The New York Times, which has joined forces with progressives and the Resist Movement, is up in arms, so to speak, over Dana Loesch and the NRA blasting the newspaper for its fake news.
The gloves are definitely off with this “shot across the Times’ proverbial bow.”
The 2nd Amendment is here to stay, thanks to a new administration in Washington.
But that’s difficult for The New York Times and progressives to understand.
Progressives are religious – their god is the state.
Good in their eyes is a government that is large, controlling and able to impose progressive ideas on the ignorant masses.
They recognize evil in the world, but believe that man’s basic goodness will flourish within the right environment, created by the state.
Some progressives believe that the right government actions – within the proper enlargement of government – can perfect mankind.
Progressives particularly focus on gun control, since they believe that man should trust the state, but must not trust firearms in the hands of individuals.
Now the progressives are attacking a new pro-2nd Amendment commercial.
It is clear anti-2nd Amendment proponents believe government can always protect you. But that’s a disconnect with reality.
It is a disconnect with reality to think criminals and terrorists will give up guns.
It is a disconnect with reality to believe that “gun free” zones protect you. They don’t. Schools and other areas that ban weapons can be a killing field.
It’s also a disconnect to think everyone who owns a gun is a sane individual who follows the law to the letter.
The 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is to ensure that we, as a people, always have a republic.
And as with any constitutional provision in the Bill of Rights, there are adverse aspects to each of those right that we enjoy.
For example, what we saw with the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise and others at a ball game, is one of the bad side effects of someone not exercising those rights properly.
But, we’re not going to get rid of freedom of speech because people say ugly things that hurt others.
We’re not going to get rid of the 4th Amendment search-and-seizure rights because it allows some criminals to go free who should be behind bars.
These rights are there to protect Americans.
And while each of them has a negative aspect to them, they are fundamental to our being the greatest nation in world history.
What do you think? Email me at firstname.lastname@example.org