The Daily Sheeple – by Alex Thomas
In a Thursday op-ed for the establishment New York Times, supposed conservative Bret Stephens called for the full on repeal of the Second Amendment in the wake of the largest mass shooting in American history.
Stephens, who is also paid by MSNBC to appear on television to discredit actual conservatives, started out his piece by claiming that he “never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment,” a clue that perhaps he never really was a conservative in the first place.
He then goes on to list various “studies” that have also been specifically cited by leftist gun control groups in the past as if that somehow validates him openly calling for an all out gun ban. (while laughably claiming he isn’t)
From a personal-safety standpoint, more guns means less safety. The F.B.I. counted a total of 268 “justifiable homicides” by private citizens involving firearms in 2015; that is, felons killed in the course of committing a felony. Yet that same year, there were 489 “unintentional firearms deaths” in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Between 77 and 141 of those killed were children.
From a national-security standpoint, the Amendment’s suggestion that a “well-regulated militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State,” is quaint. The Minutemen that will deter Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un are based in missile silos in Minot, N.D., not farmhouses in Lexington, Mass.
From a personal liberty standpoint, the idea that an armed citizenry is the ultimate check on the ambitions and encroachments of government power is curious. The Whiskey Rebellion of the 1790s, the New York draft riots of 1863, the coal miners’ rebellion of 1921, the Brink’s robbery of 1981 — does any serious conservative think of these as great moments in Second Amendment activism?
This is clearly not the opinion of an actual conservative but rather someone working for the establishment who on one hand continually claim they only want “common sense” gun reform while on the other calling for the wholesale repeal of the right to own firearms by private citizens.
Stephens then lists reasons he believes that liberals continue to lose the gun control battle, essentially arguing that the supposed facts that the left puts out are actually lies but instead of fighting against them we should aim for a loftier goal of ending the Second Amendment altogether.
In fact, the more closely one looks at what passes for “common sense” gun laws, the more feckless they appear. Americans who claim to be outraged by gun crimes should want to do something more than tinker at the margins of a legal regime that most of the developed world rightly considers nuts. They should want to change it fundamentally and permanently.
There is only one way to do this: Repeal the Second Amendment.
Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage it’s worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones. Gun ownership should never be outlawed, just as it isn’t outlawed in Britain or Australia. But it doesn’t need a blanket Constitutional protection, either. The 46,445 murder victims killed by gunfire in the United States between 2012 and 2016 didn’t need to perish so that gun enthusiasts can go on fantasizing that “Red Dawn” is the fate that soon awaits us.
Apparently Stephens believes his readers are complete morons.
Consider this logic. He wants to literally get rid of the Constitutional protection of owning a firearm while claiming they should never be outlawed? That is a stunningly perfect example of liberal logic if I have ever seen one.
Make no mistake, gun grabbers on both sides of the aisle are lining up in yet another attempt at restricting and or outright banning private gun ownership in America. This New York Times op-ed is just the latest example in a long list of admissions by the gun control left that this has never been about “common sense” reform but rather has always been about restricting Americans from owning weapons themselves.
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).
Contributed by Alex Thomas of The Daily Sheeple.
Alex Thomas is a staff writer and reporter for The Daily Sheeple. Wake the flock up – follow Alex’s work at our Facebook or Twitter.
Would it surprise anyone if I said bret stephens is a joo?
And joo York Times is conservative?
Nope. Doesn’t surprise me one bit. LoL.
They can’t repeal the 2nd Article.
The 9th Article forbids it.
But then the 9th Article has to be enforced.
Which is why we have the 2nd Article.
🙂
.
Well said!
“Don’t Ban the Bomb
When democratic states disarm, it laways leads to war”.
Then he says…
“Repeal the Second Amendment
It sounds like political Mission Impossible, but it’s the only meaningful way to stop the killing.”
Which shows that he really does understand why the people should NEVER disarm.
@ tc
“They can’t repeal the 2nd Article.
The 9th Article forbids it.
No, they cannot repeal it, etc because that power was NEVER delegated to anyone who serves within our governments, instead because the framers knew history and those that love power, the PEOPLE themselves retain that power. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights makes it clear that those items listed there are either NOT a “power” of those that serve within our government; OR a “LIMITED power” that can ONLY be used when certain circumstances occur, and then the actions taken MUST be exactly as described or it is an action AGAINST the American people.
(More modern comments on this subject then I usually use) Alan Keyes on the Second Amendment: “The Founders added the 2nd Amendment so that when, after a long train of abuses, a government evinces a methodical design upon our natural rights, we will have the means to protect and recover our rights. That is why the right to keep and bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights. In fact, if we make the judgment that our rights are being systematically violated, we have not merely the right, but the duty, to resist and overthrow the power responsible. That duty requires that we always maintain the material capacity to resist tyranny, if necessary, something that it is very hard to do if the government has all the weapons. A strong case can be made, therefore, that it is a fundamental DUTY of the free citizen to keep and bear arms.”
David Kopel – quoted in the WSJ 28 Feb 1994: “”Liberalizing concealed carry laws won’t lead to a return to the Wild West. … in 19th Century cattle towns, homicide was confined to transient males who shot each other in saloon disturbances. The per capital robbery rate was 7% of modern New York City’s. The burglary rate was 1%. Rape was unknown.”
D. Michael Wiechman, May 14, 1996: “A man with a gun is a citizen, a man without a gun is a subject. Our forefathers knew this to be true….. Why do so many of us question their wisdom?”
Andrew Ford: “25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with no permit of any kind: some say it’s crazy. However, 4 out of 5 US murders are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?”
Charlie Reese, syndicated columnist: “”A government that intended to protect the liberty of the people would not disarm them. A government planning the opposite most certainly and logically would disarm them. And so it has been in this century. Check out the history of Germany, the Soviet Union, Cuba, China and Cambodia.”
Lt. Lowell Duckett, Special Assistant to DC Police Chief; President, Black Police Caucus, The Washington Post, March 22, 1996: “Gun control has not worked in D.C. The only people who have guns are criminals. We have the strictest gun laws in the nation and one of the highest murder rates. It’s quicker to pull your Smith & Wesson than to dial 911 if you’re being robbed.”
Publius Huldah: No State may lawfully make any law which contradicts its State Constitution or which interferes with Congress’ power to “organize, arm, and discipline, the Militia”.
Accordingly, any State Statute which purports to require a permit before one may carry a gun is probably unconstitutional under that State’s Constitution; and is certainly unconstitutional under the federal Constitution because Congress may lawfully require able-bodied male Citizens to acquire firearms and ammo and report to their local Militia Unit for training!
Backing up what Publius said even the Calif Constitution
California Constitution, ARTICLE V EXECUTIVE [SECTION 1 – SEC. 14] (Article 5 added Nov. 8, 1966, by Prop. 1-a. Res.Ch. 139, 1966 1st Ex. Sess.), Section 7: The Governor is commander in chief of a militia that shall be provided by statute. The Governor may call it forth to execute the law. (Sec. 7 amended Nov. 5, 1974, by Prop. 11. Res.Ch. 96, 1974.)
Preamble to the Bill of Rights: Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
Repeal away, as I’ve said many times..words mean nothing..try enforcing it.
Don’t worry.
Garbage day a comin!
🙂
Hahaha
They can go right ahead and repeal the second amendment
Good luck repealing MY send amendment right
Bring it
zacly………..NEVER LEAVE THE HOUSE UNARMED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!