Google
 
Web rhymeswithright.mu.nu

March 27, 2013

But What About Second Amendment Rights?

We’ve been hearing this argument about gay marriage recently – this time succinctly put by the person who blogs on behalf of Rachel Maddow.

Rights are not supposed to be open to popularity contests. Throughout American history, if all contentious decisions over civil rights were left solely to popular will and the political process, progress would have been very slow, indeed. It’s precisely why Americans have turned to their last available option — the courts — as a way of ensuring their rights are protected.

If they really believe this, I’m curious why liberals keep arguing to limit the right to keep and bear arms found in the Second Amendment, using the argument that the overwhelming majority of Americans support such restrictions. I thought “rights are not supposed to be open to popularity contests.”

For that matter, what about the religious freedom rights of citizens, business owners, and religious institutions to not be forced to pay for abortions, birth control, sterilization, in vitro fertilization, sex changes and other procedures that violate their religious beliefs? Seems like folks want that right to be subject to popular vote, too.

Oh, I get it – only abortion and gay marriage are rights not up to a vote. The rights actually in the Bill of Rights are subject to popularity contests when liberals don’t like them.





|| Greg, 06:24 PM || Permalink || Comments (5) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Trackback Information for But What About Second Amendment Rights?

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/283095
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'But What About Second Amendment Rights?'.

Comments on But What About Second Amendment Rights?

RwR (Rhymes with Right),

You keep pointing out the hypocrisy of the left - and, yes, I do it too.

Problem is - most "liberals" (don't want to paint with too broad a brush here) are perfectly content with the cognizant dissonance of double standards.

I have, and I’m sure you have also, seen it over and over in life – they have an ends-justify-the-means mentality. They know what they want, and tailor whatever document, study, or ethics they have to fit the bill.

You and I come from the position of FAIRNESS. I mean real fairness, not revenge guised in fairness, nor “social justice” in the guise of fairness, and not forced acceptance in the guise of “fairness”.

What homosexual activists want is forced acceptance. They absolutely do not want one of our bedrock freedoms to even be considered: the freedom of association. I can choose to associate or NOT associate with whom I please – and that thought process makes them very angry.

Plus, you want to play fair with these folk – and point out gun rights, rights to life for unborn children, and all other rights ACTUALLY WRITTEN into the BoR. They don’t like those actual rights, and while you play fair and expect a logical reasoned response, you’ll be holding your breath for a long time waiting for that to happen.

Not unlike how discussions I’ve had with feminists have gone, when I would, in a non-confrontationally discuss certain feminist factoids and assumptions and be able to lay out the provable bigotry they are dealing in, were the situation be reversed, it was always “different”.

And here is the key: One of the main tenets of Political Correctness is the destruction of objectivity. Read that again – because it’s a constant undercurrent in almost all their thought processes, decision making paradigms, and arguments. They must destroy objectivity, and it’s close cousin “a single standard”.

Again – look at how feminists turned Western law on it’s head with sexual harassment law. In ALL OTHER CASES of law the “Reasonable Person” standard was, is, and will be used. It was an objective standard that said (in essence) “Were a ‘Reasonable Person’ to observe [x], their perception could right be [y], and they could take action [z].”

In Feminist jurisprudence it became SUBJECTIVE. Each situation is different and it’s based not on any objective criteria, but rather the subjective view of even “1 victim”. Hence it plays to the most base nature of the most vile of humanity : “I can do anything I want, it’s my world, and I’ll use the code words of the day of self-justification (“I feel”, “It MADE me feel”, “To ME, I perceived …”).

With Gay activism they want forced acceptance. Even if someone is SILENT, but not actively complimenting and encouraging them, that person must be FORCED to affirm the gay lifestyle.

All must be in lockstep in the bizzarro world of “Tolerance” absolutism. It’s based on everyone who FEELS (subjective) like a victim. That no one is actually victimizing them is irrelevant. They FEEL victimized due to not having universally forced acceptance.

Now – RwR, you are trying to have a logical mental exercise with these folk (gay activists, not gays) and play fair – but while they’ll smile at you in public, they’ll legislate you out of business, out of an education, out of job, and hurt you in every way possible until you’re “re-educated”.

They “get” our counter arguments, but since what they want is based on how they feel – and yours is based on logic, they’ll never act in a fair and rational manner. Our courts (9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of subjectivity (big surprise)) have ruled that a SUBJECTIVE feeling MUST be validated, no matter how OBJECTIVELY unreasonable the person is being.

Sorry for the long post – but most people try what you try: a logical response to an irrational person holding a subjective view – a view they will use violence by proxy to protect.

It won’t make a dent on their thinking.

Steven

|| Posted by Steven, March 28, 2013 04:46 PM ||

Wanted to add - and I hate these caveats, but in our PC world they must be added (shudder):

I don't "hate gays". I am in the military and have deployed with GOOD Soldiers who happened to be gay.

I say good Soldiers who were gay, not Gay soldiers. And I think you can get my drift on that. I don't care who sleeps with whom, as long as it's not affecting morale (CMDR sleeping with someone and giving preferential treatment etc). What I DO care about is that if the Soldier wears their sexual orientation on their sleeve and does not act professionally and wants a pass because anything but forced acceptance and constant reassurance of being gay is FELT to be "homophobia".

Again - no single standard is allowed. Were **I** to act like some gays act, actively flaunting my sexuality, I would, in short order, be brought up on EO and Sexual Harrasment charges.

a GAY soldier does that - a gay Soldier does not.

A gay Soldier does his or her level best to wear the cloth of their nation in defense of said nation in an attempt at a noble profession and to bring credit to their uniform and service.

A GAY soldier is a Soldier who thinks none of those icky EO or Sexual Harrasment regulations apply to them because "they're special". Further, being a scumbag self-centered, entitled, and "constantly set upon 'victim'" (in their mind) anyone not "getting with the program" of cheerleading the GAY lifestyle is guilty of homophobia. And lastly, dirtbags being dirtbags, GAY soldiers will pull the "you hate gays" card whenever they get in trouble so they can effectively silence any objective & fair criticism of their offenseive sexual actions - because they have been taught and it's been reinforced that they are "special" and all rules are SUBJECTIVE. It's a nifty intimidation technique that works.

Hope that clarified.

Steven

|| Posted by Steven, March 28, 2013 04:57 PM ||

wh0cd25238 augmentin

|| Posted by Alfredbiz, February 25, 2017 04:44 AM ||

wh0cd750496 Viagra

|| Posted by KennethPek, February 25, 2017 09:43 PM ||

wh0cd106589 Generic Levitra

|| Posted by KennethPek, February 26, 2017 06:31 AM ||
Post a comment

Remember personal info?


 

 





AnotherMunublogSmall.jpg





Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards
Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2013 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2012 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2011 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2010 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2009 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Posts by Category

Abortion (posts: 2)
Announcements (posts: 13)
Blogging (posts: 187)
Border Issues & Immigration (posts: 421)
deferred (posts: 4)
Education (posts: 685)
Entertainment & Sports (posts: 483)
Guns & Gun Control (posts: 65)
History (posts: 329)
Humor (posts: 88)
Israel/Middle East (posts: 44)
Medical News (posts: 54)
Military (posts: 273)
News (posts: 1571)
Paid Advertising (posts: 234)
Personal (posts: 109)
Politics (posts: 5271)
Race & Racism (posts: 281)
Religion (posts: 819)
Terrorism (posts: 884)
Texas GOP Platform Reform Project (posts: 4)
The Courts (posts: 310)
Watcher's Council (posts: 482)
World Affairs (posts: 345)

Archives

January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
December 0000



MuNuviana



Licensing

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Powered By

Powered by
Movable Type 2.64
AnotherMunublogSmall.jpg

Administrative Stuff

Email Me
Syndicate this site (XML)

Advertising Disclosure

adpolicy.gif

About Me

NAME: Greg
AGE: 50-ish
SEX: Male
MARITAL STATUS: Married
OCCUPATION: Social Studies Teacher
LOCATION: Seabrook, TX
DISCLAIMER: All posts reflect my views alone, and not the view of my wife, my dogs, my employer, or anyone else. All comments reflect the view of the commenter, and permitting a comment to remain on this site in no way indicates my support for the ideas expressed in the comment.

Search This Site


Support This Site



Recent Entries

On Fake News
Who Cares About The Emoluments Clause?
If It Doesn't Bother You, It Should
Bromance Turns America Into Russian Satellite State
Because Many Americans Would Findf The Biblical Plagues To Be Preferable
Because When A Minority Wins An Election, The Majority Must Shut Up
Hope For The Future
My Resignation As Precinct Chair
Resolution Packet For GOP Precinct Conventions
Why #NeverTrump Is The Only Moral Position

Blogroll


Watchers Council
  • Ask Marion
  • Bookworm Room
  • The Colossus of Rhodey
  • The Glittering Eye
  • GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD
  • The Independent Sentinel
  • JoshuaPundit
  • Liberty's Spirit
  • New Zeal
  • Nice Deb
  • The Noisy Room
  • The Razor
  • Rhymes With Right
  • The Right Planet
  • Simply Jews
  • Virginia Right!
  • Watcher Of Weasels

  • Political & Religious Blogs