There has been another shooting in this country, and this time on live TV. I am sad to say it, but once again these poor innocent people’s deaths, their families pain and suffering, are being exploited to advance the progressive ideology. Once again we see President Obama, saying that this happens too often. Gun grabbers once again are trying to generate enough uproar that people act out of fear, instead of intelligence, and willingly give up their God given rights.
I have written at length, multiple times about the illogical conclusion that more gun control equates to lower crime/murder rates. I am not going to rehash those points again… you know, I say that, but I know that some progressive Zealot is going to want to do battle defending their time proven failure of an ideology. Instead I would like to frame the argument in a different light.
Recently, to much fanfare, the Supreme Court ruled that States do not have the authority to ban gay marriage. This ruling was cheered throughout the land. President Obama lit up the White House with Rainbow colored lights to make it look like the Gay Pride flag.
So the courts have ruled that Gay Marriage is a right protected under the United States Constitution. What would happen, if Dallas decided to regulate gay marriages? Require them to register where they live? What if Nashville decided that gay couples had to pay higher taxes than non gay couples?Imagine if the Federal Government decided to pass a law restricting Gay couples rights, maybe denying them tax breaks other married couples receive? Is there any rational thought process that leads to doubt that there would be national outrage over this clear violation of their God given rights?
Of course not, and they would be right to cry out against these clear injustices.
The Supreme Court has recently ruled that Obamacare subsidies are legal, rewriting the rules of the English language to come to that conclusion. WE have heard the President, and countless Democrats demand that all challenges to Obamacare be dropped, as the Supreme Court has now clearly ruled that it is Constitutional.
So there would be national outrage if individual cities, or the Federal government choose to ignore the Supreme Court’s ruling on Gay Marriage. President Obama and many Democrats have demanded that all attacks on Obamacare be stopped, as the Supreme Court has ruled it is Constitutional. Why then does President Obama and the rest of the progressive movement choose to ignore Supreme Court rulings upholding the Second Amendment, and striking down gun control laws?
The United States Supreme Court rules continually in favor of the Second Amendment as being a protection of an individual’s right to own and bear arms. Yet for some reason, progressives like to keep trying to pass new gun bans, new restrictions, despite the fact that the court has struck them down countless times. The Heller Case clearly defends the individual right to own and bear arms, and struck down the DC gun ban. Yet, people like Diane Feinstein continue to push for new regulations restricting this right.
My question is why is it that according to progressive’s it is okay to violate the Constitution and ignore Supreme Court rulings when it comes to the Second Amendment, but not when it comes to say Obamacare? Why is a Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare the final salvo in the fight, the definitive end to any challenges to the law, but Supreme Court Rulings that uphold the Second Amendment are to be completely ignored?
In the case of Gay Marriage, no where in the Federal Constitution is the issue of marriage addressed. Not one time does the Constitution mention marriage, or give any power to regulate it to the Federal Government. The Supreme Court struck down Gay Marriage bans because they violate the 14th Amendment which states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
No where in this Amendment are the words Gay, Homosexual, Heterosexual, or Marriage stated. The court still ruled that 14th Amendment protects Gay Marriage because it protects equal protection of the law. That ruling struck down gay marriage bans.
The right to own and Bear Arms can be found in the Bill of Rights, in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It reads:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I will stress again, for all you new comers, the Second Amendment has what is called a prefatory clause, which is used as a form of justification for law. The first half of the Second Amendment “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”, in no way limits the the right protected by the Amendment. It is simply stating one reason why the right to own and bear arms shall not be infringed. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court, and is a staple in 18th century law.
This Amendment clearly states that we have the right to own and carry guns. This has been upheld many times by the Supreme Court, most recently in the Heller Case striking down the DC gun ban.
The Obamacare case was decided base on the Supreme Courts interpretation of intent. There was no Constitutional authority cited, they completely rewrote the law. The law intended to make it so that only states that set up state run exchanges would be allowed to receive subsidies. This was intended to force Republican governors to accept Obamacare. Jonathan Grubber all but spelled that out when he was pushing for Obamacare.
So of the three which one was made on the strongest footing? Heller defending the individual right to own and bear arms? The Gay Marriage Ruling? or the Obamacare ruling?
Needless to say, progressive Hypocrisy is well highlighted here. It is funny that the decision most passionately defended by the progressive is the one made with the least amount of legal creditably.
You cannot decry limitations/restriction on Gay Marriage, and support further gun control efforts. The Supreme Court has ruled on both of these, ensuring that they are in fact individual rights protected by the Constitution.