The Constitutional Right to an Obamaphone

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


In the old ignorant backward days when everyone owned slaves and refused to study the works of famous lesbian poets in colleges, it was thought that Constitutional rights were freedoms from the government. These days we know better.

We know that Freedom of Religion isn’t a right, but getting free contraceptives is. We know that Freedom of Speech isn’t a right, but free Obamaphones are.

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, speaking at an event hosted by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence’s Legal Action Project, said Monday said that having “some kind of constitutional right to a cell phone with a predialed 911 at your bedside might be better protection than a gun.”

“I’m not sure I actually have captured the entire question, but it does occur to me that one thing that I thought about from time to time is that maybe you have some kind of constitutional right to have a cell phone with a predialed 911 number at your bedside, and that might provide you with a little better protection than a gun, which you’re not used to using,” Stevens said.

Some of you bitter racists will probably object that rights are things that the government can’t take away from you, rather than free stuff the government is obligated to give you. But that way of thinking was found to be unconstitutional by the Earl Warren Court in United States v. Constitution that concluded that because of a misplaced comma and evolving social standards, the Constitution had become Unconstitutional.

We are no longer entitled to personal freedoms, but we are entitled to get free stuff and to be charged for the free stuff at 8 times its market value. Who needs freedom, when you’ve got Socialism?

But let’s give Justice Stevens some credit. His answer was insane, but the question he was asked by the Brady  Center was roughly four times as insane.

Jonathan Lowy, Brady Center Legal Action Project director, read a question from the audience, saying: “The Supreme Court held that the 2nd Amendment assures our right to have a handgun in the home for self-defense as you say. This question’s asked: ‘That protects only gun owners. What about those who don’t have guns? Surely they have a right of self-defense. Instead of relying on the 2nd Amendment and dealing with gun laws, wouldn’t it be more rational to rely directly on the right we all have to self-defense. What are your thoughts on that?’

Somehow Candy Crowley did not choose this question for the Town Hall debate. Maybe next time. But this question was chosen by Jonathan Lowy, the head of the Legal Action Project at the Brady Center, and is listed as a senior attorney who didn’t understand the many things wrong with the question. Then the question was asked of a former Supreme Court justice who did not understand what was wrong with the question.

This entire chain of stupidity is symptomatic, not simply of ignorance, but of a culture of distortion that creates a zone of ignorance.

The right to own weapons does not depend on a right of self-defense, it depends on the Bill of Rights. There is a right to self-defense, but that’s the right to take whatever action is necessary to defend yourself. But this is where the real insanity begins. We have the spectacle of a senior attorney and a former Supreme Court Justice who are unable to think of negative rights, only of positive rights, which leads them into complete folly.

Treating the right to self-defense as an entitlement, rather than a freedom, they try to equalize it. Since not everyone has a gun and everyone has an entitlement to self-defense, some way must be found to make that entitlement equal to everyone, including non-gun owners and people who are afraid of loud noises. And the only way to do that is to take away their guns and give them cell phones with a direct line to the police who will arrive in time to mark off the crime scene and draw the chalk outlines.

This is stupid, but it’s scary stupid, because in a decade, Obama’s justices will be making a variation of the same argument, reducing the 2nd Amendment to a self-defense entitlement and then striving to make everyone equal, by race, gender and sexual orientation in the entitlement to self-defense.

  • riverboatbill

    Lunatics on the loose. Lock and load.

  • pagegl

    Justice Stevens remarks that we might have a right to a cell phone with pre-dialed 911 which might be better protection than a gun reminds me of a bumper sticker that said, "My1911 is faster than your 911." Stevens, like the rest of the anti-gun crowd, seems to think that the police are obligated to protect you and that they can get to your residence quick enough to stop the bad guy who is inside and getting ready to harm you.

    Relative to the question posed to Stevens, folks who don't own guns have every bit as much right to possess firearms as I do, perhaps they should take advantage of that right so they can feel more secure in their right to protect themselves. Maybe they are afraid of the responsibility that comes with properly exercising your right to own a firearm.

  • http://twitter.com/undefined @undefined

    you know these 'ObamaPhones' ain't going away right regardless who wins?

  • http://www.facebook.com/andrew.whitehead.5243 Andrew Whitehead

    Send in the clowns, the parade is over.

  • hondo