Tired of Facebook censorship? Join Tea Party Community.

Big government establishment republican types are a venereal disease, a gift that keeps on giving. For all the things the left blamed on Bush one thing they apparently have no problem with is the Department of Homeland Security. Homeland, a word that’s meant to sound good and invoke warm feelings. The problem is, patriotism and nationalism are 90% the same thing, but it’s that other 10% that makes all the difference. A “homeland” is actually a concept that is supposed to be alien to Americans. It’s an Orwellian term with Soviet connotations.

So thank you, George Bush. Thank you for giving us Homeland Security. We as a nation have forgotten the lessons of our founding. Justifications for federal authority can always be argued. The nightmare comes later. Now, in the wake of Islamic terrorism in Orlando Jeb Johnson, Secretary of Homeland Security, is declaring gun control a matter of national security. A public official, a bureaucrat who’s job constitutionally shouldn’t even exist, is claiming the Constitution a threat. A sacred right, then one that ensures all other rights, is about to be lost to an issue the is statistically less likely to kill you than lightning (whether you believe the issue is terrorism or mass shootings).

We forget that leftists see us as the real terrorists. I remember the commentary during the Oregon standoff. The number of people who eagerly wanted Obama to simply resolve the situation with a drone. He’s already set the precedent. This is happening, and while a democrat is knocking these dominos down it was a republican that set them up. For the greater good, of course. It is along these same lines that I’m disgusted by some conservatives, the same ones that vociferously defend the Second Amendment, use a copy/paste argument from gun grabbers to support violating the Fourth.

This past week the media has been particularly appalling, the parade of false controversies and the wrong lessons learned in the face of tragedy. Since they have spent much of the last two decades “defending” gays from Christians and “defending” people who butcher gays (or suspected gays) from conservatives their normally twisted logic the last few days has started to resemble old fishing line left in a garage. Only the left could defend the victims and the murderous philosophy responsible while blaming an uninvolved third group, because they are the left’s true enemy.

But one Rolling Stone piece is particularly despicable. Yes, you should always ignore Rolling Stone, they’re not worth it. They suck at music journalism and only get worse as they branch out. But it is worth noting because the simple fact that the subject of the piece is even being discussed shows how far we’ve fallen. The article is arguing for the full repeal of the Second Amendment, but it also concludes by indirectly arguing for the end of the Constitution itself. For tone it begins:

I teach the Constitution for a living. I revere the document when it is used to further social justice and make our country a more inclusive one. I admire the Founders for establishing a representative democracy that has survived for over two centuries.

Ok, so the Constitution is great when used to further leftist buzzwords it doesn’t mention. But did you catch that other part? I teach the Constitution for a living and yet I don’t even know what form of government it creates. The United States is not a democracy and never has been, it is a republic. From there he begins to list the things the Constitution got wrong, I’ll give you three guesses which direction he takes, yet demonstrates the lack of self awareness required to be a leftist as he lists examples of how the Constitution is also self-correcting. He’s also more than a little scant on the details when discussing the darker aspects of our history.

He claims it enshrines slavery, Frederick Douglas would disagree. But the entirety of the Founders were not pro slavery. The fact is the northern representatives lacked the political clout to defeat slavery, which became legal long before we stopped being colonies, when they needed the cooperation of the southern states. As for social justice and equal pay, blah blah blah… this Constitutional teacher simply doesn’t understand or doesn’t care about the document’s intent. The Constitution limits government, social justice leeches off of it.

The argument for repealing your right to be armed takes the familiar tone of the technological advancements in weaponry. So the Fourth Amendment can still be relevant with modern technology but not the Second (although warhawk republicans certainly express a different opinion). However, the idea that individuals in the 1700’s did not have the technology to commit mass murder is bull. For one example, there was no law restricting access to a person who wanted to point a cannon into a crowd, including buying the cannon.

But he’s a statist. He wants the government to have the power to tell you what to do or to load you into a boxcar for processing. The government has access to nukes, tanks, drones, and missiles. If people like the “journalists” at Rolling Stone have their way, you would be defending yourself from tyranny with Guy Fawkes masks and jars of urine.

Gun-rights advocates like to make this all about liberty, insisting that their freedom to bear arms is of utmost importance and that restricting their freedom would be a violation of basic rights.


But liberty is not a one way street. It also includes the liberty to enjoy a night out with friends, loving who you want to love, dancing how you want to dance, in a club that has historically provided a refuge from the hate and fear that surrounds you. It also includes the liberty to go to and send your kids to kindergarten and first grade so that they can begin to be infused with a love of learning. It includes the liberty to go to a movie, to your religious house of worship, to college, to work, to an abortion clinic, go to a hair salon, to a community center, to the supermarket, to go anywhere and feel that you are free to do to so without having to weigh the risk of being gunned down by someone wielding a weapon that can easily kill you and countless others.

The liberty of some to own guns cannot take precedence over the liberty of everyone to live their lives free from the risk of being easily murdered. It has for too long, and we must now say no more.

Interesting logic, abortion kills more people than guns. Those unborn never get to do any of those things. Ignoring the fruity language that clearly got him bullied in school, the Second Amendment doesn’t trump your liberties, it ensures them. Pop quiz, who has racked up a higher body count in the last century? Mass shooters or governments with strict gun laws? Also, safety in this world is a lie. The words they frequently choose to use are quite telling. Feel safe. They want that warm feeling, even when it is meaningless. They argue for background checks, but Adam Lanza stole the guns he used. Doesn’t matter. All that matters is how they feel.

Bureaucrats can’t guarantee safety but they’re more than happy to promise it anyway if it will expand their power. If the ban leftists want magically worked for guns you wouldn’t be any safer. If someone wants to inflict harm, they will. It is only by a miracle that the Boston bombing wasn’t more deadly than it was. You can potentially be killed by a registered democrat at any time, but the left just has to have their feels.

Just think of what would have happened in the Orlando night-club Saturday night if there had been many others armed. In a crowded, dark, loud dance club, after the shooter began firing, imagine if others took out their guns and started firing back. Yes, maybe they would have killed the shooter, but how would anyone else have known what exactly was going on? How would it not have devolved into mass confusion and fear followed by a large-scale shootout without anyone knowing who was the good guy with a gun, who was the bad guy with a gun, and who was just caught in the middle? The death toll could have been much higher if more people were armed.

Supposition. Besides, disregarding for a moment that shooters never pick armed targets but rather look for gun free zones, let’s look at the logic. Mateen shot over 100 people. That means he reloaded more than once. He was there to commit as much carnage as possible. Even if people were tragically caught in a crossfire the fact remains Mateen’s intentional massacre would have been cut short, such as what happened at the mall shooting in Oregon. The person who was carrying concealed didn’t even fire. The shooter saw another person with a gun and committed suicide. Hassan didn’t decide that 13 deaths were enough at Fort Hood. Someone with a gun showed up. And if the idea is true, the Secret Service should disarm so they don’t accidentally shoot the President.

At this point, bickering about the niceties of textual interpretation, whether the history of the amendment supports this view or that, and how legislators can solve this problem within the confines of the constitution is useless drivel that will lead to more of the same. We need a mass movement of those who are fed up with the long-dead Founders’ view of the world ruling current day politics. A mass movement of those who will stand up and say that our founding document was wrong and needs to be changed. A mass movement of those who will thumb their nose at the NRA, an organization that is nothing more than the political wing of the country’s gun manufacturers, and say enough is enough.

The Second Amendment must be repealed, and it is the essence of American democracy to say so.

“Within the confines of the (C)onstitution is useless drivel..” More of the same? He’s right, our current gun control laws will lead to more of the same. Meanwhile people in states that support the Constitution aren’t being led like lambs to slaughter, sacrifices for the left’s dream of a totalitarian state. But Rolling Stone made it clear that it is the Constitution itself that is the problem. Interesting point from a magazine that had a cartoon at the end of Bush’s presidency depicting him dropping it in a shredder as he climbed out the Oval Office window.

I’m supposed to be an Islamophobe, but it’s true that most Muslims are simply trying to live their lives. With Muslim neighbors there’s an off chance they might be a radicalized supporter of ISIS. Not so with leftists. It’s impossible to be a leftist without being a threat to liberty.

Send this to friend