They Take the Second Amendment First and the First Amendment Second

[Pawpaw]

There's really nothing here that we don't already know, but it sure is a powerful explanation.

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtsch ... d-n2467312

The last two paragraphs sum it up nicely:

It all starts with guns. Liberals hate the idea of you having guns for two reasons. The first is the fact that guns are the tools of free men, and when you have them you have the dignity that comes with the ability to protect your lives and your rights. They want to strip you of that dignity both because doing so will humiliate you and show you who is really the boss, and because they enjoy rubbing your uppity rube noses in your own powerlessness. But of course, you aren’t powerless yet, because regardless of their ridiculous lies about how an armed citizenry can’t possibly pose a military threat to a leftist dictatorship, they know very well that as long as you have your weapons you will never be their slaves.

Once your Second Amendment rights are gone, do you think the liberals will suddenly decide to be more respectful of your First Amendment rights? Or do you think they will accelerate their campaign to strip you of the civil rights that remain the last obstacle to their total control?

[Middle Age Russ]

Collectivists have been working toward destruction of Western society for at least the last century. Theirs is a long game, and we have all seen the way they incrementally go about taking away our freedoms. "Gun control" efforts quite easily illustrate such incrementalism. Incrementally, they took over Education and the media, and now they simply wait for the fruits of these efforts to provide enough useful fools to guarantee a full take-over. The Second Amendment is a bulwark to the rest of our codified intrinsic Rights that we cannot allow to be breached, or we will surely lose protections for the rest of our Rights.

[imkopaka]

One of our members here has a signature line (I can't remember which one, and I think he said it's a quote from his son?) that goes:
"Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second."
I like that quote.

[Excaliber]

A large part of the problem in dealing with these attacks on liberty is that we allow the enemies of freedom to define the terms and then try to fight it using their language.

Notice how they fight the 2A:

- Call a rifle an "assault rifle"

- Give wall to wall media coverage of misuse of guns

- Completely suppress the defensive use of firearms, which heavily outweigh the number of firearm attacks.

- Suggest legal "remedies" that sound logical in the environment created by the steps above.

That's a losing proposition.

To win the fight, start by redefining the language.

"Assault weapons" aren't assault weapons when they're in the hands of law abiding citizens - they're anti-assault weapons.

Try using that next time you're in a discussion with one of the zombies and watch heads explode.

[Jeff B.]

I think it's a mixed bag, you've got your true believers that really and honestly see the Constitution as a relic from bygone days and fervently believe that it needs to be done away with. In favor, of course of their Progressive-Transnational government worshipping society.

Then you've got what the old time Reds referred to as "the useful idiots" who are operating under fantastically misguided beliefs who will find, if the Tranzi's obtain power, that they are no more part of the power structure than the throwbacks who had to be overcome. IMO, most of what we'd refer to as Progressives don't really comprehend what would come from a victory over us crusty old relics.

Jeff B.

[chasfm11]

I think it's a mixed bag, you've got your true believers that really and honestly see the Constitution as a relic from bygone days and fervently believe that it needs to be done away with. In favor, of course of their Progressive-Transnational government worshipping society.
Jeff B.

At the root of that are two things. One is definitely the belief that the government knows better that its citizens. I've tackled that part in "discussions" and have yet to find someone who can defend it. But the second and more scary one for me are the people who have the believe that THEY should control everyone else, what they do and even what they think. They lend their voice to the government control crowd but when there is no government issue, they still want to take over. They just know that others are idiots who have to managed like sheep. I had someone that I thought of as a good friend and with who I worked for a number of years. One day, she just decided that she knew better than everyone. The stuff she spouted afterward was appalling. She wanted to strip me of my right to speak because of my Conservative views.

[cirus]

The time is coming when you will have to make a decision. Do you want to live as a slave or a free man. If you choose the latter then it will mean fighting and possibly dying. I won't live in a world without my freedom.

[bblhd672]

The time is coming when you will have to make a decision. Do you want to live as a slave or a free man. If you choose the latter then it will mean fighting and possibly dying. I won't live in a world without my freedom.

Live free or die is my choice

[Jeff B.]

Sort of along the lines of this discussion... there's another blog that I monitor and comment on every so often, "The View From North Central Idaho" published by a former co-worker, Joe Huffman (who's given me a great tag line) where in a recent post he expands on his belief that anti-gun activists, should and could be prosecuted under 18 USC 241 and 18 USC 242 which prohibit conspiracy to infringe others of rights secured by the Constitution.

He goes on;

The bottom line is that there are, and rightly so, limits to free speech. Those limits in general are, in our country and our time*, set at the point where someone else’s rights are in imminent danger of being violated. The classic “your right to swing your fist ends at my nose” says it more succinctly and less abstractly.

Think about that. The limits of free speech are the point at which someone else’s rights are in imminent danger of being violated.

You see where I’m going now, right?

This is a very clear logical path to prosecuting anti-gun people. Those that object to this logic either don’t regard being able to keep and bear arms as a “real right” or they are being logically inconsistent with those limits to free speech in existing law.

I’m not a lawyer but I’ve read enough court rulings to know that judges will almost always give at least lip service to logic. They may have to fabricate a logic scaffolding that only Rube Goldberg could admire but they will rule in a “logical” manner.

A logically consistent case can, and should, be made that advocating for the restriction of the right to keep and bear arms is no different than advocating for riots and lynching. People can and do die because they were denied their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. It is directly foreseeable that people will be injured because of people abusing their right to free speech.

The logic in my example is far, far less torturous that hundreds of court rulings. It could happen.

What I am trying to do with my “That will come up at your trial,”** quip is to change the culture such that it becomes possible to regard the deliberate infringement of other rights as a punishable offense. Yes, it’s sort of twisted in that I am advocating the restriction of one right to protect another right. It is not “twisted” in the sense that restricting the right to some sorts of speech it does not put people in danger of life or serious bodily harm such as restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms does.

Of course no judge today, or probably even ten years from now, will rule in such a manner. But I want the seeds planted. I want people to ask, “Why aren’t these people violating the law?” “Why aren’t these people being prosecuted?” I want the anti-gun people to pause and think about it.

I want to see the day, perhaps 20 years from now, when people are brought to trial for the crimes they are committing today. By the advocating the infringement of the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms they caused the foreseeable, needless, injuries and deaths of tens of thousands and they should be brought to justice for that.

[Jusme]

One of our members here has a signature line (I can't remember which one, and I think he said it's a quote from his son?) that goes:
"Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second."
I like that quote.

That's me, my son did not come up with that, nor was it mine originally,but I don't recall where I first read it.

This is exactly how every Socialist dictatorship, has gone about turning people into sheep. Disarm them, restrict free speech, religious choice, and the freedom to gather together. Once that is accomplished, any undesirable are eliminated, and history is rewritten.

[Excaliber]

One of our members here has a signature line (I can't remember which one, and I think he said it's a quote from his son?) that goes:
"Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second."
I like that quote.

That's me, my son did not come up with that, nor was it mine originally,but I don't recall where I first read it.

This is exactly how every Socialist dictatorship, has gone about turning people into sheep. Disarm them, restrict free speech, religious choice, and the freedom to gather together. Once that is accomplished, any undesirable are eliminated, and history is rewritten.

That plan only works on those who are ignorant of history.

Those who know history see where this is going and plan and act accordingly.

[TexasJohnBoy]

It's happening now:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/06/politics ... index.html

It's kind of comical how the journalists have a fit at this idea, but a registry of all gun owners is just hunky dory. The double think of this lot is scary.

[Liberty]

I appreciate the irony and love watching the slime squirm, but we shouldn't find database collection by Homeland Security acceptable for either gun owners Journalist or bloggers.

[Jusme]

I appreciate the irony and love watching the slime squirm, but we shouldn't find database collection by Homeland Security acceptable for either gun owners Journalist or bloggers.

Any type of data collection, by a government entity, for simply exercising Constitutional rights, is disturbing. The main differentiation, is that information, posted by journalists, and bloggers, is public domain, for viewing. If there was a database set up to collect private writings, (which I realize already exists) the outrage from journalists, etc.. would garner more sympathy from me. My point was, I would bet that the majority of those complaining, have written opinions, espousing exactly the same type of databases for lawful gun ownership. Stripping someone of their rights, only became a problem for them, when it involves the 1A, not the 2A.