Monday, March 1, 2010

Liberals Challenge the Validity of The Bill of Rights

Do you get the feeling that the average liberal isn’t smarter than a fifth grader? I doubt they would do well on that show of the same name. Case in point: Even though the Supreme Court ruled two years ago that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, you have liberals - like in Chicago - who seek to over rule that decision, arguing that it doesn't apply to the 50 states. They actually are asking that certain protections granted by the Bill of Rights not be afforded to citizens of certain cities or states.


I love how liberals apply the concept of a right. We should have a “right” to own a home and a “right” to free health care, both which presume to detract from someone else’s prosperity in order to fund and realize those “rights,” but when it comes to an individual’s right to defend themselves, a right which by itself doesn’t minimize nor detract from anyone else’s inalienable rights, that kind of right should be ruled invalid or restricted.

Do you see why it’s impossible to argue with logic of that kind? Liberals actually see this as being logical. It’s almost impossible to even comprehend the monumental stupidity of this, and wasting time arguing with idiots over these concepts would be as fruitful as trying to explain quantum physics to a four year old; you get absolutely no where.

However, this doesn’t mean you should abdicate your rights either. Currently, there is a case going before the Supreme Court - again – to ensure that your freedoms, as granted by the Bill of Rights, are afforded to all 50 states, and all its citizens. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court justices will be asked to do just that. The legal term is called "incorporation" but all that means is extending the federal protections of the Bill of Rights--including the Second Amendment--to the states. The case challenges Chicago's restrictive gun law, which is being argued for by groups such as the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

An attorney for the person challenging the Chicago law, Otis McDonald, said, "Virtually the entire Bill of Rights has been applied against states and local governments. The Second Amendment is a normal part of the Bill of Rights. It protects a meaningful individual right which is very important to people in this country and throughout American history."

I wonder how quickly the left would scream ‘foul’ if certain states or cities decided to circumvent the Bill of Rights in the same way. How about if a state decided that the liberal media’s biased viewpoints were a threat to the American way of life and decided to severely curtail the media’s First Amendment right to free speech in that state? The ACLU would respond so fast it would kill itself tripping over their own feet in the rush to react. However, I’m not aware of any fervor nor action on their part to represent Mr. McDonald in his fight to prevent the city of Chicago from violating his Second Amendment rights.

When weighing the validity of the rights afforded this country, and its citizens, under the precepts of the Bill of Rights, remember it is the Second Amendment that is the teeth of the Bill of Rights. Without the rights afforded you under the Second Amendment, your other rights are only as good as the people who are in power over you at any given moment. When those people decide to restrict your rights, be it a mugger on a street or an autocratic government, it is your ability to defend your rights that keeps them valid.

No comments:

Post a Comment

 



Free Hit Counter

Copyright © 2009 - 2012 The Audacity of Logic