Random thought of the day

Considering the downside of the The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, and various religious based genocides it is extremely clear the risks associated with the First Amendment far outweigh the risks of the Second Amendment.

If anyone wants repeal the Second Amendment because we are “more civilized than that” or some such utopian fantasy point them at the genocide and beheadings going in Iraq right now and suggest we need to repeal the First Amendment as well because freedom of religion obviously leads to barbarism.

If they then wanted to repeal both the First and the Second Amendment and you gave them a swirly in response I would vote not guilty if it made it to trial and I was one of the jurors.


7 thoughts on “Random thought of the day

  1. Don’t push this. It’s how things operate in Europe. You might have seen claims that there is freedom of speech in Europe; don’t believe it, it isn’t real. Given that the socialists in Washington like the European model so much in other areas, you can rely on them wanting to import this aspect as well.

    For example, the Dutch government is on record that “there exists no right to insult”. And consider all the censorship of Google and Amazon by various countries. And consider that in most or all of them, the government has the authority to ban political parties — I’ve never been able to figure out what, if any, limits there are on that power. Or take a particularly outrageous example, the Dutch constitution that states explicitly that the courts have no authority to judge the constitutionality of any law. It’s bad enough to have a Constitution that’s ignored all too often, as we do here; it’s worse to have a constitution that by its own words is meaningless.

    • Maybe we can send a message to the Dutch government saying that their statement is an insult to freedom-loving people around the world, so STFU, or we won’t come and play the next time they find themselves in a jam with people who don’t like the freedoms the Dutch DO like.

      And just as we can always find a violation of one of Cooper’s Four Rules in every firearm negligent discharge, every problem around the world is attributable to one or more of the freedoms enshrined in the First amendment. Speech? Press? Assembly? Pettition? Religion? In every part of the world where there are flames and death, one or more is abused (In the interest of brevity, the specifics of each I leave as an exercise for the class). Gee, it’s almost as if base people cannot govern themselves.

  2. Certainly the first amendment exists because so many governments were known by the founders to suppress speech, claiming that certain kinds of dissent, or the unchecked spreading of ideas can be too dangerous. Same with arms of course, and etc., the underlying tenet of the founders being that rights are bestowed upon Man not by Earthly rulers but by God.

    Without that fundamental belief that rights are inherent in Man, in each person individually, none of this works. The statists’ belief is in “liberation” from this very concept– They seek the “freedom” to order society, and to dispense or withhold “rights” as they see fit. It’s really that simple. Your argument holds no water with the statist, as it’s nothing but a means to deny them their “freedom” (to coerce).

    Speaking directly to the religion clause; the Moslems’ primary tenet and goal it seems is that of state religion, that the state religion must be Islam and all others outlawed and exterminated. That puts their version of Islam in direct conflict with the first amendment of course. It’s an interesting contrast– The Judeo/Christian culture in America authored the religious freedom clause, while the current crop of murderous Moslems demands the opposite of religious freedom.

    Also underlying the Bill of Rights, and as stated in the Declaration, is the established fact that governments, in their insatiable lust for power, tend to become destructive of rights. It is a given. Axiomatic. Like gravity, it is a constant.

    Naturally, the maneuvering for power involves lies and distortions. And here we get to the motivation for your post, which is your frustration over the fact that so many people believe lies and your desire to make it stop.

    Try this. Plant the little mustard seed. If anyone wants to repeal the Second Amendment because we are “more civilized than that” or some such utopian fantasy, simply inform them that they have been deceived, and as such they are participating in and helping to spread a lie. Leave it at that. Don’t explain it. If they press you, tell them to ask you next week. Eventually they’ll get back to you.

    “No government ever tried to disarm the people out of compassion.”

    The lie of course is about the motivation. It has never been about crime or safety (except for the safety of the corrupt). Ted Bundy never walked up to a young woman and told her straight out that he wanted to rape and kill her. No, he concocted a sophisticated web of lies to get the woman under his control, THEN it was entirely too late for the victim to ponder the meaning of words and appearances.

    Ted Bundy was a politician. A rock star in the eyes of his prey. You walk up to him and the woman he just met (she absolutely adores him) and you start verbally attacking him, she’s gonna hate you, thinking YOU are the scumbag here, not this darling, wonderful man. BUT, you may have a chance to save her life by saying “No gentleman would ask a woman to get into his windowless van alone with him after first meeting her.”

    I don’t think there’s much point in fashioning clever arguments. If the simple, plain, sometimes shocking and maddening truth doesn’t work, nothing ever will.

    • So the whole, “They hate us for our freedoms” thing is partially a misnomer.

      They hate us for our restrictions on what government can do; it cannot establish a state religion or prohibit free exercise of any religion, it cannot limit free speech or the free press, or the ability to assemble or petition. And because it cannot do these things – things which they desperately need done in order to manifest themselves as superior – it is anathema to their cause and must be destroyed.

  3. Pingback: "The risks associated with the First Amendment far outweigh the risks of the Second Amendment." - The Gun Feed

  4. Pingback: Quote of the day—Femitheist Divine (Krista) | The View From North Central Idaho

  5. I’ve used this very argument when people say…”Well, books don’t kill people.”
    I just state that the victims of those inspired by The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf would disagree.

Comments are closed.