Guns and Double Standards

To hear them tell it, the Second Amendment deniers in Washington and their accomplices in the media know about all there is to know when it comes to guns.

Some guns—so-called “assault” rifles—we just don’t “need,” they constantly tell us.  It isn’t that the President and his fellow partisans wish to prevent American citizens from exercising their Second Amendment liberties.  They just wish to prevent us from obtaining those guns that no one needs in any event.

For the moment, we can put to one side the monumental presumptuousness involved in third parties instructing the citizens of a free society as to what they do and do not need.  It is more important that we grasp what this little lesson entails.

When the Second Amendment deniers talk about “needs” with respect of guns, what they imply is that guns have a unique purpose: guns kill.  Since, say, no one “needs” a so-called “assault rifle” for hunting, it is commonly argued, no one “needs” an assault rifle, for the only purpose of such a weapon is to slaughter.

Interestingly, the very same people who insist upon making this argument from purpose when it comes to guns ridicule it when it comes to almost everything else.  Take the issue of sexual morality, for instance. For millennia, Christians (among others) have contended that sex is permissible only within the confines of marriage.  According to this reasoning, sex has two purposes.  Its chief purpose is reproductive.  Yet it is also intended to unite the spouses. Since only marriage—heterosexual marriage—can fulfill this twofold purpose, sex within any other context is immoral.

This argument may or may not work.  The point, though, is that those on the left resolutely reject this argument from purpose while relying upon another such argument to restrict the Second Amendment.

But let’s play along.  Let’s assume that the left’s argument from purpose against the Second Amendment is sound. And now let’s apply it to the First Amendment.

A free people do indeed need a free press, for it fulfills the purpose of preventing government from becoming tyrannical.  Those in the press are supposed to be forever vigilant against any and all signs of government corruption and abuse.  They are “watchdogs.”  It is on this basis that they are forever poised to take refuge behind the First Amendment when criticisms come their way.

However, what if our media figures fail to fulfill the purpose for which the First Amendment allots them free speech?  What if they not only suspend their skepticism toward all government office-holders, but actually begin to side with some of them?  And, worse, what if those politicians toward whom they’re partial are just those politicians who are anxious to expand the national government ever further?  That is, what if they promote those plans that threaten the liberties of the very Americans for whose sake they exist?

Sadly, these aren’t really hypothetical questions.  The blunt truth of the matter is that those in the “mainstream” media have failed to fulfill their purpose.  And they have failed abysmally.  Moreover, they have allied themselves with politicians, particularly those politicians like Barack Obama, who are all too eager to grow our gargantuan government even beyond its already monstrous size.

Since these same media personalities seem to agree with Obama that those gun rights that allegedly don’t advance the purpose of the Second Amendment can be revoked by the government, then maybe they can be persuaded that those speech rights that don’t advance the First Amendment should be revoked as well?

After all, the speech that comes from a free press is supposed to function as a check upon government.  Outside of politicians, no one needs speech from the media that frustrates this function by strengthening the hold of the government over the citizenry.  Thus, press-control, or media-control, may be necessary.

Maybe we should pressure the government into assembling a bipartisan commission to preside over congressional hearings in which the owners, managers, and even employees of various journalistic outfits are forced to answer tough questions about government-media collusion.  Those organizations deemed guilty of propagandizing on behalf of the government will face stiff penalties, including and up to losing their licensing.

Media personalities will be permitted to exercise their free speech rights. But this means that they will be allowed to operate in the media only if they are using speech in order to challenge government.

To be clear, I am not seriously advocating any of this. My point, rather, is to point out the glaring hypocrisy of journalists and politicians who would never in a million years think to say the things about the First Amendment that they say about the Second.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • FPF

    The administration and the law makers are not that literate, assault means physical attack, before it actually happened, you can't call it assault. If they insisted on using that term, we can call them "assault liberal" or "assault leftist" who are actively attacking law abiding citizens' Constitution rights and they should be banned.

    • Samurai Futaba

      Wonder why our government can't apply this principle of preminant attack before an assault has occurred to their Foreign Policy.

    • JacksonPearson

      They apparently don't read, or understand what "shall not be infringed" means

  • AdinaK

    Government's collusion, with Obama controlled media, has brought a disaster upon America, even as the so called journalists scream otherwise – yes, they are, first and foremost, truth seekers. Balderdash. Here are some fruits of their (mis)labors –

    As such, leftists who go postal, are hardly in a position to attest to the First Amendment & its meaning. For IF this was the case, wouldn't the following be front and center, thus, blaring from their headlines –

    Facts are nowhere to be found. Ideology is uppermost in the Pravda-like media.

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel

    • davarino

      Thanks AdinaK, good info. Speaking of Pravda, we learned about that "news" media when I was a child during the cold war. We always thought how awful that was and that it would never happen here. Well its happening here and was probably happening back then as well, they just had not perfected it as much as modern news agencies. They have to be much more subtle today because people have the ability to check facts. They do more steering with leading questions and suggestions, or just leaving out important information.

      The thing they dont realize is that when their guy goes off the rails and turns into another Stalin, they will have no recourse because there will be no guns and no real media to stop him.

  • tagalog

    Since the Second Amendment doesn't talk about any kind of NEED for firearms, but only discusses the need for a "well-regulated militia" and the concomitant right of the people to keep and bear arms, it seems eminently obvious that there is a Second Amendment right to keep and bear the kind of arms that would be used by a militia. Since the militia of yesteryear is now the state national guard, we can know quite readily what kind of arms we, as the people, have a right to keep and bear, i.e., Barrett .50 cal. sniper rifles, M-16s, M-4s, M-240s, M-249s, firearms capable of full-auto fire, semi-automatic handguns, "assault rifles" (whatever they might be), grenade launchers, heavy machine guns, squad machine guns, shotguns, high capacity magazines, pistol grips, bayonet lugs, and so on.

    • EarlyBird

      Excellent point, Tagalog!

    • Jay Wye

      I agree about the "assault weapons" being todays militia arms,but weapons utilizing explosive projectiles cannot be reasonably stored in residential areas. In a fire,ammo will cook-off but is harmless,that cannot be said for explosive weaponry. That presents a real danger to neighbors and firefighters.That is why they are classed as "destructive devices" and strictly regulated. it's also why there's limits on how much reloading powder you can have in your home.

  • electedface

    40% of guns sold do not have background checks performed on the buyer. These are acquired illegally through online gun sales, gun shows, etc.


      First of all, you're off-topic. Secondly, you're factually inaccurate – guns bought at gun shows are not "acquired illegally" just because you don't like them. Third, background checks are a complete waste of time and should be abandoned completely. Stop trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and start trying to control the criminal himself – that's the only way to manage the crime problem, which by the way isn't too bad except in the places where Obama did very well in the last election.

      • EarlyBird

        "Third, background checks are a complete waste of time and should be abandoned completely."

        That's a bit much. If we were to be able to identify psychopaths via a background check, as in there is a list of nutballs who are on a list, that would be helpful.

        • JoJoJams

          Oh, my God! I agree with EarlyBird!! :-P ;-) :-)

        • Dough

          it would be a violation of HIPAA for doctors to put patients names on a list like that, and against the patient's 5th amendment rights to force them to put themselves on it. The background checks also have so many loopholes, because one state will define a crime as a misdemeanor, and another state will define the SAME CRIME as a felony, so if the person lives in the state where the crime is a misdemeanor, they pass the check, etc..

    • pagegl

      That is a figure that was thrown out by Bloomberg. He has no backing for that number and basically was pulling a number out of his butt. There are no verifiable numbers to support his claim.

      • "gunner"

        you're correct, bloomberg pulled that number from somewhere, but it was much lower than his hat.

    • Gee

      That 40% claim was BEFORE the Brady Bill – you and your wild claims are wrong

    • D

      Actually the 40% number is accurate, but only because it includes FFL to FFL transfers. Obviously there is no background requirement when one FFL ships a firearm to another FFL holder, but those numbers were included for the sake of boosting the numbers in an attempt to make the situation look worse than it actually is. It’s difficult to have a real discussion when the people pushing for more gun control are being this dishonest.


    While Kerwick is right about the hypocrisy of the Left media, he gives them too much credit when it comes to the First Amendment. All too many of them would willingly acquiesce to the abrogation of the citizen's right to free speech, as long as they, the media elite, are unaffected. Recall the almost universal support for "Campaign Finance Reform" which muzzled the citizen's ability to criticize incumbents within 60 days of an election!

    As for the non-media Left, they are even worse. Nancy Pelosi led a campaign to, in effect, repeal the First Amendment. It didn't get any where, but the point is that the Left recognizes no rights whatsoever, only the "right" to abortion or same-sex marriage, which "rights" are in reality only license.

  • pagegl

    What does any human REALLY need? Air, water, and food. Their regard for the Second Amendment could possibly be what they really feel about the rest of the Bill of Rights. Using the logic of the left in regards to firearms, other rights protected by the Constitution are optional and not necessary.

    • tagalog

      In Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, first and most necessary are the Physiological Needs, things like food, shelter, and clothing. Second after Physiological Needs come the Safety Needs. That's where arms come in. Firearms are among the most basic of needs, second only to those things that are needed to keep us alive. The vast majority of people understand that. Only intellectuals and would-be masters miss it.

      So, if one is to give any legitimacy to the phony question of "why do people need AR-15s," or whatever the question is, the answer is "for safety's sake."

      Where would freedom of speech fall in Maslow's scheme of needs? I think well after the Safety Needs.

  • marios

    BHO and accomplices unlashed war against almost 50% of USA citizens who did not voted for them.
    Gun control means for them disarming law abiding citizens for making them absolutely unprotected and thus to set up totalitarian system. All socialists regime started their Power from disarming their citizens. Obama is not exclusion.

  • Barakus abomidas

    Its best if americans are disarmed. The president will then be un-burdened by the people that live here. Then he can bring in better people who will do the right things for ISLAM. For the new world order that most good people want. Gun toting freemdomist will not be tolerated in the near future. Only muslim men should be allowed to own guns. Its a fact that muslims are peaceful, and commit no crimes. Just listen to cnn or gma they tell the truth.

    • UCSPanther

      I hope you're being sarcastic.

      • "gunner"

        i believe he is committing fairly heavy sarcasm.

  • Gee

    I notice that the leftists claim that the citizens don't 'need' these weapons or 30 round magazines because they are only for 'combat' Interest but the police do seem to 'need' those exact same weapons and magazines – who are they fighting?

    Why are the leftists in power protected by law enforcement that has the exact weapons that they don't want the average citizen to have? Are their lives more important than ours?

  • dannyboy53

    "Need" has nothing to do with this issue. It is a "RIGHT" that "shall not be infringed". This means many of us WILL NOT give up our firearms, we WILL RESIST any efforts by anyone to take them.

    No matter what the cost to either party.

  • geoplaten

    The media and intelligentsia already hold multiple standards with the First Amendment – they're for flag burning and pornography, but only against "hate speech" if they are the ones defining it. If they had their way, they'd be happy to ban free speech from anyone who disagrees – look at campus speech codes and their own politically correct speech codes.

    Why would we expect their views on the Second Amendment to be any different? They're the ultimate hypocrites – one law for them, another for the rest of us.

  • tagalog

    And with that $8545, someone could buy some fancy weaponry. And ammo for it on top of that.