A case in point of how fear can make an otherwise free and reasonable people surrender their rights is in the area of the Second Amendment. I have to admit that this has never been a big priority for me because I do not own a gun. I have never even held, much less fired a real firearm. I was never in the military or law enforcement, and I never trained in using weapons. I have lived in NYC for my entire life where for law-abiding citizens at least, guns are not part of our cultural environment in the same way they are in other areas of the country. And I will state here and now that I do not intend ever to own anything that fires bullets and if I go to my grave having never fired a shot, I will not feel that I have missed anything.
I have become increasingly aware recently of this issue because it directly impacts a right guaranteed to us by our founding fathers in the Constitution. I disagree with the NRA and some of their allies in the sense that I believe common-sense regulations and valid registration is necessary. Waiting periods, background checks, and at least some degree of mandatory training all make sense to me. But such restrictions should also be balanced by protections that don’t allow for authorities to abuse or revoke the rights of citizens to bear arms.
But what is happening now in Virginia not only crosses that commonsense line, it obliterates it. Playing on the fears engendered by recent mass shootings, especially in schools, Democrats in the State Legislature are pushing through “Red Flag Laws.” The danger of laws like these goes far beyond the Second Amendment. As I understand it, these laws will allow just about anyone to report just about anyone else for just about any reason, and the reported party will have his gun or guns taken away before any due process taking place.
It could be argued that this might save lives, and if it saves even one life, won’t it be worth it even if some lose their guns? These types of laws are ripe for abuse, and it is not hard to imagine a scenario where a dispute between individuals can result in one calling the authorities to come and take the other’s guns based on whatever pretense this stupid law allows. “Well, so what,” you might say, Maybe he was dangerous.” Maybe. But we live in a country where “maybe” is never a good enough reason to seize the property of someone who has not even been credibly accused of a crime.
But this goes way beyond gun rights, which I will address in Part III.
I long for the days when we had a press that had standards and practices that would be concerned with truth and fairness. The only standard they seem to have now is based on yellow journalism.
It is amazing to me that some of thes candidates ar all about espousing rights that are not in the Constitution such as this new bonehead idea by Pitiful Pete while trashing, ignoring and seeking to repress rights that actually ARE in the Constitution, such as the right to free speech, religion, assembly, to bear arms and even the fundamental right to life.
Beto O’Rourke claims ‘living close to work’ is a ‘right’
Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke now claims you have a “right” to live near your job.
“Living close to work shouldn’t be a luxury for the rich,” the former Texas congressman tweeted Monday. “It’s a right for everyone.”
O’Rourke didn’t explain how it’s a right – or if he considers it a constitutional or a human right. But in a video posted on Twitter, the Democrat argued that living closer to one’s work would not only “reduce our impact on climate change and greenhouse emissions” but would also “improve the quality of life” for people.
In the video, O’Rourke claimed “we force lower-income working Americans to drive one, two, three hours in either direction to get to their jobs, very often minimum wage jobs. They’re working two or three of them right now.”
“Rich people are going to have to allow — or be forced to allow — lower-income people to live near them,” he said.
Read more here.
San Francisco’s branding of NRA as terror organization panned by Washington Post, LA Times
Two columnists on opposite coasts didn’t mince words Thursday in disagreeing with a San Francisco Board of Supervisors resolution labeling the National Rifle Association a domestic terrorist organization. Los Angeles Times columnist Michael McGough said the label may be good politics but is “irresponsible.” “It’s not the business of a county board of supervisors to designate terror organizations,” he wrote, adding that it’s also a First Amendment concern if officials try to blacklist contractors who work with the NRA.
Read the rest here.Fox News