Reasonable Restrictions

The Liberals and Progressives do not truly believe in the absolute authority of the Constitution. They, in their quest to disarm large segments of the American citizenry, constantly strive for there to be enacted “reasonable restrictions” upon the 2nd Amendment.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

– US Constitution, 2nd Amendment

Liberals and Progressives just can’t seem to understand the meaning of either, “the People” or “Shall not be infringed.”

To be fair, social conservatives & the religious right have an equally poor understanding of, “Bear arms” and “Shall not be infringed” when it comes to queers and women in the military.

The Left is, not wholly undeservedly, shocked and appalled by the violent crime rates in America and the force multiplier that firearms provide to the criminal classes. Hence, they are more than willing to violate the natural rights of Americans in order to provide the appearance of greater security to the people as a whole.

[sic]…if there is a step we can take that will save even one child from what happened in Newtown, we should take that step.

– Barack Obama
January 14, 2013

This is, at its core, a case of consequentialism trumping deontology. It is also a case of blaming the tools for actions of those who use them. Worse, it doesn’t even begin to address the underlying problems of violence and crime within America’s borders.

Their logic would be better used, insofar as utility and effect is concerned, by apply the Liberals’ and Progressives’ pogrom to the “Black Community.” Blacks, who only make up approximately 13% of the US population, are disproportionately represented in the “criminal classes.” They consistently account for:

  • 50% of the homicides;
  • 45% of the violent crimes;
  • 39% of the overall crimes in the US;
  • and 28% of the repeat / career criminals.

Given these figures, if “reasonable restrictions” are going to be placed upon Constitutional rights, America would be far better served by restricting the freedoms enumerate in the 13 Amendment as opposed to the 2nd Amendment.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

– US Constitution, 13th Amendment, Section 1

America could slash its crime rate, especially its violent crime rate, by simply utilizing penal servitude and putting the criminal Blacks back in chains and putting them to the work that Americans instead rely upon illegal immigrants and foreign labor to perform.

Upon Some Freedom Is Worse Than Wasted

Even better, unlike the Left’s attacks upon the sanctity of the 2nd Amendment, no such attack upon the 13th Amendment is needed. It already contains the exception that the government, be it Federal or State, continues to have the right to hold slaves if such slavery was enacted as a punishment for a crime.

If there is a step we can take that will save even one child from what happens regularly in Chicago, we should take that step.

– jonolan
June 03, 2013

There is no reasonable and/or rational doubt that, if we’re to abridge the liberties enumerated in- and protected by the Constitution for the laudable sake of public safety and security, such abridgements need to be effective. Returning those Blacks who cannot or will not become a viable facet of American society to slavery would be vastly more effective than trying to disarm law abiding American citizens.

And, once again in order to drive home one the more salient points of this argument, these proposed “reasonable restriction” on the freedoms Blacks enjoy thanks to the 13th Amendment don’t require that the amendment in question be changed or violated.

Are You Offended?

If you’re an American – or a total foreigner to America reading this article from afar – and you’re offended by it, I’m glad; it’s an utterly offensive though, likely, effective idea. Conversely, if you’re on of America’s domestic enemies, the Liberals and Progressives, you’ve neither the right nor the privilege of being offended by it as this is just the application of your own logic to a different Amendment of the Constitution than the ones you and your sort normally attack.

Related Reading:

Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress
Batman: Black and White Vol. 4 (Batman Black & White)
Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change
Pocket Constitution (Text from the U.S. Bicentennial Commission Edition)

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

4 Responses to “Reasonable Restrictions”

  1. FX Phillips Says:

    Kinda of reminds me of the kerfuffle Bill Benett ignited by citing(in order to refute it’s premise) not advocating but citing a book which made the claim that crime rate could be reduced by promoting abortion in the black community.

    The left use of the precautionary as usual is selective and morally obtuse. Especially from a group that routinely advocates for the “constitutionally dubious rationalization of the elimination of 1 million plus children.

    Their moral blindness doesn’t end there as they leave those children that they champion post mortem defenseless in the face of such wackos as Lanza and Holmes by punishing those who might be able to intervene.

    Keep in mind part of the cynicism here is they want more tax dollars so they create demand for police and their support structures by creating an ambiguous(permitting and the grand jury) process which curtails your ability to protect yourself. Of course they then hobble the police in their abilties to do their jobs and point to this subterfuge and label it a “failure” and that more money must be extracted to solve the problem they have created by increasingly cynical fixes.

  2. Alan Scott Says:

    The Constitution is not the only thing under attack. But that attack on the Constitution cannot happen with out a parallel attack on the English language. The word infringement needs to be defined. It basically means to encroach in a gradual way. Every politician who takes an oath to defend the Constitution should also take an oath to defend the definition of the words contained there.

    A closely related word to infringe is abridge, which means to reduce or lessen. I argue that word should be added to the second amendment because obviously infringe does not mean the same as it did two centuries ago.

    Our government plays word games and is supported in misleading us by a lapdog press. Holder misinforms Congress about knowing about wiretaps and his defenders say he did not lie. Issa calls Jay Carney a paid liar and they say he went too far. Parsing misleading words to say they were not lies is now the rule.

    Next English lesson. Anyone who intentionally misleads or misinforms is a liar.

  3. Soylent Green Says:

    Look on the bright side. Since the Supreme Court doesn’t like the Constitution favoring “the people” over government either, the police can get Tre’Shawn’s DNA.
    I feel safer already.

  4. jonolan Says:

    FX,

    Yes, that’s all true. It more and more seems that the Left’s agenda IS the “browning of America” and the subjugation of the makers, most of whom are White, to the Takers and Eaters, most of whom are “Brown.”

    To those ends the Left seems to be willing to sink to any level of cynical manipulation.

    Alan,

    Yep! It comes down to language, which shapes thought, and America’s domestic enemies’ willingness to- and skill in redefining and (mis)defining various terms and phrases.

    Soylent,

    Yes, despite your sarcasm, I find that to be a benefit. Of course, I have little or problem with law enforcement being able to gather DNA evidence.

Leave a Reply