Never Put The Bill of Rights on a Graduated Scale


Screen Shot 2013-01-17 at 8.38.11 PM

I’ve seen Facebook statuses from some of my liberal friends that go like this: First Amendment ≠ Second Amendment. : No. There should be equal advocacy for honoring the entire Bill of Rights in American political discourse. : Only liberals seem to put things on graduated scale. : It makes things more palatable to their base to swallow, and allows them to trim the fat in order to win elections. : In other words, like solving a puzzle, liberals use as many pieces as it takes to ensure victory, and disregard the rest. : You can see this with the controversy surrounding Obama’s recent cabinet appointments. : They’re all white men. : Not to say that there’s anything wrong with that, but given that single women were instrumental in the president’s re-election; they must feel screwed. : Alas, so much for the so-called “war on women.” : It’s not like we didn’t tell you that this was a giant marketing ploy to scare uninformed millennials from Mitt Romney, who actually hired women (14 out of 33 senior -level appointments by the way) from his binders when he was Governor of Massachusetts. : However, I digress.

With liberals, like Alex Wagner, putting the Bill of Rights on a graduated scale is the only intellectually honest way of abolishing the Second Amendment altogether. Wagner admitted to this on: Bill Maher’s Real Time in 2011.

Bill Maher, HBO: “Let’s ask Alex. What would you change in the Constitution?”

Alex Wagner, Huffington Post: “Well, I’m going to be pilloried for this. I think get rid of the second Amendment, the right to bear arms. I just think in the grand scheme of the rights that we have; the right of assembly, free speech, I mean, owning a gun does not, it does not tally on the same level as those other Constitutional rights. And being more discreet about who gets to have a firearm and right to kill with a firearm, I think is something that would be in our national interest to revisit that.”

However, as Victor Davis Hanson of NRO, and PJ Media,: wrote today:

To the Founders, the notion that individual citizens had recourse to weapons comparable to those of federal authorities was a strong deterrent to government infringing upon constitutionally protected freedoms – rights that cannot simply be hacked away by presidential executive orders.

That may be why the brief Second Amendment explicitly cites the desirability of a militia. By intent, it was followed by the Third Amendment, which restricts the rights of the government to quarter federal troops in citizens’ homes.

Granted, DC v. Heller refuted the “organized militia” argument liberals have used to argue for the disarmament of the American people, but it shows a continuity, relating to the theme of safety, concerning the interactions between the people and the state. : The Bill of Rights was meant to ensure the safety of the people against an authoritarian state, since the first ten amendments listed were usually the ones tyrants stripped from the outset. : Then again, a hyper-regulatory progressive state is something liberals have been yearning for, as they’re frustrated with the various legislative blocking mechanisms within our Constitution, and attacking the Bill of Rights will help them achieve that goal.

As an NRA member, and a proud one at that, I vociferously support the right to bear arms. : I’m against a new ban on so-called assault weapons ban and high-capacity magazines. : However, I would also be as animated and forceful in asserting a neo-Nazi’s right to a public rally. : I’m glad law enforcement agencies cannot search my residence without a warrant, and I’m afforded due process of the law, the right not to incriminate myself, and the right to a trial by jury. : I’m glad my government can’t draw and quarter me as punishment. : I may love the men and women in our armed forces, but glad that I’m not forced to house them in my home. : Finally, I’m glad that powers not delegated to the Constitution, or prohibited by the states, are left at the discretion of the people. : The defense of the entire Bill of Rights should be unequivocal, equal, and united.

Blood has been spilled to preserve it. : Liberals and progressives do a great disservice, and deserve perpetual shame, in every thinking that some rights are more important than others.

Originally posted on: PJ Tatler.

Matt Vespa

Matt Vespa

Matt Vespa is a conservative blogger based in Virginia. Besides contributing to Right Wing News, Vespa writes for RedState, PJ Media, Independent Journal Review, and his personal blog Noodle Pundit. He's also the 2013 recipient of American for Prosperity Foundation's Andrew Breitbart Award For Excellence In Online Activism and Investigative Reporting


Tags assigned to this article:
Bill of Rights

Related Articles

0

Strange visitor from another planet

I should have realized it, because the signs were all there. There was, of course, this picture: Others understood it

5

Black activists scathing response to Obama’s speech: We’re better off without you, ‘just quit’

A group of: black Chicago activists, also known as community organizers, were asked for their opinion of the: Obama presidency: after he delivered

4

Contrary to Claim, White House Did Control GM’s Daily Business And Cut Workers Pay?

When Barack Obama threw millions of our tax dollars at General Motors to “save it,” the administration claimed that it