News

How Judges Ignore the Constitution on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms

Despite its many gains over the years the NRA has failed to bring a Second Amendment affirmation case before the Supreme Court and many people are asking why.

It certainly seems like a great idea to bring about a case to the Supreme Court so that all of these anti-gun activists and state’s would know once and for all that they can not infringe upon the Second Amendment. The NRA is the perfect organization to bring forth this lawsuit since their motto has to do with defending 2A.

Perhaps another question that should be asked—and a better one—is how can judges violate their oath to defend the Constitution by favoring their personal policy preferences without consequences?

The answer lies in the not so subtle but often misunderstood shift that occurred in the American political scene around the turn of the century (1900). Though it had a much smaller following then, Progressivism (sometimes called Leftism) was the impetus of that shift.

Fueled by secular humanism, Progressive philosophy holds that man is not imperfect or limited but rather perfectible. Unconstrained by either the outside forces of God or moral law, Progressivism put forth the idea substitutes the government for religion and God.

Attorney General William Barr recently pointed out in his brilliant speech to the Federalist Society that progressives see it as their mission to use the “coercive power of the State to remake man and society in their own image.”

According to Barr, part of that image is a society in which they imagine no one would ever use a gun for a violent reason, therefore the only reason one would need a firearm is for hunting purposes.

As Senator Cory Booker and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has equated to us in their Green New Deal, the new progressive ideal is veganism, so their utopian society has no need for weapons for any reason.

Unlike conservatives, who believe in the Constitution, progressives have no problem with circumventing the establishment by any means possible. Barr went on to say, “Conservatives tend to have more scruple over their political tactics and rarely feel that the ends justify the means… but there is no getting around the fact that this puts conservatives at a disadvantage when facing progressive holy war, especially when doing so under the weight of a hyper-partisan media.”

So, what does that have to do with the debate over gun control and Second Amendment rights? Conservatives are originalists. They believe in following guidelines set by the Constitution for changing laws.

However, says retired military officer and researcher Dean Weingarten: “If a particular outcome is not what a Progressive wants, they feel free to change the law with judicial rulings.”

Consider the history of the Progressive agenda and its constantly shifting narrative. 50 years ago, the First Amendment seemed to be the sacred possession of the left, as it was to everyone. Now, free speech is seen by many progressives as the enemy of the state.

It’s as you see the big picture of the stranglehold Progressive thoughts have on higher education and the courts that you begin to understand the uphill battle the Second Amendment advocates face.

Hopefully electing a man like President Donald Trump and confirming Attorney General’s like William Barr can stem the tide of the anti-gun assault on the Constitution.


Most Popular

These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.

To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].

Family-Friendly Content

Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More



Most Popular
Sponsored Content

These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.

To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].

Family-Friendly Content

Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More

3 Responses

  1. Them judges ain’t got the power to do that that’s out in our constitutional rights to care bear arms to carry arms wherever we want so all of that bullshit that they trying to do is stupid our forefathers gave us that right into the constitutional right and they trying to take that away from us. This country is getting to be more calm in this band along allows.

  2. Given these concepts of firearms or weapons becoming unnecessary, would our society then become based upon survival of the fittest? And, how would one defend themselves against the animals now looking to eat them? Also, with no hunters to thin the herds of plant eating animals, deer, rabbits and so forth, our own food supply would now be in danger. And so on down the slippery slope!

  3. Lie-beral DEMONocrats…the syndicate of fake, hate, negate, ingrate, degenerate, agitate, instigate, segregate, separate, isolate, desecrate (Bible burning), depopulate (abortions), and D O M I N A T E ! They have crossed over to the dark side and have went off the deep end.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *