An old liberal argument that just won’t die

Every time there’s anything happening involving a firearm, the old debate comes back up about the Second Amendment. Naturally, there are people on all sides of the issue, from those who want any kind of weapon they can dream of being legal to carry anywhere, to those who want anyone who’s ever touched a firearm killed. Personally, I have a concealed handgun license, and now, TX has passed a law saying my license allows me to carry open or concealed. The argument here though, isn’t about if the second amendment allows this, but rather, that it only applies to the types of firearms available for use in the late 1700’s. The “they meant muskets” argument, to be honest, is one of the most idiotic arguments possible, yet when you point out that the founding fathers were well educated and specifically phrased the 2nd Amendment as they did to allow for advances in technology, suddenly you’re an idiot and shouldn’t be allowed to feed yourself, which in the minds of idiots who believe the musket theory, means they won the argument. Well, let’s take this to it’s natural path, shall we?

The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion, the right to petition for redress, free speech and freedom of assembly. If the musket argument is true, religion isn’t really affected, nor is the right to petition for redress or assembly, but speech at that point in time was either in newspapers or literally using your voice. There was no TV, radio, internet, etc. So, if you’re going to tell me I can only have a musket, you can’t have a blog/facebook feed/podcast, there can be no radio or TV commentary, and you therefore, can be silenced unless actually speaking or writing for a newspaper.

Do you see the idiocy here? To claim that the second amendment only applies to the types of firearms available at the time it was written is as mind numbingly stupid as it is to say that because TV, radio, blogs, etc didn’t exist, they aren’t forms of speech, and thus, not covered by the first amendment. The musket crowd are quick to spew their hatred for guns, and to vilify anyone who dares suggest that the framers of the very document that allows them to spew said hatred might have known weaponry would change, but they’re just as quick to say the first amendment covers this form of speech or that, even if it literally didn’t exist when the BoR was written. So, which is it? Did the founders know or not know that times would change, and if they did, are you willing to admit you simply want to impose your will on the rest of the world, or will you continue to demand we all bow to your will, praise your amazing intellect and believe as you do, while “championing freedom and individuality” as long as people are just like you.

Here’s a link to the tweet that spawned this rant.

More re-writing of the Constitution

We heard about this case a while back, and it appears it’s now working it’s way through appeals courts to the Colorado Supreme Court, and maybe even to SCOTUS. What infuriates me is that this should never have been in court, as the Constitution does not state that there can be zero discrimination, but rather that the people (all but the government to be perfectly clear) cannot have their religious liberty tampered with. The words are, just so you know, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Simply put, it is not a “crime” to deny service based on religion. We’ve seen muslims demand that no one bring pork or alcohol through their line at a grocery store, or sue an airline for “forcing them” to go against their faith. The latter is actually worse, because the muslim in question converted after getting the job, and her co-workers were willing to make sure she didn’t serve the alcohol on those flights. Both of those cases were not about embracing or exercising their faith, but about forcing others to do it with them. The idea of all of these cases is that people today firmly believe that they have a “right” to whatever they want, and can sue and attack people for saying no.

Back to the bakery, though, not even 20 years ago, this would not have gone to court, but rather would have been handled by the local economy. If there truly were enough people “outraged” or “offended” by this baker, then their business would have dried up and they’d have been forced to close by not having business. Today, however, they’re all but burned at the stake, simply because a small percentage of the population is hell bent on not only “exercising their rights to equal protection under the law,” but also to forcing others to praise and give in to them. Very shortly after this baker was sued, a man called bakeries owned by those in the LGBT community, asking for cakes or cookies with scriptures on them. When he was told no, called every name in the book, verbally abused, HE DID NOT SUE, he simply posted the story online. Naturally, he was requesting “offensive messages attacking people for their beliefs” and was lying when he showed what the scriptures he wanted referenced said, proving this isn’t about freedom, it’s about forcing people to change to accept and praise those they disagree with.

We’re getting close to a tipping point, and if we go over that point, you won’t be able to pray in public, wear a cross necklace, or in any way show your faith, for fear of being sued for “attacking” someone or “forcing your beliefs on them.” Those who have read Revelation know it’s going to happen, but are we really going to help hasten that day?

Old, but are they harbingers of society to come?

These two stories show an attitude that has been growing in the last few decades, one of entitlement and arrogance. In California and Louisiana, Firefighters have been cuffed, if not arrested, at accident scenes, for blocking traffic, which is standard procedure when called to the scene of an accident. I have personally responded to more than my fair share of vehicle accidents, several just to block or direct traffic while the EMS crew works on the victims. I don’t care if there’s no fire, if the tones go off, we respond.

At this point, I’m waiting for a “feminist” to all but assault a first responder for “assaulting a woman” by simply carrying her away from an accident, or for “illegally detaining” someone who should be kept immobile until cleared by an EMT. We live in a country where people have been told for decades that they have a “right” to this or that, or that there is not “right or wrong” only what you decide. How long until Police are called and told to kill someone because it’s the caller’s “right” to have their “assailant” killed for “denying their rights?” We’ve seen children kill their parents for the smallest of things, children report their parents for “abuse,” that being not buying a new PS3 or XBox1, and even laws prohibiting police from interfering when someone who does not have custody wants to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion, because the girl would be “abused” by being told her parents were disappointed.

At this point, I’m waiting to be told that as a white male, I’m not allowed to earn a salary, am required to kneel in the presence of all non-white-males, and am required to hold my wallet open while doing so. We’re headed to hell in a nitro fueled handcart people, and unless we wake up, we’re close to a hot welcome.