Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Which Inherent Right DON'T They Oppose

It's pretty much a given that 'Gun Control' advocates aren't real big fans of the Second Amendment. The Chicago Tribune, which patently ignores thousands of marchers in Springfield in lieu of several anti-gun editorials, openly calls for its repeal.

But what isn't normally noticed are their attacks on the other rights enumerated in the Constitution, especially the 1st, 4th and 5th.

1st Amendment: 45 Superman notes how the administration at the Community College of Allegheny County needed to be forced into litigation to allow a student to hand out pro-2A information while the Second Amendment Sisters were told they were likely to be shot as threats during an EMPTY holster protest.

4th Amendment: Support of gun control groups for "Safe Storage" laws. The only way this is enforceable, as has been shown recently in Australia, is through warrantless searches of homes by the authorities. To them, that is 'reasonable'. We also did not hear a peep out of them during the seizures of firearms by authorities during Katrina yet we regularly hear that they do not support bans or confiscations.

5th Amendment: Support of gun control groups for the removal of rights without due process by being put on error-laden and secret "Watchlists".

In an interesting side point to this, we also regularly hear gun control advocates endorse licensing and/or registration of firearms all in the name to reduce crime. What we DON'T hear are their criticisms/condemnations of US v Haynes which ruled that convicted felons can't be prosecuted for failing to register a firearm under the self-incrimination clause of the 5th Amendment yet they come out of the woodwork to condemn Heller v DC which recognized the 2nd as an individual right for non-prohibited persons. So are they more concerned with criminal or legal possession of firearms?

Obviously this opposition to numerous rights by gun control advocates is only as it regards to firearm owners. If it were to come down to their personal interests, I'm sure they would fight tooth and nail to maintain them.

Unorganized Militia Gear

3 comments:

45superman said...

Well done.

They're not too keen on the 10th Amendment, either, judging by their opposition to the Montana Firearms Freedom Act.

Weer'd Beard said...

As a general rule you either respect the Bill of Rights or you don't.

It's kinda like that "Living Document" tripe. Either the Constitution means what it says or it doesn't.

If you can disregard or alter any one part, you can disregard or alter the whole thing.

So therefor Anti-2nd Amendment types are against all the other amendments as well, as they see them as flexible and meaningless.

Linoge said...

Weer'd pretty much nailed it... any logic or rationale that can be used against one of the Bill of Rights amendments can be used against all of them, and thus anyone who opposes any of the original Amendments are pretty much against all of them. They are "out of date". They were not "meant for modern things". They are "collective rights". They do not mean what they plainly say. The list goes on and on and on, and never gets any less stupid or idiotic.

The Amendments were put in place for a reason, and it was not a challenge to find any and all ways to work around them. Until people realize that, we are going to be fighting for the preservation of our rights on a daily basis.