United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- When discussing Andrew Cuomo and Elizabeth Warren recently, one thing has been very clear: Both of them have been very open about their desire to silence Second Amendment supporters. Yeah, they say it is just the National Rifle Association, but then again, don’t they claim that they don’t want to take away guns? Well, they used to say that – these days, we know that is a lie.
Cuomo began a campaign of financial blacklisting against the NRA, at the urging of Everytown for Gun Safety, while Warren plans to use the IRS – whether it means Lois Lerner comes out of retirement (and her six-figure pension) remains to be seen (and hopefully, we never find out) – in conjunction with campaign finance “reform” that is really aimed at shutting up dissent from her anti-Second Amendment extremism.
Warren and Cuomo are trying to silence the voices of Second Amendment supporters. For good reason – when Second Amendment supporters can get a fair hearing from their fellow Americans, they win the argument. The facts often shoot down the pretexts that are used to infringe on our rights. If fellow Americans knew how few people were killed with rifles and shotguns, the bans proposed by many on modern multi-purpose semiautomatics would be dead on arrival, and the politicians responsible for pushing for the bans would find their careers dead in the water.
This is why Second Amendment supporters need to defend the First Amendment with just as much vigor. The First Amendment is the first line of defense for our Second Amendment rights – it is with freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the rights to peaceably assemble and to petition for the redress of grievances that we fight.
With freedom of speech and freedom of the press comes the ability to persuade our fellow Americans, whether one-on-one or to millions at a time via mass media or social media. With the right to peaceably assemble, Second Amendment supporters strengthen their voice by uniting for a common purpose, sometimes through formal organizations like the National Rifle Association, sometimes through more informal groups. The right to petition for redress of grievances can be as simple as a letter, phone call or e-mail to an elected official – or it could entail hiring a professional to present the case to elected officials.
Just having these rights, which pre-exist the Constitution and the protection of which is codified in the Bill of Rights, is not enough. They are merely tools. Their effectiveness depends on how skillfully they are used. For the most part, Second Amendment supporters have been skillful enough in their use of their First Amendment rights to preserve our freedoms.
That said, we as Second Amendment supporters have to recognize that there is a need to up our game on this front. Those who seek to deprive us of our rights have adjusted in the wake of their failures, and we need to adjust to the adjustments they have made.
This includes the recognition that the fight for our rights has become a full-spectrum fight, one that has to be fought not just in the political and legislative arena, but also in corporate boardrooms, PTA meetings, and even when it comes to our professional life. Yet even in these new areas where we have to fight for our freedoms, it will be our First Amendment rights that will help save the Second Amendment.
About Harold Hutchison
Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.
There is a problem here. First Amendment supporters say, essentially, that all’s fair except “yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.” Then they proceed to defend outright lies repeated again and again by the MSM and attacks against speech by conservatives. The purpose of the First Amendment has been bastardized by the left and dishonest politicians, to the point that we should be using the left’s anti-2nd Amendment arguments against the 1st Amendment (it’s out of date, the framers never expected a national press representing only one side of every argument, and so on.) In short, if you ask me to… Read more »
@Bowser, One does have the Right to yell fire in a crowded theatre, but is responsible and liable for all negative results. Oliver Wendell Holmes, JR used this phrase to introduce the concept of government limited Rights. OWH was a kind of sneak thief.
Let us take what we have to work with, and shape it to our cause, before summarily executing it. It’s a numbers game, and even those that are “somewhat” on our side are still on our side. Otherwise, instead of educating them, you attack them, then you hand the left a gift. I saw nothing in this article that gave anything away.
The 1st can’t defend the 2nd when the tyrants in government as well as big tech are using everything and ANYTHING you have EVER posted online to justify deplatforming you across multiple outlets (i.e., Facebook, Twitter, instagram, Youtube, et cetera) as well as create a pretext for raiding your home & confiscating all your guns, even for a “meme”. This has already been done in multiple states including my home state of Indiana, where a vindictive ex-wife used his social media humor to Red Flag him. Now while Indiana law is “supposed” to prevent abuses such as this, the opposite… Read more »
Nowhere in his commentary did Harold say anything about compromise or needing to back the NRA, or any other statements that he typically writes that we disagree with. This is a first for him, where he wrote a cogent piece that articulated our need to speak-up and be heard, which is correct. The more we speak, write, contact our reps, educate those willing to listen/learn, etc., the stronger the position we will be in to protect our rights.
Right, he didn’t bring up his usual boilerplate and I admit I was (pleasantly?) surprised. The point I’m making is that you’re not going to change the minds of the radical Left no matter what. They will use everything at their disposal, however, to systematically deny US the ability to reach out to the undecideds, a point he is blind to. And others may also be blind to. Yes, we can and should speak up. But you can’t speak up when free speech has been obliterated and any attempt to speak up is weaponized against you by targeting those that… Read more »
I gave you a thumbs up because I couldn’t agree with you more.
The first amendment protects our ability to speak freely, even the ability to lie. The left takes the freedom to lie far more seriously and protects that ability to the fullest. They have no desire to tell the truth, because the truth isn’t in them. They will not defend the truth because there is no money in it for them, if there is no money there is no power and they will do anything for the money and power. Even sell their own souls.
@Vern, One is still responsible and liable for the results of a lie.
Definitely.
The First Amendment, is the first in line but totally protected by what is left of the Second Amendment. Mantalkblog.com has a real good article on this and how it “protects” us.
The anti-gun people use a boa constrictor method of tightening the rules every time we relax. Voting these people out is the equivalent of cutting off the snake’s head. it’s our best option.
Boomer — I like what you say, and have in fact said it myself many times. The issue I keep running up against is what happens when you can’t vote them out of office because they have voter turnout on their side? This very thing is what set the Democrats off when Trump was elected to office. Plans to impeach him went into motion only nineteen minutes after he was elected: nineteen minutes! I can see those Patriots from the start of the Revolutionary War, asking themselves the very same question all of us here are pondering. And to think… Read more »
@Harold, Good going.