The Second Amendment,. like the first amendment is included in the the first ten amendments to the Constitution, which clarified the rights of individuals. For those that aren't up to speed, it's called the Bill of Rights.
For some reason, many in politics and the media can't grasp the concept of rights, except in certain situation or only for those they consider important. For instance, the media will defend the right of free speech, which is explained in the First Amendment, but act as though the right to keep and bear firearms, which is explained in the Second Amendment is negotiable and think nothing of reporting restrictive gun laws as though a fundamental right - spelled out in the Constitution - is some philosophical item for discussion.
So is it irony, or hypocrisy? I think it's both, but that's not the problem. The problem is that the right to keep and bear firearms - like all rights - is a right that can't be changed for the whims of the ignorant or devious. It's a right and that's what every reporter, pundit, politician, or anyone else, should be using as the focus for their discussion. Until that right is changed by the methods defined by the Constitution, any discussion is moot. It's a right and it shall not be infringed.
So is it irony, or hypocrisy?
ReplyDeleteNo it's duplicity.
...or sedition. Considering the efforts of many progressives is to divide the nation and subvert the Constitution, there is no better explanation for their conduct.
ReplyDeleteThe press doesn't even defend the 1st Amendment all the time. I don't remember anyone getting particularly outraged over the arrest of the maker of the infamous internet video which supposedly caused the mayhem in Benghazi. The press seems to have already begun bargaining away that right, too. Free speech is now whatever Pwesident Pwecious says it is.
ReplyDeleteAll politician should be forced to take a constitutional test. Of course, they can't be the ones to create the test. They'd screw it up and find out a way to cheat.
ReplyDelete