By David Codrea
USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “Trump: Decision to Consider Women Humans Should Be Left to States,” self-styled funnyman Andy Borowitz writes in The New Yorker.
Employing the trademark snark that inspired The Huffington Post to crown him “the satire king,” Borowitz also proves himself to be predictably (and tediously) reliant on Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals” – Rule 5 to attack non-“progressive” targets:
Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
It might infuriate if anyone outside of Andy’s smug metrosexual echo chamber cared what he says. And while it’s not hard to find things to laugh about as far as Trump, or Cruz, or especially panicky RNC dinosaurs are concerned, Borowitz and his better-than-flyover-rubes followers are actually sappy enough to support an Elena Ceaușescu clone or that goofy, rumpled pinko from Vermont.
True to form, Borowitz is a doctrinaire hoplophobe, penning such recent gems as “U.S. Becomes Laughingstock of World for Something Other Than Gun Laws” and “Obama Continues to Stubbornly Link Gun Violence with Guns.” He appears to be a textbook example of the fearful clod Julia Gorin of Jewish World Review defined in her classic “The Anti-Gun Male.” And considering his nominal heritage, he’s also what the late Aaron Zelman of JPFO labeled “bagel brained.” As a person of privileged media prominence, he moves in circles where the chances of running into someone like Theodore Haas are pretty remote, but it would be interesting to see Andy try to pile up the laughs at that guy’s expense.
His latest jab at The Donald isn’t the problem. Politicians are fair game and Trump provides more than his share of target opportunities. But it’s the concept of federalism and “states’ rights” where “progressive” policies start to trip on their own inconsistencies, and that’s the door Borowitz just opened for us to walk through.
“I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne,” Barack Obama said back in 2008 when attempting to appear “reasonable” about citizen disarmament. What exactly works in Chicago was left unsaid, which, considering the current deadly state of affairs, bears examining. What Obama was doing was making the fraudulent case that, Supremacy Clause notwithstanding, states and local jurisdictions have the power to negate unalienable rights based on the tyranny of a regional majority.
Note that only goes one way, though. When Hillary Clinton’s husband signed the 1994 “assault weapon” ban, there were no provisions for states or cities to opt out. Whenever the gun-grabbers want to impose their will on others by restricting rights, the infringements cover everyone, in Everytown, regardless of whether they’re in Chicago or Cheyenne.
Conversely, when restrictions on rights are eased a bit, all of a sudden indignant “progressives” start screaming about “home rule.” No matter that a higher level of government has enacted protective legislation; all of a sudden it’s imperative for control freak enclaves to claim the power to ban guns in parks, to outlaw classifications of firearms they don’t want to let people own, and to forbid the practice of carrying, or transporting or transferring. They insist on having it both ways which means they insist on always having it their way.
And if we don’t give it to them, the rest of the world (and especially Europe) is going to continue laughing at us, right along with Andy and his fans!
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.
He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and also posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
This isn’t any different from smoking.
When a business or a person bans smoking on his property, everyone agrees that the owner of the property has the right to decide what’s acceptable on the premises.
But the owner does not have the right to deem smoking acceptable. Suddenly it’s not private property. It’s public.
The difference will soon be non existent. Anti-smokers have been getting more and more delicate and insistent that smoke is harmful miles upon miles away.
In a way, you aren’t doing anything different. If the federal law is restrictive, you would invoke state’s sovereignty. If states were too restrictive, you would want a national law to override “local” or at least state laws.
It’s understandable, I just think you should recognize it.
The difference lies in the specific things being ordered or restricted. The constitution is fairly specific in limiting those things the federal government has the authority to regulate. Smoking, for example, is not among them. States however, have much broader rights to regulate the activity of their citizens. There is no particular reason that a state could not regulate smoking. The 14th Amendment has been interpreted to hold that no rights prohibited from infringement by the federal government can be infringed by the states (or lesser entities) either. Thus, any individual rights protected under the Constitution are automatically protected from… Read more »
It never ceases to amaze me how people can bash/satirize our country to being different from the European nations. They want us to change, to become like europe or Australia, to give up unalienable rights…. but these same people forget that it is our very difference that gives them voice. Every July 4th we celebrate the fight for our freedom. Every time we stand for the anthem or to recite the Pledge of Allegiance we reaffirm our independent country (it isn’t a Union Jack flying up there). That every time we suffer the barbs and jabs of satirists/uninformed/etc, or just… Read more »
Every day I hear people saying that soldiers fight for our freedoms. No they don’t. They fight for the current regime.
They fight for the country “subverted into a democracy and sliding down the scale”.
As a military veteran, I would suggest that our troops typically fight for two primary reasons: First, they fight for their unit and their team/squad mates. This is, and has always been, the primary motivation in combat. This has probably been true for as long as there has been organized (or even semi-organized – as in a gang fight) combat. No one wants the ostracism and shame associated with “wimping out” and leaving his fellows “swinging in the breeze,” as they say, the way Hillary left the guys in Benghazi to die. Her failure to grasp this principle is probably… Read more »
Thank you oldshooter, we tend to leave out our commitment to our squad members when depicting the big picture…. though it is their blood that coats our hands in those most terrible times. They certainly are the reason for fighting as hard and effectively as possible! Lava, you missed the point and oldshooter was kind enough to put it to words. We do not fight for the current regime. It may appear that way as we mainly do as ordered, but we are all taught that there are lawful and unlawful orders and that our duty is to obey only… Read more »
Yet another ‘witz’ and ‘berg’ and ‘stein’ in them last names ! The majority of gungrabbing trash in the country seem to have last names ending in that. Don’t really want to sound anti-Semite or a racist but I don’t really care either. The truth is the truth !
Poor guy looks to me like he is HIV Positive. Not long to remain looking at the green side of the grass. To bad, I guess, although I really could not care Less what he thinks. For me to respect your opinion, I must respect YOU.
It’s not only guns, but every aspect of civilization that Liberals have double standards on. “Penumbras and Emanations” are not anywhere within the Constitution, yet that’s what Liberal Courts rely on for their decisions. There is nothing in the Constitution about Abortion, Marriage, specific Welfare, Education, or a host of other Liberal/Progressive “Sacraments”, yet they demand those as “rights”. If it’s not specifically one of the enumerated powers in the main body of the Constitution, or in the Amendments, then it falls back to Amendments 9 and 10, and therefore becomes a State’s Rights issue. The only good thing that… Read more »
after which success, thus being able to carry in any other state in which I find myself, we can then set about reclaiming the right to live our faith as God commands when it comes to participating in certain prohibited activities. Georgia came close, but their wimpy guvner capitulated to the less than two percent of the US population who might be “offended”. So he did not sign. Wimp……
I wonder how much “laughing at us” the Europeans, who are currently feeling the brunt of Islamic refugee violence, and desperately trying to get any kind of guns they can to defend themselves, are doing now. Not much, I’m thinking. Probably about the same amount as the disarmed British were doing in the early days of WWII, when they were begging the US citizens to send them our personal, privately owned guns (which we did, incidentally, by the thousands) to defend themselves against an invasion by Hitler. Europeans only seem to “laugh at American gun laws” when they aren’t in… Read more »
Norm Macdonald is a true satirist – this guy is the type of effeminate SJW who thinks that race and gender are “social constructs,” evolutionary theory applies to every species on earth except human beings, and that chopping off one’s genitals is NOT a sign of mental illness – but something that should be celebrated. All the while, I am sure he makes “because science” jokes about those on the right. What also shuts up clowns like this when discussing gun related crime is breaking it down by race. If the welfare policies of the left he favors have been… Read more »
Don’t know about you, David, (although I suspect we would agree) but I could not be less concerned about what LSM pukes in the rest of the world do or do not think about us. Their opinions of us do not in any way (so far as I am aware) impact me or mine. If they like us – Cool! If they don’t – tough shite!