As I listen all the gun rights advocates voicing support of the sacred Second Amendment, I find myself wondering how we have reached a point where their noise is allowed to drown out the pleas for common sense gun laws, i.e. bans on assault weapons, bump stocks, thorough background checks, etc.
The NRA, with its lobbying prowess and its purchase of members of Congress, has taken over the debate and its sycophants are lined up to chant a-la the Stepford Wives the gospel of the rights of the gun owners, supposedly represented by sportsmen who go out in search of big game in order to put meat on the family table.
All too often, however, the true sentiment is more accurate expressed in more realistic terms:
For a clearer image of this decal, I pulled this from an online website:
When, in the wake of the Parkland shootings that left 17 dead, Donald Trump incredulously said we should “take the guns first, go through due process second,” (something even the most diehard advocate of gun control has never said), his conservative BASE went into a state akin to apoplexy, and rightly so.
Of course, to paraphrase Mark Twain’s comment about New England weather, if you don’t like what comes out of Trump’s mouth, you need only wait a couple of minutes because his position is certain to change. There appears to be no limits to his imbecilic utterances and actions.
Yes, the Second Amendment clearly says, “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.”
There’s no debate about the wording but there is nothing in that that says we have an unlimited right to any and all types of arms. In fact, when the Second Amendment was adopted, there were no such things as assault weapons, grenades, land mines, tanks, missiles.
But no one—NO ONE—would argue to take away your rifle, your double-barrel shotgun, or your Colt 45 six-shooter. So, let’s clear the air of that silly argument.
But while gun rights advocates hold up the Second Amendment as the holy grail of the Spirit of Freedom and the American Way, there’s another amendment those same people seem to conveniently overlook:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
What we have instead is a growing chorus of “fake news” echoed by the Trump base because, like Trump, their vocabularies are so painfully limited and their intellect, like their dear leader’s, so mired in simple banalities that they can only parrot his talking points—talking points that, it turns out, were field tested by an outfit called CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA.
How’s that for irony: cries of fake news prompted by a foreign company that coined the phrase?
But never mind all that: the term fake news has been so popularized by Trump that it’s caught on with such LUMINARIES as Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, the Chinese state media, the Russian foreign ministry, Spanish foreign minister Alfonso Dastis, and others of similar stripe.
Now we even have politicians trying to turn the phrase into attempts at CENSORSHIP, a movement every bit as dangerous as any perceived threat to gun ownership.
Had there been censorship;
- Meat packing plants would still be turning out diseased meat for our ingestion.
- The Teapot Dome scandal might never have come to light.
- Sweatshops where children and women slaved away for 14 hours a day might still flourish—in factories with locked doors so workers would be unable escape in case of fire.
- Worker safety in any form, in fact, might be non-existent.
- Minimum wage might still be pennies per hour—with no benefits.
- Automobile safety? Who needs that? Who could even afford an automobile?
- Without freedom of the press, Tammany Hall and Boss Tweed may never have been reined in.
- Nixon would’ve gotten away with his crimes.
- We might still be losing American lives in a place called Vietnam were it not for writers like the late David Halberstam. (In fact, it was the failure of the press to follow up on the lies of the Johnson Administration that allowed the so-called Gulf of Tonkin incident propel us into an unprecedented escalation of that war.)
- The Pentagon Papers would never have come to light.
- McClure’s Magazine could never have exposed illegal practices by the railroads or by Standard Oil.
- Inhumane treatment of the mentally ill would have remained a dark secret.
- Seymour Hersh might never have revealed illegal CIA spying on Americans—in America because of press freedom.
There are many, many other examples—far too many to list here—that illustrate how a free press has contributed to the well-being of Americans. So, to all you out there who have obediently latched on to the FAKE NEWS term as your rallying cry, you’re in good company. You should be proud of yourselves for being able to think for yourself and for being able to express your individuality in the same way as the rest of the Trumpettes—just like Cambridge Analytica intended.
But it remains a mystery to me how 35 percent of the people in the most advanced nation on the face of the earth can remain so inconsistent in supporting one amendment to the Bill of Rights, a doctrine you have elevated to sacred status, while at the same time belittling another of those same amendments.
You can’t have it both ways. I’ll repeat that: You can’t have it both ways. Either the Bill of Rights is the basis of freedom in this country or it’s not. If you support one, you must support them all. It’s a package deal.
Yet we have ELECTED OFFICIALS taking up the call of fake news any time there’s a news story with which they do not agree or that puts them in a bad light.
We are not perfect in the press, far from it. In fact, I recently misinterpreted the intent of a bill by State Sen. Dan Claitor and pilloried him for it when in fact, I should have been praising him. I thought his bill was a serious attempt at mandating retirement of all elected officials at age 70 when in fact, he was trying to show the hypocrisy of the law requiring that all judges retire at 70.
But despite our occasional shortcomings, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS is every bit as important to the ability of Americans to remain free as the freedom to bear arms. Period.
If you can’t agree with that, you are a hypocrite in every sense of the word.
The worst kind of hypocrite, in fact, because you’re lying to yourself.
Louisiana Voice 
Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but there is a clear intent by some to undermine this freedom by discrediting information from any source not promoting their agenda. Their standard-bearer is none other than our POTUS who wishes to be anointed as the font of all truth.
Can you say, “danger”?
Sadly, the country you described without a free press, seems to be the country that some desire. This is such a dangerous attitude.
Edith, our simultaneous posts seem to be in perfect sync.
There really is no other conclusion for citizens that love our Country and understand the destruction that happens to countries where the press is squelched. I fear that we are living in dangerous times. I am so disappointed that all of our elected publuc servants do not speak out against the propaganda of “fake news.”
“There’s no debate about the wording but there is nothing in that that says we have an unlimited right to any and all types of arms. In fact, when the Second Amendment was adopted, there were no such things as assault weapons, grenades, land mines, tanks, missiles.”
The model driving the forefathers was one of rifles and handguns being hand-crafted, single shot, and without any interchangeable parts. No need for more weight to carry with a second weapon.
And there was no radio, television, satellite etc. when the first amendment was drafted.
So what. The principal was that an armed population could resist tyrants who would take their freedoms. We have had semi-automatic weapons for a long time, yet these mass shootings are of recent vintage. Any logical person could ascertain that the problem is not the firearm, but some crazy people.
I am with you on defending the First Amendment from moves to “protect” us through government censorship. But I have to tell you, you’ll gain no consensus by calling people names like “their vocabularies are so painfully limited and their intellect, like their dear leader’s, so mired in simple banalities that they can only parrot his talking points.” Brother, I’m a Republican and I’ve lived with a Green Party lady for 36 years (31 of them churched) and you don’t rub along with words like that. The First Amendment is important to everyone, it is of primary importance (maybe that’s why they made it the first). We need to build a wall of public support to protect the Bill of Rights. That means educating everyone as to how it protects them.
In my honest opinion, if you are truly a news organization (not lv) you don’t allow writing articles with a “side”. To do such is nothing more than propaganda for the writers beliefs, and because of the press unique position is far more dangerous than any other threat to our freedoms.
There is always room for “opinion articles” as long as they are labeled as such. This is one way to find out what others think. In a healthy society the exchange of ideas should lead to health debate. Just my opinion.
Edith, I don’t always agree with you but what you’ve said in this post is what’s wrong with “news” organizations today. Both sides, those labeled left and those labeled right too often inject too much opinion and call it news. Both sides have outlets for opinion and that’s where it should stay, report the news and let it fall where it may and keep the opinions on the “Opinion “segments .
Bud, I agree with what you stated. However, it doesn’t take much thought to see when writers show their bias and use false info to make their points. Theburden is on us to “think” about what we see, hear and read. I know this is asking a lot
Ever notice that the radical gun-lovers lobby always manages to ignore the phrase “well regulated” in that amendment – a phrase which, in and of itself, indicates that oversight is necessary in the determination of who may or may not be trusted with weapons ownership? I, like almost everyone I know, have no desire to have hunting rifles, shotguns, or handguns taken away from my fellow citizens. On the other hand, I have yet to recognize a logical reason why anyone needs to own an assault weapon unless they wish to practice assault against someone. Such weapons have only one practical use: to kill and maim as many people as possible in the least amount of time. In short, if you can’t fly on a plane because you’re on a no-fly list, you sure as hell shouldn’t be able to buy an AK-47. To me the very desire to own such a weapon indicates an unstable mental condition.
“well regulated militia”, Please note the comma; it was not an accident. “the RIGHT to bear arms SHALL NOT. These guys were a far cry smarter than present day politicians who do nothing but pander. They meant for Americans to be armed and versed in the use of weapons.
I have repeatedly used my FB account to admonish liberals and conservatives to cross-read each other’s stuff. Don’t stick to Fox or Cnn – read both. Look for less biased reporting – C’n Sci Monitor, The Guardian, Straight news stories in the NYT and WP. Check several fact checking sites, especially for controversial stuff that sounds off the wall.
Incidentally, the Tenth Amendment has also been ignored. For the longest, Southern states equated states rights with segregation. But objectively, one of our nations needed conversations is about what the legitimate concerns of the nation take precedence over those that can and should be dealt with by the states?
Forgot to add that, without the first amendment – the most basic guarantee of our elemental freedoms – the rest are become superfluous. Without the free, unbiased press and all that they have accomplished, where would this nation be? It doesn’t bear thinking about.
And the second is what protects the first.
Zoe, you’re like a stuck record. The Second Amendment doesn’t protect the rest. That’s nonsense. Each amendment is just as important as the others. I don’t need a gun to be able to write this. You’re a prime example of what this post is about: short-sighted individuals who are so convinced that the Second Amendment overrides everything else.
It doesn’t.
Once more I want to point out that civilians (like me) cannot legally own an assault weapon. The weapons used in these shootings are not assault weapons. An AR 15 “looks” like a military assault weapon. Many persons use this weapon for hunting or varmint control in place of a .30-30 or other “brush” gun.
When the wrong terms are used in a discussion even persons like myself that favor better regulation and controls on gun sales/ownership worry that your ideas of “better regulation” are way off what I would consider appropriate or legal. The former assault weapon ban in place during the Clinton administration banned the Ruger mini 14 if it had a folding stock yet the same gun with a non-folding stock was okay. Neither is an assault weapon. This particular weapon was banned on how it “looked”. Some will disregard my thoughts as blather. I am just saying there are many of us non-gun nuts that are concerned the discussion is not focusing on relevant obtainable measures of gun control versus rhetoric.
Thanks for the clarification on this. Yours is a voice of reason in what has become hysterical dialog. And while you are correct in pointing out the technical terms, the issue in this particular post, as I understand it, is why some think the 2nd is so sacred but those same people disparage the 1st. I would love to see someone from the guns rights group explain how the 1st is so bad when it allows them to speak out on behalf of the 2nd.
Late entry.read today the answer to this debate. Delete the second amendment, I like it. ron thompson