Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Progressives Push for New “Right”: The Right Not to Bear Arms

Progressives Push for New “Right”: The Right Not to Bear Arms

Move to make the Second Amendment “moot”

Obama has stated that the “most frustrating part” of his presidency has been his inability to pass gun control legislation, and progressives are not going to give up on their gun grabbing goal any time soon.

The Washington Post has published an article by E. J. Dionne entitled “How American can free itself from guns.”  Dionne argues, much as Eric Holder did, that the key is to change the American mind about guns.

Watch Eric Holder explain how we need to “brainwash” people against guns:

Dionne doesn’t use the word “brainwashing,” but he makes the same comparison to public service messages about cigarettes.  He writes:

That’s why the nation needs a public service offensive on behalf of the health and safety of us all. It could build on Sandy Hook Promise and other civic endeavors. If you doubt it could succeed, consider how quickly opinion changed on the Confederate battle flag.

My friend Guy Molyneux, a progressive pollster, laid out how it could happen. “We need to build a social movement devoted to the simple proposition that owning handguns makes us less safe, not more,” he told me. “The evidence is overwhelming that having a gun in your home increases the risks of suicide, domestic violence and fatal accidents, and yet the number one reason given for gun purchases is ‘personal safety.’ We need a public health campaign on the dangers of gun ownership, similar to the successful efforts against smoking and drunk driving.”

Continuing on in this vein, the focus shifts from public services messages that change American attitudes to the creation of yet another new “right”:

“The best way to disarm the NRA rhetorically is to make the Second Amendment issue moot,” Molyneux said. “This is not about the government saying you cannot own a handgun. This is about society saying you should not have a gun, especially in a home with children.”

Molyneux said his approach “does not imply giving up on gun control legislation.” On the contrary, the best path to better laws is to foster a revolution in popular attitudes. And this approach would finally put the rights of non-gun owners at the center of the discussion.

Non-gun owners should have the “right” to live in a country that doesn’t include the Constitutional right to bear arms.  You know, that pesky Second Amendment.

Instead, progressives will be pushing for a new “right”:

The nation could ring out with the new slogans of liberty: “Not in my house.” “Not in our school.” “Not in my bar.” “Not in our church.” We’d be defending one of our most sacred rights: The right not to bear arms.

They already have that right, of course.  No one is forcing anyone to bear arms; they just want to force us not to.

Jonathan Keiler writes:

The left is busy designing a new and seemingly absurd civil right, which threatens to undermine an actual right under the 2nd Amendment. This new “civil right” is to live in a society free of guns and/or “gun violence.” Bolstered by the success of the gay rights movement, anti-gun activists are already attempting to impose gun control by urging the federal government to force states to impose regulations under federal civil rights and disability statutes, by filing civil suits under the same theories, and by pursuing dubious appeals to public health (as in the anti-tobacco crusade.) They hope activist judges will further manipulate the 14th Amendment and statutes derived from it, to impose countervailing rights to that of keeping and bearing arms. Like the gay rights movement and the campaign against cigarettes, the focus will be on victimization (at the expense of personal choices and responsibility) in the expectation that American political views on guns will “evolve” over time with the helpful analysis of elite experts and unelected judges. Eventually the 2nd Amendment, hopes the left, will become effectively irrelevant through a combination of judicial fiat and the mobilization of suitably brainwashed polity.

. . . . Add to this . . . the ongoing public anti-gun “wellness” campaigns (beginning with the indoctrination of kids), and (should it happen) another Democrat administration beginning in 2016, and our rights under the 2nd Amendment may come under an unprecedented threat.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

free people own weapons to protect themselves and their property.

slaves don’t own anything.

molon labe.

Not A Member of Any Organized Political | August 15, 2015 at 2:07 pm

I want a new right –

the right to not have to suffer progressives (really regressives),leftists, communists, socialists, or their clones – the Democrats!

“We’d be defending one of our most sacred rights: The right not to bear arms.”

Fine. I support you in that right!

You wanna be a sheep, I’m good.

Just let me be the sheep dog. (But that’s not permissible, is it…???)

Remember: Collectivists HATE the Bill of Rights, and they’re coming out of their cover now.

    Juba Doobai! in reply to Ragspierre. | August 15, 2015 at 4:02 pm

    Let them come. They will discover that the bullet is more piercing than the word.

    Miles in reply to Ragspierre. | August 19, 2015 at 3:07 am

    I could care less about the ‘sheepdog’ part. That implies I have some fiduciary duty to those sheep.

    I plan on helping take care of me, mine and my ‘tribe’. most of which are already heavily armed.

So Obama and his family, and Bloomberg and his, are going to start with the “right” not to be protected by people with guns?

Let Obama disarm the secret service, and Bloomberg fire all his bodyguards, and all anti-gun Hollywood types ban any of their entourage or protectors from carrying, and then maybe we’ll talk. Maybe.

Okay, probably not even then. But still. It would be nice to see them walk the walk once in a blue moon.

The nation could ring out with the new slogans of liberty: “Not in my house.” “Not in our school.” “Not in my bar.” “Not in our church.” We’d be defending one of our most sacred rights: The right not to bear arms.

Heh. Heh again.

    Juba Doobai! in reply to Amy in FL. | August 15, 2015 at 3:54 pm

    Those are the slogans of bondage.

    Waiting in the wings are the Muslims whose desire is to put America under the flag of Islam. They are playing the soft game now because they know we are armed. Look at how Oda Dakhlalla, the father of the MI terrorist wannabe played his neighbors with food giveaways, even as he wore the garments that spoke of his refusal to assimilate. Take away our arms, and we will discover what people in the UK and Europe are experiencing, Islamic savagery close up.

    Frankly, I trust guns more than I do politicians.

      There’s a reason they have car-b-ques in Paris, France and not Paris, Texas.

        Fiftycaltx in reply to Amy in FL. | August 16, 2015 at 8:13 pm

        I carry a handgun wherever I go and I have an AR in the trunk of my car in case someone has a case of sudden jihad syndrome. I don’t know any cop or armed forces member that is in favor of going door to door to “pick them up”, like the destestable Finestein advocates. Like they say, “dying ain’t a good livin’, boy”.

Eastwood Ravine | August 15, 2015 at 2:42 pm

If one things for certain, the NRA and others shouldn’t back down. If they’re aiming for a public messaging anti-gun campaign, there should be a campaign to counter it. We don’t give up until we give up.

From my cold dead hands.

I’m mature enough to concede that in a lot of America’s urban centers, there has not historically been a right to bear arms in actual practice; it was a privilege reserved for the truly elite. The epidemic of violent crime, which is considered to have abated in recent years until the last two or so, convinced large swaths of the population that they needed to carry, whether legally or not. (Legally was considered preferable.) I’m referring to otherwise law-abiding citizens – of course drug dealers have a dramatic incentive to carry. Even people without guns try to rob them.

Public opinion hasn’t stayed the same. It’s moved in the direction of personal protection and it hasn’t been particularly close. For that matter, I have the feeling that every time people feel the government will ban new gun ownership, they want to get theirs before it’s too late… being accustomed to irrational government action as they are.

    Juba Doobai! in reply to JBourque. | August 15, 2015 at 3:50 pm

    The anti-gun push has been part of the history of those who support KBB/PP. It is essentially genocidal in nature, and was not about the elites, but about the minority. Southern blacks knew what Northern blacks didn’t get—the gun was the only line of defense between them and the KKK’s burning cross and rope. If you look at the history of anti-gun legislation in this country, it was all about denying blacks the right to bear arms to defend themselves against whites who would kill them.

    The wave of criminality in the black community has flowered not because of the Second Amendment, but because of the moral disintegration of that community and of America itself thanks to Democrat policies. It was Democrat politicians—hello, LBJ!—who legislated the means to destroy the black family. Where acting against the Second Amendment would not work, welfare would. They sowed the wind; now we are reaping the whirlwind, and they are still keep ing their eye on the endgame—outlawing guns so that not only blacks but all Americans would be unable to defend themselves against the State.

    History is fascinating. Plus ça change….

nordic_prince | August 15, 2015 at 2:52 pm

Okay – I am hereby claiming another new civil right: the right not to live in a country with stupid, progressive idiots (redundant, perhaps, but just trying to cover all bases).

Oh – and my civil right trumps theirs. If they don’t like it, too bad. They can stock up on Depends ~

The right to self-defense is unalienable, not a privilege. It follows from the unalienable right to life. It’s not just the “Second Amendment” that is threatened by a prohibition policy.

    Juba Doobai! in reply to n.n. | August 15, 2015 at 3:41 pm

    KBB/PP and the Democrat party says you have no inalienable right to life. Since the right to self defense is a corollary of the right to life, then, it must follow that they want your Second Amendment right disappeared—just like you will be, if they get their way. That’s why today’s youth are so bloody dangerous. They are ignorant of their inalienable rights and willing to cede everything so their feelings won’t be hurt.

    DaveGinOly in reply to n.n. | August 16, 2015 at 4:34 pm

    Been telling gun people that for years. The Second Amendment is convenient, but unnecessary. Without mentioning the Second Amendment, I can run rings around an anti-gunner. And the right to your life/right to defend your life/right to the tools necessary to effectuate the defense is where I start.

Holder, like Obama, lacks the historical background of black Americans who knew the necessity of guns for protecting their lives and liberty against the terrorist wing of the Democrat party, the Ku Klux Klan. Ask Condi Rice and Clarence Thomas about these things. Holder and Obama? Their ancestral experiences were different.

Eric the Red

As college student, Eric Holder participated in ‘armed’ takeover
dailycaller.com/…/as-college-sophomore-eric-holder-par…
The Daily Caller
Sep 30, 2012 – Website of Ivy League school’s Black Students’ Organization told of raid that forced university to rename ROTC office after Malcolm X.

What we really need is to reestablish the militia where every able bodied honest citizen is expected to carry concealed weapons. They would be ready and able to deal with Muslims butchering our citizens and oppose progressive fascist tyranny.

If you need justification for having every citizen in good standing carrying concealed weapons you should read:

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/day-of-wrath-william-r-forstchen/1120168786?ean=9781625781543

smalltownoklahoman | August 15, 2015 at 5:34 pm

Why would they want to ban the second amendment when it allows us to have awesome stuff like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPD6ZsVdux8

Heh, just popped up in my feed today and I felt this would be a great place to share it!

Australia is a beautiful country; its Constitution, adopted in 1901, is modelled upon ours, with most modifications being only to adapt the Constitution to a parliamentary system. There’s another big difference: *Australia’s Constitution has no Bill of Rights.*

That is why the Gov’t could and did ban centerfire weapons, after an incident known as The Port Arthur Massacre. This was carried out by a crazy man, but it was the excuse necessary for the Australian Government to carry out their ban. After the ban, supporters say “gun violence” dropped; critics say, “murders, robbery & theft went up.” There is now, and probably will be forever, debate on which statement is true. Many police agencies changed the way crime statistics are reported (coincidence?) so it’s hard to tell. Anecdotal evidence says crime went through the roof, but those are just whiners, right?

I love Australia & Australians, but I love our Constitution more. There are a lot of things any of us say here in the USA, that simply wouldn’t ever be printed/heard/seen in a newpaper, magazine, radio, TV in Australia- or which would land you in gaol!- because there isn’t a First Amendment, just like there isn’t a 2nd. Gotta be careful critizing politicians, when just saying they’re a crook (even with evidence!) can land you in stir!

For the above reasons and many more, when they come for my guns: Molon Labe! (Holder can kiss my arse.)

    Wasn’t a blogger there taken to court and found guilty of “racism” after pointing out that a lot of the fair-skinned, blond-haired blue-eyed people winning prizes and positions set aside for “aborigines” didn’t look very, um, aboriginal?

    Basically, our Professor Jacobson and other writers could be sued for comments mocking Lizzie “Person Of Color” Warren’s “high cheekbones”-based self-identification as Native American.

    It’s also a good example of a country where universal gun registration led to universal gun confiscation… which is something our “elders and betters” claim could never ever EVER happen!

    Ragspierre in reply to Eskyman. | August 15, 2015 at 6:36 pm

    You know what’s funny…???

    One of the most articulate, reasoned, influential and passionate voices for the Second Amendment in the US is that RINO establishment hack, Charles C.W. Cooke.

    Oh, and he’s a fer’ner, too!

    Ain’t that ironic…

    genes in reply to Eskyman. | August 16, 2015 at 12:57 am

    Some Aussies object.
    https://youtu.be/1geyoxeifk0

    DaveGinOly in reply to Eskyman. | August 16, 2015 at 4:58 pm

    I’m not an expert, but I’m willing to guess that Australians didn’t lose their firearms for lack of a bill of rights, or a 2nd Amendment analog. They lost them because their constitution (if it is like ours, one of enumerated powers) authorized the government to take them. If their constitution didn’t authorize the taking, and they do have a constitution of enumerated powers, then the taking was unconstitutional, even in the absence of a tradition of a “right to arms.” No law or bill of rights can prevent a government willing to break the law from doing what it wills.

    Your post implies that our Bill of Rights is essential to our liberty in general and to our right to arms in particular. Not so. Although it’s been handy, the true bar to certain government acts is lack of enumerated authority, because our Constitution most certainly does restrict government authority to the powers enumerated in the Constitution. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights confirms it is not the true bar to the acts it seems to prohibit (take a moment to look it up and read it – I’ll wait).

    A review of the history of the passage of the BOR will show that many were actually opposed to it because they thought it would create two mistaken and pernicious beliefs – first, that unenumerated rights don’t exist (answered by the Ninth Amendment – which is why I hate to hear people go on about “made-up rights” – all rights are “made-up,” it’s just that some of them have been written down), and second, that in the absence of the Bill of Rights, the government would have the authority to do the things the BOR appears to prevent them from doing (when the actual bar is lack of enumerated authority to break into citizens’ rights). This latter belief leads to the further mistaken belief that, for instance, repealing the Second Amendment would abolish the right to arms. A person pronouncing this theory couldn’t be more wrong. The right to arms doesn’t exist because of the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment exists because of the right to arms, which, according to our founding principles, existed before the existence of any government or bill of rights.

Eric Holder is a proven domestic enemy of the United States of America and was chosen as AG for that express reason.

Communist agitators infiltrated Black Liberation Theology like a cancer and it’s doing what it set out to do.

While his boss, BHO, thought he had the knife to finally decapitate the soul of this nation, it appears he was sorely mistaken.

Henry Hawkins | August 15, 2015 at 6:49 pm

I don’t care what any of them do. At some point they have to start taking weapons owners have refused to turn in voluntarily. Molon labe, m-er f-ers. Abrogation of the Bill of Rights is civil war material to me. I suspect I am not alone in this.

    They can take my shotgun right after I run out of ammo…

    Bruce Hayden in reply to Henry Hawkins. | August 15, 2015 at 10:12 pm

    w

    Bruce Hayden in reply to Henry Hawkins. | August 15, 2015 at 10:31 pm

    My iPad doesn’t play well with LI. And, hence my previous post.

    I agree that trying to take the 2nd Amdt from us would be grounds for armed rebellion. But I think what is missed by those trying to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, is that the other side has most of the guns and most of those trained to use the guns. Military, former military, police, etc, are more likely gun owners than the general public. A generation ago, it seemed that gun ownership may be phasing out. Not any more. Shooting sports are ascendant. More and more people are discovering that shooting is fun. And once you taste the gun culture, it is very easy to get passionate against gun grabbing and gun grabbers. Seen it time and time again, liberals getting talked into going out shooting, and before you know it, they are turning into gun nuts, and going off the reservation i with gun grabbing. (Though they are probably less likely to stockpile guns and ammo).

    Sanddog in reply to Henry Hawkins. | August 16, 2015 at 4:02 am

    I don’t know any law enforcement officer in my county stupid enough to knock on my door and demand my firearms. The vast majority wouldn’t comply with an order for confiscation just based on their support of the 2nd amendment and the others would decline out of sheer self preservation.

      TX-rifraph in reply to Sanddog. | August 16, 2015 at 8:12 am

      I think this is why the Dems are trying to destroy local police and sheriff departments. The federal Police (O-Stasi or Obama-stasi) would take orders (EPA, BLM, HLS, etc) where loca pds will not. Disarm the citizens (Chicago), crime rises, local police ineffective, send in the feds, crime stats drop (lies of course), and what will the disarmed citizens do about it? Become subjects to the king.

“The evidence is overwhelming that having a gun in your home increases the risks of suicide, domestic violence and fatal accidents…”

They haven’t been winning in the courts or in the legislatures lately, so the answer is to tell more lies. Yeah. That’s how to make the world a better place!

    Almost word-for-word out of the long-ago debunked Kellermann “study”. The evidence that they claim is not “overwhelming”, it’s non-existant. For example, Kellermann counted Grandpa’s WWII souvenir German Luger, in his old Army footlocker down in the basement, as ‘a gun in the home increasing the risk’. Pathetic. For the record, Department of Justice figures show that active, armed self-defence results in the _lowest_ chance of injury to a crime victim. The highest chance? Total, passive surrender.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to irv. | August 15, 2015 at 9:11 pm

    I wouldn’t give a shit if Kellerman’s bullshit study were entirely true – when I hear glass breaking and the dog yipping at 3 am, I want more than my d**k in my hand when I go out there in defense of my family and home. And dog.

    This is what liberals don’t get – even if you totally outlaw guns, people are still going to own them. All you’ve accomplished is to criminalize ownership. Our guns will still be right f**king here – we’ll just hide them from you.

    Anyone not hip to guns, ask a machinist how hard it is to make a revolver or shotgun.

      Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | August 15, 2015 at 9:56 pm

      With 3D metal printers it’ll be even easier.

      All my guns were stolen. Tomorrow.

      Damn shame…

        No problemo, for them. After all, you’ll never be able to purchase anything firearm related ever again except for cash, “and why do you make regular cash withdrawals, comrade?”

      smalltownoklahoman in reply to Henry Hawkins. | August 16, 2015 at 8:59 am

      Another good point to add to people still owning guns: if the fed can’t stop the flow of illegal drugs across our southern border then how in the world are they going to stop arms and ammunition? That’s just the southern border mind, add in the Canadian border and the thousands of miles of coastline and it becomes darn near impossible for them to keep anything out that the American people really want. It’s sad that the regressives seem hell bent on not learning the lesson of prohibition. Banning a popular product will not make demand for it go away. If anything it places the responsibility of production and supply of that product in the hands of dangerous people whom most folks would not normally associate with (Capone for prohibition, various criminal gangs for drugs and guns).

I think that we need to remain vigilante, but I a nothing to stay up late worrying about the left imposing their right not to be around guns on the rest of us. The right to keep and bear arms is an enumerated, fundamental, Constitutional right. This has been established by Supreme Court precedent. Deprivation of this right by govt employees, etc would be the deprivation of civil rights, and, thus actionable under our civil rights laws. When the people pushing this ridiculous theory start getting hit with nice judgements, I suspect they will sit up and take note.

I think we are starting to see this sort of dynamic, this type of push back, against the campus Yes Means Yes response to the bogus campus rape epidemic. The male victims here are starting to sue more and more, as they are falsely “convicted” of sexual assault in campus kangaroo courts. And they apparently are winning a surprising number of cases. And the more they win, the easier it will be to win in the future.

The people who believe in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms are far more zeleous than those on the other side. So, it won’t be the least bit difficult keeping this issue in the courts. And, yes, holding the politicians who get sucked into it accountable.

    “I think that we need to remain vigilante

    Freudian slip? 😎

      Duke of URL in reply to SDN. | August 16, 2015 at 10:26 am

      “Vigilante” made me laugh out loud!

      Bruce Hayden in reply to SDN. | August 16, 2015 at 9:29 pm

      Again a problem with commenting with my iPad. It has a very bad habit of guessing what you mean, and then confirming the guess when you hit “space”. The interesting thing here is that it was almost Freudian.

    Char Char Binks in reply to Bruce Hayden. | August 16, 2015 at 1:22 pm

    Vigilantes aren’t always bad. Usually they are, I’m sure, but sometimes circumstances force good men to take extraordinary action. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Long sleeve shirts for all

Zelsdorf Ragshaft III | August 15, 2015 at 11:33 pm

I’ve just got to wonder how long it will take the left to figure out in a civil war, it is better to be on the side of the people who are armed, in some cases heavily? The Communists figured out some time ago they could not win a revolution in America so they got sneaky infiltrating our schools and media, now there in government. But revolution is still the solution, but it is the solution to them. During the Russian revolution firing squads were busy. I suggest we need to put progressive professors and their ilk up against the wall first.

Indoctrination coming soon to a school near you, if it isn’t there already.

Give it 15 years and EVERYONE will be demanding that the 2nd Amendment be repealed.

As Per their SOP the anti civil rights leftist start at a far end of the spectrum and try to find agreement. Killing babies caused by rape is something that is universally agreed upon, right. Sure, so killing babies is OK. At that point the debate is lost. The fact is the people thru their elected govt have the power do define life, and ways to protect life. That is indisputable.

Just like guns. Surly we can agree to keep guns out of houses with children right? Except almost every house in America has children in it sometime. The facts that more children die in home swimming pools than home guns, doesn’t sway the leftist. Swimming pools aren’t even constitutionally protected in the bill of rights.

The bigger point is. If we concede, and allow govt has the POWER TO RESTRICT GUN POSSESSION. Then the matter of degree is no longer constitutionally protected.

And why not education? With sex, it is vital that !st graders understand homosexual acts, so as not to be biggoted. Why not the same with guns. Don’t prohibit them. Educate the little ones starting in pre school with 3 year olds.

Education is something even leftist can support, am I right?

    Fiftycaltx in reply to iowan2. | August 16, 2015 at 8:41 pm

    You can have your own opinion, just not your own FACTS. FACT: More than 60% of the population OPPOSE banning abortion. FACT: NOTHING, short of a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT can make abortion “illegal”. FACT: Anti-abortionists know these FACTS and just keep SUCKING MONEY out of the “true believers” pockets and line their own pockets with the proceeds. FACT: NO amendment “banning” abortion exists.

    So if a womans ability to chose to have an abortion offends your tender sensibility, MOVE!

“Not in my house.” “Not in our school.” “Not in my bar.”

They sound just like the racial segregationists.

Progressives (actually Regressives) depend on people’s ignorance of history and evil. The people will then believe that abstract groups (white males or the USA) are the cause of all evil. And, Utopia is such a nice place if you are unaware of all the bodies and suffering. The useful idiots in the French Revolution felt the victory upfront and close when their heads rolled but then it was too late for them to apply the lesson. Do not expect the useful idiots to learn. Some colonists wanted to remain under the King. Those who wanted liberty, armed themselves. The founders knew the two different groups and I thank God they did.

Oh my yes! We’ve all seen how wonderfully effective “public health campaigns” have been against cigarettes (NO-one smokes them anymore), drunken driving (Completely eliminated), unprotected sex (AIDS and syphilis have vanished)…

And yet, it is the Brady ‘A’ states have that the most murders, both by gunshot and other means.

The Brady Campaign’s rating is inversely proportional to the likelihood that someone is going to shoot you, intentionally or otherwise. That out to tell anyone just how effective their methods actually are at achieving their stated goals. It gets to a point where either their leaders can’t understand their own statistics, or they do, and are being dishonest about their actual goals.

Of course people have the right not to bear arms … as long as they don’t infringe on my right to bear them.

I carried a concealed pistol to a doctor’s appointment for the first time today. I’ve avoided doing so up ’til now, because many physicians have been brainwashed with Harvard Medical School pseudoscience on the subject, and I wanted to avoid a pointless argument on the topic on my time. I broke down and carried today because I knew there would be no disrobing, and the clinic is situated within the most culturally vibrant part of Seattle. It wasn’t a problem; not a single progressive even knew I was armed.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend