judiciary is comfortable removing those rights based on what we have allowed to creep in.

I wish that these liberals would be as outraged by the violation of the Second Amendment as they are at the alleged violation of the First. We on the right support ALL rights and do not like when any of them are violated. It is high time the left jumped in and supported us the way we are supporting them.

Perhaps they now know how those of us who believe in and support the Second Amendment feel each and every day as we battle the forces of evil that are hell bent on denying us that which has been endowed by our Creator. Perhaps, but I won’t hold my breath.

So the AP scandal shows that liberals, if they actually had any integrity, would fight for the Second Amendment (and all other rights) as hard as the one that affects them the most.

Interestingly, the Gosnell abortion/murder case gave Harry Reid the chance to show why there should be less gun control instead of more.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell was an abortion doctor who murdered babies born alive and performed late term abortions in violation of Pennsylvania law. He was found guilty of murder and a number of other charges and will spend the rest of his life in jail.

Harry Reid wants us to believe that pro life supporters have forced women to go to clinics like the one run by Gosnell. He says that people have been pushed into holes like that clinic because of people who picket abortion clinics. Reid also blamed this all on restrictive laws.

He believes that having less restrictive abortion laws would have prevented the murders Gosnell committed.

Interestingly, Reid and his ilk are the ones who think that MORE restrictive laws will curb gun violence. Yes, to Reid and other gun grabbers more restrictive laws will stop gun crimes but less restrictive laws will end the crimes like those committed by Gosnell.

If we were to apply Reid’s logic to gun ownership (and publicly carrying them), then we can conclude that less restrictive laws will prevent more gun crimes. In fact, this has actually been proven time and again.

Reid is incorrect about Gosnell. We do not need less restrictive laws for abortion. The crimes committed by Gosnell had nothing to do with laws being too restrictive. They had to do with this; First Gosnell is a monster. Second, Gosnell performed late term abortions (after the time PA says they can be performed) so women who waited too long or did not know went to him because he would do it. They went to him because he would skirt the law.

His clinic was not filthy because of laws that are too restrictive and he did not have all those aborted kids in containers because the law was too tough.

His clinic was in that condition and he was doing what he was doing because it was not inspected by the government agency responsible for ensuring medical businesses are clean and operate according to established law (and medical standards). The Health Department (or whichever agency PA has given the task) did not make unannounced visits to ensure his clinic was clean and up to standard. Less restrictive regulations would not correct this and it did not happen because people protest abortion clinics. It happened because the laws in place were not followed; the laws requiring health inspections as well as the laws regarding late term abortions. Any inspection at any time would have caught these problems early on.

Keep in mind; they were only brought to light because a woman died at his clinic because of his negligence.

Harry Reid is wrong because his root cause analysis is wrong. He is right that less restrictive laws would lead to fewer problems if this were applied to gun control because that has been shown time and again. Criminals do not obey the law.

Gosnell got away with his crimes because the state did not enforce the law (which, by the way, is why many gun crimes happen).

So the media is now positioned to defend rights. Good, defend them all and apply the same standard to the Second Amendment as to the First.

Harry Reid is now on record saying less restrictive laws would lead to fewer problems. Good, beat him and the other anti gun zealots over their heads with Reid’s words. Make them apply the same standard he wants to apply to abortion. He might be wrong about why they happened but there is no doubt he believes fewer laws would mean fewer problems.

It is ironic how all of this has come to light at this time.

I think it is quite possible that these items (including the IRS scandal) were made public (and Reid commented on Gosnell) because they want to draw focus away from Benghazi.

I have read a lot of liberal sites where they are calling the AP scandal the only real scandal of the Obama regime. If the left can get the public to believe the AP phone records scheme is the only scandal and then later show Justice acted legally then the other scandals (which are REAL scandals) will be swept away.

I do not put anything past these criminals but we should use their words and deeds to our advantage. Who knows, maybe we can change their minds and get them to see where they have been wrong. We might be able to make them leave the liberal plantation.

Hell, a few pro abortion folks have changed their views after the horror of Gosnell.

And David Axelrod now agrees with TEA Party folks that government is too big.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

3 Responses to “Liberal Logic Demands Supporting Second Amendment”

  1. Real Deal says:

    Sadly enough for the Leftist/Progressive telling them the Government is wrong is a kin to telling a devout Christian God is wrong. For the Progressive Government is their faith, their religion, and the manna falls from the hands of Government bureaucrats. Obama as the head of thier church is justified in smiting his political enemies in their minds.

    Either Obama is incredibly incompetant or he knows exactly what was going on. I believe its the latter, and even if he came out and said he personally authorized the IRS, EPA, and Justice to target conservatives the Leftys would only cheer him. Even if he said “I ordered the stand down of our rescue forces and then went to sleep.” the Progressives would say “What are you Cons so riled up about?” They’d even happily swallow the AP thing if he said that the only records we those AP members suspected of being TEA Party members.

  2. Blake says:

    BD, you should do a post on the life of Margaret Sanger, the “mother” of Planned Parenthood, and adherent of Eugenics. Why do you think most PP clinics are placed in poor neighborhoods?