Monday, November 13, 2017

The Second Amendment: Anything but Obsolete



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.
-United States Constitution, 1791


The Idea of a somehow fluid constitution is one that permeates large expanses of the left wing, and nothing is more targeted under this erroneous theory than the Second Amendment. By fluid I mean the theory of a living Constitution, a Constitution that adapts and changes to meet the new circumstances in which it exists. This sounds all well and good, and in one sense the constitution is living, adapting through amendments like the 19th amendment to give women the right to vote, yet this idea is perverted by those who would like to mangle the Constitution in order to fit their wants.


Does this sound insane? Consider this, over 80% of Americans support the Constitution, while only 8% dislike it, if 80% of Americans support the Constitution, 80% of Americans should support people's right to using Hate Speech, because even if a speaker is offensive, their speech is constitutionally protected and that is not even up for debate. However, 44% of Americans argue that the Constitution doesn't protect Hate Speech. This gives three possibilities, one, people actually have no idea what the constitution says, two, around 24% of people know what the constitution says and disregard it anyways which would be a clear proclamation of dissent towards the first amendment, or three, somehow the Rasmussen Poll accidentally asked Americans what they think of the Canadian Constitution, because clearly a large percentage don't care about the American Constitution.


In relation to the second Amendment, there is an even larger level of support for the loose interpretation of the right to bear arms. By loose interpretation I mean tear the second Amendment out of the bill of Rights and throw into a fire. Leftist havens like Salon have turned to a popular refuge when it comes to Second Amendment bashing. Salon Argues that the Second Amendment calls for Americans to "participate in Militias rather than have a standing army", And that since we have a powerful standing army, the Second Amendment is "obsolete". This interpretation in which the first half of the Second Amendment is used as an argument for a standing militia and not an individual's right to bear arms not only does not stand up against scrutiny in terms of the actual wording, but also fails to hold any bearing to what the Founding Fathers clearly stated the Second Amendment means. The Second Amendment makes clear "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it does not state "the right of the well regulated Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". The only reason there can be a Militia is that citizens can own weapons. The Founding Fathers knew and agreed that the Government very much has the possibility of going tyrannical and that Citizens must have the right to defend themselves.


George Washington, a founding father, completely refuting Salon's argument, stated that "When Government takes away Citizens' right to bear arms, It becomes citizen's right to take away government's right to govern".


The Constitution is not fluid when it comes to already passed amendments, and the only point of arguing to reinterpret Amendments, or to change the wording of them is to make concessions to a large and growing government. The fact is that every Government ever, when left unchecked, will grow and usurp individuals rights in the name of temporary security or comfort, the federal Government is a hungry wolf and was originally only intended to scare off predators, aka Great Britain and other potential threats, thus giving states the security and right to govern themselves. As Benjamin Franklin said, "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both".


"The only thing that will ever come from continued concessions on the Second Amendment is a growing government and a weakening individual."


-RightLens News, 11/13/2017

Sunday, November 12, 2017

Eugenics Survives the 1900s


--The Issue of Eugenics.--

Since the Nazis employed Eugenics in the 1900s, the vision of creating a certain race through controlled breeding has been abhorrent to the vast majority of people and today, even the suggestion of mass murder to create a "master" race would and should get someone blasted out of the public sphere of thought. Yet while westerner's gut reactions to the horrors of the past remains when in relation to tragedies caused by racist motives or other vile motives that should have been discarded with the turn of the century, it appears that some of the old and disturbing ideology remains today. The quest of fighting mental deformities has been perverted so greatly that no longer is the primary goal to cure the deformity but rather, the eugenics approach of ending the deformity, killing host rather than the deformity itself. A fetus that has been diagnosed as at high risk of Down Syndrome's, would today in America have a 67% chance of being executed through abortion, for the crime of having down syndromes, in France it's worse, a 77% chance of being put to death, and Denmark a 95% chance of death. Iceland prides itself on the most effective eugenicide, boasting a near 100% rate of abortions for fetuses identified as being high risk for down syndromes, in fact only about 2 babies are born with Down Syndromes a year, and this is due to mistakes in screening.


How would it feel, to know the only reason you survived abortion is because a machine didn't correctly diagnose you as having a mental deformity? As people of the 21st Century, we pride ourselves on having learned from the past, as having discarded the ideologies of Communism and Fascism, yet it appears that everything Hitler or Stalin did, the 21st Century attempts to match, whether it's the tens of millions of babies that die yearly to abortion, the eugenicide factor of abortions that target those with mental deformities, or the continued anti-semitism and even high rates of holocaust denial throughout the middle east.

--The Emotional Factor of Abortion--

Almost everything in America is driven by emotion, and nothing is more emotional than Abortion. Logic would tell us that there is only two possible points in which a fetus is indeed alive, either A: at Conception, or B: at Birth. Only option A makes any scientific sense at all, yet a Gallup study in 2012 found that while Support for the legality of Abortions in the first Trimester was at 61%, a firm majority, that majority flipped by the second Trimester, 64% of Americans believe that Abortions should be illegal during the second Trimester and an even larger majority, 80% of Americans think third Trimester Abortions should be illegal. What happened between those three Trimesters, the fetus, A human being the entire time, grew larger and somehow achieved more sympathy from the public. Nothing magical happens between Trimesters, yet somehow large portions of the public prescribe arbitrary points for when a Baby can be defined as a life.

The Emotional Factor of Abortion pervades every single circumstance, if the Women is raped, it's okay to kill the baby, if the Women simply doesn't want the Baby, it should be illegal for an abortion to occur. 61% of Americans said that at any point, if a mother can't afford the Baby and wants an abortion for that reason, the Abortion should be illegal, yet even though just about all abortions are due to reasons such as this, by a 49-46% margin, Americans identify as pro-Choice. The fact is that Americans are neither Pro-Choice, nor Pro-Life, they are Pro-Feelings, has the mother been assaulted, sentence the baby to death, does the mother just not want the baby, not an adequate reason, the baby should live. Of course while in most circumstance, Americans think abortions should be illegal, they have done very little to curb abortions that are unnecessary, the reason being, the value of the Fetus' life is not a concern to Americans. However, the State of Ohio has taken the first step towards making Fetus Lives Matter. The Ohio house passed a bill as of November banning abortions after the Baby has been diagnosed with Down Syndromes. This means Ohio will be one of the few places in the first world that does not engage in the mass killings of the mentally ill.

Why did this Bill pass in Ohio despite over 67% of mentally deformed fetuses being killed by abortion in America? Once again it's the Emotional factor, very few people are willing to make the argument that Babies with Down Syndromes should be aborted, why, two reasons, when it actually comes down to something with this much emotion involved, Americans tend to place value upon the fetus with Down Syndromes, and secondly, anyone arguing for such an abortion would be blatantly in support of Eugenide. Just like many of the Germans during the reign of Hitler, the First World has remained silent, preferring not to think, look, or hear about what goes on in our hospitals and Planned Parenthood clinics.

--Republican Strategy for Fighting Abortion--
While Republicans might be highly inefficient at doing much of anything nowadays, it appears that the house representatives of Ohio have finally conceived a strategy for fighting abortions and it looks an awful lot like the Democrats Gun Control strategy. What do Democrats do, they seize on tragedy, finding the fringe Gun issues, like Semi-Automatic Rifles, and put them into the Public spotlight until finally they have the political capital to push legislation, then they move on to the next part, until finally the reach the second amendment itself. It doesn't matter Semi-Automatic Rifles are not responsible for even 10% of shootings, in fact no gun is responsible for a shooting, the owner of the gun is responsible, but that's a different issue. Thus, Democrats slowly turn Public opinion by playing the political landscape into their favor, if you ban Automatic guns, all the sudden there is a precedent for banning any other gun that people consider to have the capacity to be highly dangerous, and then something like semi-Automatic rifles, once thought untouchable, is now being targeted.

Through this strategy, Republicans have decided to target what they know the Public dislikes. Eugenicide. While the result of an abortion upon a fetus with down syndromes and one without is the same result; A valuable life lost. Republicans know that pushing legislation to ban abortions on the mentally deformed is a lot more palpable to the public then a bill banning almost all abortions would be right now. However, now that aborting babies with down syndromes is illegal, why shouldn't it be illegal to ban abortions on babies with physical deformities, and then after that is achieved, why not ban abortions on everything that doesn't directly threaten the mother's mental or physical health. The end goal of the Republicans, and the Democrats, is almost complete illegality of their respective targets. For Democrats, it's Americans rights to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, or home invader, For Republicans, it's American's right to kill unborn babies.