By Nathan Barton
No, it isn’t due to their toking up. It is simply the same old transnational socialism/progressivism, perhaps the worst extreme form of statism which we now face. Rolling Stone Magazine has joined the New York Times, the Boston Globe and the tyrant who claims to be President of the United States (and I hate even mentioning the names) in calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment to the United States constitution, following the Islamist terrorist attack in Florida. Not only do they call for its repeal, but the article drags up everything “evil” about the Constitution, demonstrate their warped view of history, and condemn the Federal government NOT as an evil tyranny, but because it is NOT a strong enough, unitary enough tyranny!
Look, the US Constitution is far from either the God-inspired document (which the LDS church and others believe it to be) or even a very good document in many ways, but it is better than perhaps any other nation except Switzerland has in 2016.
I am not a Constitutionalist, but in this case I rise to its defense. The US Constitution is FAR from perfect, but it is NOT the racist, totalitarian document that RS and others claim it to be, now or in the past. The list that RS attacks is a long one. Not just those things which have been changed as being old but serious faults (something scholars argue about, such as the old way of electing the vice president, the horrible mistake of only allowing people 21 or older to vote, and problems of secession), and the “racism” of counting slaves as only 3/5th of a free person for purposes of representation. They also attack the document for not having an “equal rights” amendment (which couldn’t get enough support from the people to pass), and, among other things, “land-based representation” (their phrase, apparently for having each state in a federal union having two Senators, instead of letting California have 50 and making the Dakotas share one: so incredibly evil!).
Of course, they call the government system established by the US Constitution a democracy: that term beloved of Tranzis, statists, Socialists and Communists (remember, “democratic republics!”). And they do not understand the concept of federalism at all, as their attack on the Senate shows.
But what really takes the cake and galls me is the insanely absurd claim that the Second Amendment is “Anti-liberty” because it denies people the right to eat at a restaurant or dance and drink in a night-club without a risk of getting shot and killed. This is the attitude of slaves: that only massa can use force and that massa will make everything fine. RS dismisses the idea that an armed populace has anything to do with liberty.
Clearly, RS and their ilk disagree with the likes of Charles Koch and Walter E. Williams:
“A truly free society is based on a vision of respect for people and what they value. In a truly free society, any business that disrespects its customers will fail, and deserves to do so. The same should be true of any government that disrespects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. This is the essence of big government and collectivism.” — Charles Koch
“Try this thought experiment. Pretend you’re a tyrant. Among your many liberty-destroying objectives are extermination of blacks, Jews and Catholics. Which would you prefer, a United States with political power centralized in Washington, powerful government agencies with detailed information on Americans and compliant states or power widely dispersed over 50 states, thousands of local jurisdictions and a limited federal government?” — Walter E. Williams
Most of all, they ignore the wise words of Benjamin Franklin: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither. He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.”
RS, NYT, and BG all want a MORE powerful and MORE centralized government, and a people supine under the boots of their so-benevolent and loving rulers. If we listen to them, we do indeed deserve neither liberty nor security.
Mama’s Note: The constitution is, perhaps, the best collective system to come along so far. Fifty, or however many smaller collective entities may well be even better, but make no mistake about it… Any collective is absolutely a polar opposite of individual liberty. Anyone may choose to be part of a collective, of course, but they are fooling themselves if they think they are free.