NEW YORK, NY- In what could be described as an ahistorical and constitutionally tone-deaf 32-page report that reads more akin to a lengthy anti-2A Twitter screed, three juris doctorate holders from the John Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions have suggested that "the growing presence of firearms in political spaces" "endangers public health, safety, and the functioning of democracy."
The report either flies directly in the face of the intent of our founding fathers, or in a more charitable interpretation excels at "missing the point." For example the authors wrote, "A right to take up arms against the government has not been recognized by courts as a protection within the Second Amendment and is incompatible with our democracy."
Aside from the obvious correction that we live in a constitutional republic and not a democracy, the utterly ahistoric interpretation of the origninal intent of the drafters of our Constitution continues with the shocking assertion that "individuals deciding for themselves when democracy becomes 'tyranny' jeopardizes lives and the foundational civil liberties of free speech and fair elections necessary for democratic governance."
That's right, you, as an individual, interpreting what is and isn't tyranny "jeapardizes lives." Don't you know? That has to be interpreted for you. You, the average American clearly lack the faculties and intelligence neccessary to deterimne that your rights are being trod upon by your government, and in a direct rebuke and contradiction to the words of The Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, and the overwhelming spirit of our nation, you do NOT have the right to resist tyranny by force.
Apparently, Alexander Hamilton erred when he wrote in Federalist No. 28 about the "Right of Revolution," in which he prescribes "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defence, which is paramount to all positive forms of government; and which, against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success, than against those of the rulers of an individual State."
The "Policy and Practice Recommendations" proffered in this allegedly academic report are:
• Regulate the public carry of firearms
• Strengthen existing laws, or increase the enforcement of current laws, to prohibit paramilitary activity
• Prohibit the civilian possession of firearms in locations essential to political participation, such as polling places, legislative buildings, and protests to protect the core functions of government
• Enact and implement Extreme Risk Protection Order laws to temporarily disarm people who pose a high risk of violence
• Repeal or create exceptions for firearm preemption laws to give local governments the ability to create policies to address risks of insurrectionism in their jurisdictions
• Break the insurrectionist permission structure by openly denouncing violence
All of these items but the final are egregiously in violation of even an elementary interpretation of our constitutional rights to bear arms, free assembly, redress of grievances, the maintenance of volunteer militias, due process and even habeus corpus. (Were law degrees on sale?)
The final item is purely insulting, in that not only have ALL of the prominent figures in the conservative movement and the Republican party itself openly denounced political violence repeatedly and in well-documented statements, but the fact remains that on January 6 itself former President Donald J. Trump called upon his supporters in attendence to be peaceful saying: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," as quoted by The New York Times.
The entire report in its totality is an abhorrent exercise in biased interpretation of the Constitution, a depraived distortion of our founders clear intentions and abhorrent to the rights of the American people to the point of being farce if it wasn't so troublingly serious.
We must however, be comforted if nothing else than by the fact that any such laws wrongheadedly passed or sought, must by their very nature be stricken down if by no other cause than by Marbury v. Madison: "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
But let it be known: the left's argument that they aren't "coming for our guns" is officially and thoroughly dead.
The report either flies directly in the face of the intent of our founding fathers, or in a more charitable interpretation excels at "missing the point." For example the authors wrote, "A right to take up arms against the government has not been recognized by courts as a protection within the Second Amendment and is incompatible with our democracy."
Aside from the obvious correction that we live in a constitutional republic and not a democracy, the utterly ahistoric interpretation of the origninal intent of the drafters of our Constitution continues with the shocking assertion that "individuals deciding for themselves when democracy becomes 'tyranny' jeopardizes lives and the foundational civil liberties of free speech and fair elections necessary for democratic governance."
That's right, you, as an individual, interpreting what is and isn't tyranny "jeapardizes lives." Don't you know? That has to be interpreted for you. You, the average American clearly lack the faculties and intelligence neccessary to deterimne that your rights are being trod upon by your government, and in a direct rebuke and contradiction to the words of The Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, and the overwhelming spirit of our nation, you do NOT have the right to resist tyranny by force.
Apparently, Alexander Hamilton erred when he wrote in Federalist No. 28 about the "Right of Revolution," in which he prescribes "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defence, which is paramount to all positive forms of government; and which, against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success, than against those of the rulers of an individual State."
The "Policy and Practice Recommendations" proffered in this allegedly academic report are:
• Regulate the public carry of firearms
• Strengthen existing laws, or increase the enforcement of current laws, to prohibit paramilitary activity
• Prohibit the civilian possession of firearms in locations essential to political participation, such as polling places, legislative buildings, and protests to protect the core functions of government
• Enact and implement Extreme Risk Protection Order laws to temporarily disarm people who pose a high risk of violence
• Repeal or create exceptions for firearm preemption laws to give local governments the ability to create policies to address risks of insurrectionism in their jurisdictions
• Break the insurrectionist permission structure by openly denouncing violence
All of these items but the final are egregiously in violation of even an elementary interpretation of our constitutional rights to bear arms, free assembly, redress of grievances, the maintenance of volunteer militias, due process and even habeus corpus. (Were law degrees on sale?)
The final item is purely insulting, in that not only have ALL of the prominent figures in the conservative movement and the Republican party itself openly denounced political violence repeatedly and in well-documented statements, but the fact remains that on January 6 itself former President Donald J. Trump called upon his supporters in attendence to be peaceful saying: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," as quoted by The New York Times.
The entire report in its totality is an abhorrent exercise in biased interpretation of the Constitution, a depraived distortion of our founders clear intentions and abhorrent to the rights of the American people to the point of being farce if it wasn't so troublingly serious.
We must however, be comforted if nothing else than by the fact that any such laws wrongheadedly passed or sought, must by their very nature be stricken down if by no other cause than by Marbury v. Madison: "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
But let it be known: the left's argument that they aren't "coming for our guns" is officially and thoroughly dead.
For corrections or revisions, click here.
The opinions reflected in this article are not necessarily the opinions of LET
Comments
2024-01-26T16:33-0500 | Comment by: Michael
These people are insane and this is the very reason why "we the people" should be starting to form militia's before it's too late. Take notes from Australia and Canada and wake up people!!!
2024-01-26T16:36-0500 | Comment by: Rick
Amazingly articles like this leave the Bloomberg name off of the organization. Just another self-important, entitled A-H looking to cement his position by ensuring the American public are sheep, using lies and skewed statistics to try to take away their rights. Ask yourself how many armed security surround him when he goes out and why he feels the "lesser" people do not have the same right to self defense/security.
2024-01-26T17:09-0500 | Comment by: Larry
are these people stupid???
2024-01-27T09:41-0500 | Comment by: Raconteur
“Democracy” has become the new pseudonym of “progressivism”, which is the misnomer of “socialism” and “Marxism”. I suppose when you are too embarrassed by your own ideology, you’ll call it anything to obfuscate what it truly is. Recall this, the next time you encounter the phrase “our democracy”.
2024-01-27T09:50-0500 | Comment by: Raconteur
Notice how these three "doctors" conflate gun control with crime control and come up with the conclusion that it is a health problem. The three stooges are obviously educated much beyond their intelligence.
2024-01-29T13:58-0500 | Comment by: Laurence
More nonsense from the gun-banning do-gooders. Don't these supposedly intelligent people realize the sun a ban would give organized crime a monopoly on firearms, and leave the citizens prey to criminals? Guns are a health problem? What about the more than 50,000 people a year who die from medical errors?
2024-02-01T22:21-0500 | Comment by: 1
555
2024-02-01T22:22-0500 | Comment by: 1
555
2024-02-01T22:22-0500 | Comment by: 1
555
2024-02-01T22:23-0500 | Comment by: 1
555
2024-02-01T22:23-0500 | Comment by: 1
555
2024-02-01T22:23-0500 | Comment by: 1
555
2024-02-01T22:23-0500 | Comment by: 1
555
2024-02-01T22:25-0500 | Comment by: TWSfSopc
555
2024-02-01T22:27-0500 | Comment by: TWSfSopc
555
2024-02-01T22:28-0500 | Comment by: TWSfSopc
555
2024-02-01T22:28-0500 | Comment by: TWSfSopc
555