|Picard's hand is permanently stuck to his forehead.|
From the online leftist rag that blamed the Paris terror attacks on conservatives while terrorists were executing hostages in Bataclan:
Yet when it comes to guns, we collectively do nothing, except spout off some strained political rhetoric every now and then, that is, after the most recent mass shooting. [Add in prayer here.] Or we dig in and cite our constitutional right to bear arms, which apparently trumps death, even the death of children. There’s a lot of room for debate regarding the meaning of the second amendment. I doubt very much that our “founding fathers” envisioned that right in its current form, but even if they did, it really shouldn’t matter. The framers of the constitution weren’t gods, meaning that their words aren’t—and shouldn’t be—sacrosanct.
We know this intuitively, since we’ve had to add numerous amendments to make up for their failures, lack, or just plain ignorance. But if we can add, we can also take away, by interpreting the Second Amendment differently or passing a new amendment that would effectively repeal it. We should never do so lightly, of course—taking away rights can be, and often is, a risky enterprise. But the purpose of a right should be individual and collective flourishing. A right, in other words, has as its goal the individual and common good, even if we don’t like to use such weighty moral terminology nowadays.Salon, in its infinite wisdom, has advocated the wholesale elimination of the second amendment. Their reasoning is stunningly simple. Our consumer protection officials ban items that are produced that turn out to be harmful. Guns are the most harmful thing produced. Guns kill people. Therefore, we should change and/or repeal (they'd like to repeal) the second amendment so we can ban the production and sale of guns. Unfortunately Salon's stunningly simple reasoning is also profoundly stupid.
First of all, Salon asserts we have made numerous amendments to the Constitution. Do you want to know just how many amendments outside of the Bill of Rights we've made in the 200+ years of our country's history? Seventeen, one of which was to repeal a previous amendment (the 18th amendment that initiated Prohibition). I don't know what definition of "numerous" Salon is using, but seventeen amendments in 239 years is not "numerous."
Salon also seems to think the actual process for amending the Constitution is fairly trivial. It's really not, and they would know this if they had actually read their own source on the subject:
The Constitution contains within itself the process for changing it. The amendment process is described in Article 5. Amendments can be proposed in Congress when 2/3rd of both Houses agree. The states can play a role in proposing changes to the Constitution as well: 2/3rds of the state legislatures must call Conventions to propose amendments. Whether amendments are first proposed by the states or Congress, 3/4ths of the states must ratify (or approve) them before they become a part of the Constitution—the Supreme law of the land.Anyone who actually reads this can tell that amending the Constitution is a profoundly difficult process. Even if you can get 2/3rd of both Houses to agree on something (doubtful) or 2/3rd of state legislatures to agree on something (REALLY doubtful), you still need 3/4th of the states to ratify any amendment. The founding fathers intended for this process to be difficult as a check on tyranny. Salon chooses to ignore this fact of middle school social studies, though.
The Salon piece spends a few paragraphs absolutely insulting the hell out of law abiding gun owners. Essentially Salon implies that every gun owner is a ticking time bomb just waiting for an excuse to go on a shooting rampage. Then we get to the heart of the matter:
The mass shootings that plague us, and the daily individual acts of gun violence and death should, however, lead us to make access to guns more difficult. We should, that is, seek to “control” access to them and their use. But even that’s not going far enough. We should get rid of them, that is, ban them. Guns create too many problems, promote too much fear, and lead to too many deaths to not consider banning them. Perhaps they were necessary at some point in our history, but let’s declare that that time has run its course.There you have it. Salon is all for banning guns because they're no longer necessary. The British aren't coming, so why have guns at all? All guns do is kill thousands upon thousands of people each and every year.
Salon has exposed their complete and utter stupidity regarding the purpose of the second amendment, and its location in the Bill of Rights. See, the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to lay out the fundamental, natural rights possessed by all men and women everywhere. These aren't rights that are given to us by the government, they're given to us by our creator. The government is there to safeguard our rights, but the government cannot take them away. There's no provision anywhere in the Constitution that says "the Bill of Rights applies as long as a majority of citizens wants it to."
The second amendment recognizes that the only way for the citizens to secure their rights is to be armed. An armed populace is able to protect their basic rights from any source of tyranny, whether it be from a majority of citizens, a minority of citizens, or their own government. The second amendment isn't there to protect hunting rights, or allow citizens to participate in gun sports. Dr. Joseph Postell over at the Heritage Foundation posted a lengthy explanation of the Bill of Rights back in 2007.
Now the question becomes how would Salon ban guns exactly? Why by banning the manufacture and sale of guns and ammunition. They wouldn't confiscate guns, oh no, they would just make it so no one can ever use them again. Salon hopes that such a ban would somehow lead to the complete elimination of guns from society, criminals included...somehow. The article is vague on any sort of specifics, of course, because specifics just get in the way of a good, liberal narrative.
And so we end our little romp through the liberal poppy fields with this little gem:
Call me naïve or any number of other things, but my suggestion is no more naïve than most of the arguments that gun advocates trot out on a daily basis.Naive, stupid, moronic, utterly and completely ignorant. I'm going to go with all of the above. Salon has proven themselves completely ignorant of any sort of rational thought process once again.