If you want to destroy the Second Amendment, why not eliminate the First Amendment while you’re at it?

08/24/2009

You know what they say, “be careful what you wish for”……

If the entire Bill of Rights were overturned tomorrow, what kind of caterwauling would you expect to hear from the likes of Rachel Maddow, Bill O’Reilly, Arianna Huffington, MSNBC, and the Southern Poverty Law Center, especially if they were shut out of the new regime in some journalistic “Night of the Long Knives?”  On a clear day, when the wind is just right, I can almost hear the dulcet tones of Keith Olbermann’s high-decibel screech as he is carted off to a FEMA camp; never to be seen or heard from again.  I’ve always said he should’ve stuck with SportsCenter.  Now that’s first-class entertainment. 

“He must be jelly ‘cause jam don’t shake like that!”

– Stuart Scott, ESPN SportsCenter anchor

Every day, these corporate New World Order mouthpieces freely enjoy what I consider to be a particularly distasteful and hateful exercise of their First Amendment protections.  But the whole point is that it doesn’t matter what I think; the freedom of speech and of the press are protections guaranteed to all. What really grinds my gears is that, while they exercise their rights freely and openly, they feel it is well within their rights to both deny me my rights and vilify those of us who feel similarly.  Vanity - the putrid heart of the Whore of Babylon.        

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

– Beatrice Hall, The Friends of Voltaire

The quote, often attributed to Voltaire himself, was written to illuminate the epitome of his attitude. François-Marie Arouet, or Voltaire, was a man whose words caused him a great deal of suffering, including a stretch in the Bastille and exile from his native France.  As someone at the forefront of the Age of Enlightenment, he made a long list of enemies with his writing.  He infuriated most of the French aristocracy, including King Louis XV.  This period of Enlightenment is seen by many historians as having been a major influence on our Founders. 

Contrary to what the “lamestream” media might say to the contrary, the right to the open exchange of ideas isn’t the only Natural right protected by the Bill of Rights. 

It also protects:

·        Freedom of Religion (1st)

·        Peaceable Assembly (1st)

·        Petition the Government for a redress of grievances (1st)

·        A well-regulated Militia (2nd)

·        Keep and bear arms (2nd)

·        No quartering of troops (3rd)

·        Unreasonable search and seizure (4th)

·        Probable cause (4th)

·        Due process/Grand Jury (5th)

·        Double Jeopardy (5th)

·        Self-incrimination (5th)

·        Eminent domain (5th)

·        Trial by jury (6th)

·        Speedy and public trial (6th)

·        Confronting your accuser (6th)

·        The right to counsel (6th)

·        Civil trial by jury (7th)

·        Cruel and unusual punishment (8th)

·        Excessive bail (8th)

·        Any rights not prohibited by the Constitution (9th)

·        Powers not given to the Government by the Constitution are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people (10th)

These rights are non-negotiable; every single one of them. 

An important fact that many people don’t know is that, before the Constitution was written, a schism existed between the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist factions of the Founders.  The Federalists believed in a strong monarchic central government, while the Anti-Federalists believed that the true seat of power should lie with the States, and thus the people.  Ultimately, a compromise was reached so that the various states would ratify the Constitution; that compromise was the first ten Amendments, which is called the Bill of Rights. 

The preamble to the Bill of Rights, which is often left out of school books, sums it up nicely:

“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 ensure the beneficent starts of its institution.”

Put simply, it is an enunciation of protections the Federal government must provide for its citizens against itself.  Furthermore, it limits what the Federal government can and cannot do with regard to the States, who, acting as representatives of their citizens, created the Federal government. 

“…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing…absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Whether the media understands it or not, those of us who have taken a stand for freedom do so for all Americans, including those who would disparage us or deny us our rights.

Indeed.