Just as it is none of the government’s business who peacefully protests in a public setting, First Amendment advocates seem to insist, it is equally none of the government’s business – or anyone else’s – when someone harmlessly exercises the right to keep and bear arms, Second Amendment activists might argue. Do they have a legitimate point?
The Stranger habitually sneers at Second Amendment activists and, exercising the First Amendment right of free speech and the press, clearly advocated placing the “universal background check” restriction on gun owners. The Stranger is a popular alternative newspaper among Seattle’s far left, the folks who overwhelmingly voted for I-594. It was not their right being stepped on.
How many of those attorneys and public defenders and newspaper editorialists voted for I-594? If they don’t understand the parallels between restricting peaceful protest and being photographed by the police, and building records on gun owners, then they shouldn’t be practicing law or pounding keyboards for a living.
Dave Workman
December 12, 2014
Is it time to treat the First Amendment just like the Second?
[Lyle has often said the political left understands how rights are supposed to work. But I think we have sufficient evidence now that is not true. Do you think progressives understand how the First Amendment is supposed to work? Really? If so then explain to me why we are nearly 600 days into the IRS scandal with none of the perpetrators in jail or even indicted?
I do not believe progressives have respect for individual rights. They only claim rights when people engage in activities that advance the cause of the collective. As THE Clint Black tweeted a few days ago:
Your government arms dictators.
Your government arms “rebels”.
Your government arms terrorists.
Your government prefers you unarmed.
How else do you explain this?
Here’s another example: There are about 8000 murders each year in the U.S. that are committed using a firearm. Using the most conservative estimates there are about 80 million gun owners. Assuming the worst case, suppose each of the murders was committed by a different person (way wrong, at Newtown there were 26 murders by just one person) you still end up with the odds of some random (and they are certainly NOT random) gun owner being a murderer in a given year at 0.01%. Yet they insist we should be registered and every time a gun changes hands we should request permission from the government and submit paperwork documenting the exchange. And this is even in those cases where the recipient already owns one or more guns. No rational person can believe this will make society safer so their must be another reason. I can only think of two possible explanations for this behavior:
- These people have serious mental defects.
- These people have evil intent.
In either case we have only unpleasant options available to us.—Joe]
Having serious mental defects is not a deterrent to having evil intent. In fact, the two are probably very complimentary.
I didn’t say the options were exclusive of one another.
If the person holds some government office, I vote “evil intent.” If it is someone’s Sister-in-Law sitting on your sofa all bug-eyed about “the children”, I vote “serious mental defect”, but maybe that’s just my experience.
But remember that the left doesn’t like the First Amendment, either. They only like portions of it, and only if applied to people who agree with them. Freedom of religion, no. Freedom to expression non-socialist opinions, certainly not.
Just look at “speech codes” in Universities. The WSJ has an editorial about that today (reporting that things have gotten a little bit better). A particularly outrageous case was at the University of Hawaii, where people were prevented from handing out copies of the Constitution, because they weren’t doing it in the designated “free speech zone”. The editorial says that the most recent rules are more reasonable — completely missing the point that a government-owned university has no right AT ALL to have ANY rule on speech.
I though I was pretty clear about them having no respect for the First Amendment in my comments.
Yes, you were; I didn’t read everything carefully.
In my experience, when most thinking statists (as opposed to the more common parroting statists) are pressed they will eventually tell you there is no such thing as rights – that the concept of rights, particularly individual rights, is a false construct. The “social contract” is everything with them. (They, of course, don’t see the inherent hypocrisy.) So, no, they don’t have respect for any rights.
That is my experience too. We only have those rights which the collective grants us.
More they don’t see an existence of negative rights. For them .gov is their secular god, and it is all powerful, all knowing, and benevolent (at least to them is particular, they’re fine with malice against all they see as “Other”)
They do believe in positive rights, which are granted and upheld by the government, and those rights are whatever they see fit, from healthcare that turns providers into slaves, and free speech for only those who do “Good” speech as defined by the moment, such as Bill Maher being pilloried for daring to point out the savagery of Islamic extremists. As a “Progressive” he has every right to speak out against the causes of the evil “Other”, but the moment he crossed the line they drew he is off the reservation.
Meanwhile some lines can be crossed with impunity, such as Bill Clinton’s history of rape (be it the violent accusations, or the admitted statutory rape of Monica Lewinski…remember in mandatory sexual harassment training that a superior can NEVER appropriately act in a sexual manor to subordinates as even consent is considered duress to them) or in his blatant homophobic pressing of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” where homosexuals will only be tolerated if they don’t ever hint that they may in fact be homosexuals.
They know exactly how a right is supposed to work, but of course they reject the concept of rights except in isolated cases where it suits their cause. Those are not mutually exclusive.
They know how a right is supposed to work because practically every one of them can make the case brilliantly when pressed on abortion. That’s proof. Absolute proof. That they know HOW a right is supposed to work, and don’t ever actually advocate any real right being treated that way, makes them even more guilty. You’re giving them the ignorance defense. I’m being rather more harsh in their prosecution.
Do hatred and willful ignorance cloud the Progressive brain? Absolutely. Does the average Progressive have the ability to understand AND competently assert the concept of a human right? Absolutely. Are Progressives opposed to human rights? Absolutely (and that would be a fairly good definition of Progressives right there). All three are true, which makes them more evil that you’re giving them credit for.