Opinion
A Nation In Crisis: Left-Wing Extremists Intend To Destroy The Very Fabric Of Our Constitutional Republic.
New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- Politicians should articulate sound and rational policy positions for the Nation, and those policy positions should be consistent with the import and purport of the U.S. Constitution, to preserve and strengthen it, not undermine it. Is that really so unreasonable?
Surely, politicians cannot and ought not expect the polity to endorse slipshod, simplistic policy prescriptions, especially those prescriptions that are inconsistent with, and antithetical to, the original meaning of the Constitution and which are inconsistent with, and which therefore negatively impinge on or infringe fundamental rights and liberties, as codified in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution.
Yet, time and time again we see many Democrats, especially those on the Radical Left of the political spectrum, articulating and supporting policy that, even on a cursory analysis, is inapt and inane, even insane.
From guns to abortion, to immigration, Democrats have gone off the rails.
Yet, many Americans seem to think that Democrats’ policy stances and prescriptions make perfectly good sense and that these policy positions and policy prescriptions bespeak, rather than, belie, the best interests of the Nation and its people. But do they? Do they really?
Take one example: guns. To listen to Democrats go on about the need for more and more gun restrictions, one might be led to think that the reasoning behind Democrats’ desire to impose more and more burdensome, even asinine, gun restrictions on law-abiding, responsible, rational Americans is predicated, as they will always remind you, on a desire to promote public safety. Left-wing extremist Democrats suggest they place a premium on human life and therefore hold the moral high ground, implying, then, that political and social Conservatives do not. But is that true? Are Democrats—especially extremists on the Left who yell loudest for restrictive gun measures—the paragons of virtue they claim to be? If you think so, then ask yourself this:
How can a politician claim to value human life by denying an individual the most effective means available to defend his or her life and that of innocent others, namely with a firearm, and, yet, encourage the whole-sale taking of life—the most innocent and helpless of human life, through late-term or at-birth abortion.
Can these two policy stances—civilian gun confiscation measures and late-term, at will, even at birth abortion stances be reconciled? Americans have a right to expect—in fact, should demand—an answer to this question before jumping on the Radical Left bandwagon. The mainstream media, though, demonstrates no interest in resolving this question. Indeed, the mainstream media doesn’t even bother to ask the question. But, this should come as no surprise to anyone since the mainstream media is no longer the guardian of a free Republic and defender of the Constitution, but, rather, walks in lockstep with extremists in Government—those who desire to undermine our Constitutional Republic, and disassemble our sacred rights and liberties. Rather than taking the would-be destroyers of our Nation to task, we see a seditious Press commending them for it, actively, avidly promoting the Radical Left agenda to the detriment of our Nation and of our people.
But, beyond the wild, fantastic idiocy of the Radical Left’s policy stances, as articulated to the polity—the Radical Left’s policy positions, especially those pertaining to guns and abortion—aren’t even coherent or consistent with each other.
Consider the nonsensical remarks of two representatives of the Radical Left:
U.S. Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA), a contender for her Party’s nomination in the upcoming U.S. Presidential election in 2020, and Andrew Cuomo, third term Governor of New York. Both politicians espouse extreme views on firearms’ ownership and possession, on the one hand, and abortion, on the other. Each of them, at once, denies the right of the people to keep and bear arms as fundamental, natural, unalienable, and immutable, notwithstanding codification of that primordial right in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. And, at one and the same time, each argues for a woman’s right to late-term, at-will abortion [not to be confused with current accepted practices]; and each dares to raise abortion to the status of a fundamental right, even though nothing in the Constitution expressly or tacitly supports such a bizarre and outrageous notion.
We will look at the gun policy and abortion policy prescriptions of both Senator Harris and Governor Cuomo, in-depth. We will demonstrate that, while these Left-wing Radical Democrats treat abortion and guns as distinct, incommensurable issues, they really aren’t. Gun policy, if it is to pass Constitutional muster, must always be consistent with the language of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and the language of the Second Amendment is to be understood as a codification of the natural, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment, as with the other nine Amendments, is an affirmation of the value of human life, not its denial.
The Second Amendment does not entail, explicitly or implicitly, the idea of death, but of life: the life of the Nation by discouraging tyranny; and the life of the individual, by deterring threats to that innocent individual. Abortion entails, by definition, death: and death of the most innocent human being of all: an unborn child. There is no way around that conclusion. Any discussion of abortion as a policy choice and any talk of a restriction on the exercise of one’s fundamental, unalienable right to keep and bear arms, as a policy choice, must start with the same standard.
One must ask: does that policy choice promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; or does that policy choice operate to impede if not altogether preclude life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
The central theme of the Bill of Rights, perceived as an inseparable whole, speaks undeniably to the sanctity and inviolability of the individual. Senator Harris and Governor Cuomo attempt to undercut the Second Amendment by refusing to accept it for what it is: an unconditional, fundamental, unalienable, natural, and immutable right, a right bestowed on man by a loving, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent Creator; and, as such, a right, as with the other Nine Amendments, that cannot be dismissed, modified, abrogated or ignored. In their refusal to accept the plain import and purport of the Bill Rights of the U.S. Constitution, Harris and Cuomo at once deny the sanctity and inviolability of the American citizen. Their denial, a casual and callous dismissal of the Second Amendment, operates, by implication, as a casual and callous denial of the Bill of Rights as an integrated whole.
Their denial amounts to blasphemy pure and simple.
About The Arbalest Quarrel:
Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.
For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.
Any politician who is for disarming the law-abiding citizens of our country, are traitors to the Constitution and should be dealt with accordingly.
There is another facet of this which we keep overlooking. Gun control is not and never has been about controlling crime or criminals. It, ultimately, is about controlling people. It has always been the goal of Liberals to control the electorate by any means possible, whether it be dependence on government assistance or regulatory actions that require you to beg for permission. However, the one chink in any governmental plan to control the masses is armed resistance. You must disarm them before you can control them. Use the ruse of a safer society to achieve this, pander to the ignorant… Read more »
I love how the leftest argue owning a firearm violates their right to life because, just owning gun puts their life at risk. This their argument to disarm civilians but love the government, the largest mass murderers in history to be armed. This how you know their argument is baseless and about allowing govt to control their lives. But don’t you dare stop killing babies, that’s fundamental right. Not sure where, but that’s what they argue. It would seem killing them is already illegal unless they are violently attacking that gun owner. It does seem they are fan of protecting… Read more »
There is a third aspect of this, that goes hand-in-hand (and which the Democrats are on the anti-human life side of) – euthanasia. It’s a pretty simple principle. Either people have a right to life or they don’t. If they do, then they have the right to be born, and also the right to defend their lives (legally and physically) against those who want them dead. If they don’t, then other people or the state can decide they shouldn’t live.
A mass murderer is a very rare thing. What we are seeing are false flags to gain support for gun control, and later confiscation. If the Democrats get back into power, it would not be good for our country.
In a state where the leadership makes legal the murder of unborn children, recently birthed children, that which has been an obamination before the LORD and most of the world for the past five thousand years, there will one day be a reckoning. When the leadership tries to remove the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness, the right of self defense, the right to keep and bare arms that were given to mankind from the LORD and further written into law as our constitution it is our civic duty to not comply. It is our right to… Read more »
One needn’t perform gymnastics or contort words into pretzels to illustrate the Left’s disregard for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and individual liberty. One need only refer to Woodrow Wilson’s blatant declaration of the American progressive creed. Wilson is the godfather of American progressivism. According to his own words, the ‘preamble’ to the Declaration of Independence means nothing, and that document should be read without it. The so-called ‘preamble’ is the part that lays the foundation stones of American liberty: the equality of all men and their intrinsic, Creator-endowed rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Wilson… Read more »
The two views are consistent if you accepts the premise of another AmmoLand article. Nobody gives a $h-it about anybody else. 1) Gun Bans: For majority of US population the following four terms are synonymous: “Assault Rifle”, “Assault Weapon”, “AR” and “AR-15”. Having zero familiarity with the topic at hand, is it any wonder they listen to the steady drumbeat of media and politicians telling them that these are “military weapons” and have no use other than to kill people and that no one owns one unless they dream of killing humans? They see dramatic coverage of any public mass… Read more »
My religion is my business but I will comment on guns. Legislation does not control gun violence. Violence is controlled by CULTURE. Does a gun, a vehicle, baseball bat or whatever on its own attack suddenly or attack someone without the actions of a human? Of course not but democrats say these items are self motivated and commit criminal acts by itself. You have to be pretty darn stupid to believe that. Now they want to hold the gun makers liable. Does that mean all car makers will be liable for accidents? Do all of the baseball bats in the… Read more »
Not every adamant gun owner is Christian, or even religious. The atheist argument for the right to self-defense, and thus, the Second Amendment, could be even stronger than the religious ones. If we are indeed a random phenomenon in an indifferent universe and this life is IT-the only one each of us will EVER have, then this life is all the more precious, and all the more worth defending.