Friday, March 23, 2007

Parker Decision Driving The Loons To Drink

"I was enjoying watching these liberal anti-gunners writhe in pain like a vampire exposed to sun light. Like a glutton, I wanted more. So as I perused the leftist commentary I must admit I was surprised to see an article in The New Republic by Benjamin Wittes that took a completely different stance than the other alarmists. You see Mr. Wittes realized something that the others had not. The Second Amendment might actually mean what it says. But his solution to dealing with it meaning what it said was, to put it mildly, disturbing to me.

Wittes wrote:
    “It's time for gun-control supporters to come to grips with the fact that the amendment actually means something in contemporary society. For which reason, I hereby advance a modest proposal: Let's repeal the damned thing.”
I will give Benjamin points for at least being honest about the desire on the left to not only take our guns but destroy the Second Amendment if at all possible, though repealing it is hardly what I would consider a "modest" proposal. Especially since I think it is just the sort of thing that might well spark a civil war. For many years Congressman Major Owens (D-NY) introduced legislation to repeal the Second Amendment. He did not make much progress with it. The liberals preferred to ignore the Second Amendment and pretend it was an outdated anachronism that meant nothing in modern times rather than take it on directly. Now, with the Parker decision, some folks on the left like Mr. Wittes will at least contemplate that the Amendment actually means what it clearly says and it still holds as much force as when it was written.

I have exchanged emails with Mr. Wittes. They have been pleasant. I pointed out to him that repealing the Second Amendment won’t have any meaning legally as the Second Amendment is the recognition of a right which predates the constitution. In fact, Judge Lawrence Silberman even wrote into the decision "That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution..."
Which is what we keep hammering home. The fact that all the 2nd really does is recognize a right, not ENABLE or CREATE one. The Parker decision has the anti's in such an uproar its unbelievable because they fear the worst coming to pass. The previously disenfranchised becoming powerful by doing nothing more than exercising an established right to do so. Keeping them barefoot and pregnant was the next best thing to slavery, and of course poor, so lets do things like ban inexpensive firearms by labeling them Saturday Night Specials and have the obliging media pronounce to the world that this somehow makes them more dangerous than that Glock the beat cop is carrying. Once the yellowstream media has the public fearful of a thing once thought to be necessary and commonplace, the door is open to so very much MORE.

The web has become chockerblock with pro and con responses to Parker, all this on the heels of the Zumbo fiasco, and then an idiot RINO named Sean Hannity has the balls to say that Democrats aren't after guns anymore, and that gun control is a dead issue, just to make Julie Annie appear palatable. Sometimes, when my imagination is running wild, I wonder if clueless Hannity types are really that, and not lefty plants.

Seriously now, what Conservative DOESN'T know that the democrats are once again looking to take away our guns? What Conservative doesn't worry about Gun-Grabber-Julie, and rightfully so?

And when has a bigtime talk show host ever done something like a 2nd Amendment Carnival?

Don't we have enough of a hard time fighting the lefty's without having to worry about our supposed own kind?

Here's hoping the Parker decision leads to more sanity from the bench. Here's hoping that a real Conservative gets the nomination to run for President in '08. And you know what?

Here's hoping the fat-cat Conservatives stay dumb and cluefree. I for one don't want anyone as stupid as a Hannity defending something as sacred as the Constitution.

No comments: