Progressives seem to get through high school and college without taking a single civics course.
Do they know why the judicial branch exists? Have they ever read the Constitution? Apparently not.
Gun control advocates continue to spout the ridiculous argument that when the second amendment was written the authors were referring to “muskets.” This is false. It is false now and it was false at the time the second amendment was written. Rifles existed at the time. Of course, the folks making this argument don’t know the difference between a rifle and a musket. The founders understood “arms” to mean the arms used by the infantry, they did not single out muskets or rifles. The intent of the amendment was an armed population capable of defending not only themselves but their communities and the country. Flintlock rifles and muskets were what the infantry carried at that time. Now the infantry carries fully automatic rifles. A civilian population today armed with flintlocks would not be of much use if called to defend the country. Of course, those making this argument never say what they believe the intent of the amendment was. I find that telling.
A few hours ago, news broke that Japan’s former Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, was assassinated. Apparently, the assassin used a homemade firearm. So much for the “ban all guns” argument. The technology to build a center fire metallic cartridge firing weapon is about 200 years old. Anyone that wants one can build one. Oh – and by the way – civilian ownership of firearms is pretty much entirely banned in Japan. I’m sure you are all as stunned as I am that Japanese law didn’t prevent this tragedy.
Then again, red flag laws and “assault weapons” bans didn’t stop the Highland Part shooter either, so there you go.
The social media warriors are very upset that the court decided that the second amendment is not a “second rate amendment” and that the law should be applied objectively rather than capriciously. Contrary to many opinions, those of you that don’t want to carry a sidearm don’t have to.
A very well written piece on Medium explains what so many get wrong about the court’s recent decisions. As this piece describes, what the court has done is relinquish power back to the states and the legislature(s). This is the opposite of a power grab; it is a clear win for democracy.
I shared this little gem with some friends several days ago. This is a fairly typical “straw man” screed from an obviously left-wing source. Here’s what it means to be conservative according to this writer:
- “Democracy? Of course, that’s target #1. It is just getting in the way, at least for now, until we can replace it.
- The rule of law? No, we’re going to ignore centuries of bloody history and restore the rule of man over the rule of law. It worked out well with insane King George, why not try it again with insane King Donald?
- Social mobility? Let’s get rid of that pesky “American dream” that anyone can be successful if they work hard enough. It’s no longer operative, the winners are in place — permanently — so the rest of you should just get used to it.
- Basic safety-net services like many other countries enjoy? These simply reward laziness. “You people” need to pull yourselves up by your own bootstraps!
- Diversity, liberty, personal safety, financial stability? Forget about it!”
The most generous term I can find for this is “bullshit!” I know a lot of conservatives – a lot – and I don’t know a single one that any of this is true of, not one. So, this is either an intentional mischaracterization, or an example of stunning ignorance.
The ongoing outrage from the left falls right in line with this characterization though. That it is completely inaccurate does not seem to concern them in the slightest.
The next big outrage for the left is a case for the next term of the court wherein the court is to decide whether on not state legislatures have the authority to select Electors in a presidential race. Sorry progressives, the Constitution is already clear on this, but feel free to look over Article 2, section 1.
Charles C. W. Cooke, writing for National Review, argues that progressives are really upset about now having to make law the old fashioned way – through the legislature. My cynical side thinks this is really what animates the left more than the specific topic of abortion.
For many decades, as Cooke points out, progressives have gone to the judiciary and said, “do something!” (Charlie’s words) when they could not get what they wanted through the legislative process. Those days (for now) are over and that is what the left finds terrifying and outrageous (in my opinion). Progressives will now have to negotiate and compromise and craft legislation with broad appeal (just as the founders intended). That it is terrifying to progressives that legislation must have broad appeal says a lot about progressives.
The court, as currently constituted, is conservative. That means the court finds itself bound by written law and the Constitution. Yes, that is a conservative position, not a radical one.
Conservatives can not be radicals. The terms are mutually exclusive.