Naomi Wolf, a lifelong strong liberal, has embraced the 2nd Amendment. In a Substack essay she does a grammatical analysis of its wording and original intent, and she praises its wisdom. She now sees the need for firearms for the defense of self and others, and for the defense of individual rights against government usurpation.
This is quite astounding. We are watching in real time the erosion of longstanding political alignments, as people on both sides wake up to the reality of the present danger. The New World Order is entering its end game in taking over the lives of everyone on the planet, and is dangerously close to success. This is not merely “meet your new boss, same as your old boss”, it is a magnitudes-worse shift in the values, attitudes, and way of life, even to changing the literal DNA of the human race.
And so we see unlikely players, such as Wolf, RFK Jr, Dore, Straka, et. al. suddenly sounding more like conservatives than many who have worn that label for years. They are showing extraordinary courage, because in doing so they are alienating much of their support base, a base known for its vicious cancellation of anyone who disagrees on any point. But they see the truth and they see the dire threat against the nation and the world.
If Naomi Wolf can see the common sense of letting people arm themselves to protect against criminals and those who would abuse power, then anyone can see it once their indoctrinated blinders are taken off.
I suppose things had to get as bad as they are in order for people to wake up. That’s happening, thankfully, and not a moment too soon.
https://naomiwolf.substack.com/p/rethinking-the-second-amendment?s=r
That is an excellent read.
First of all, there is no such thing as "reasonable restrictions". There is infringement, period.
Secondly, she seems to be victim to the falsehood that the 2nd Amendment is meant to give us our right to bear arms. That is simply not the case. The only purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to remind government that it is prohibited from infringing on the preexisting right, as conferred upon us by our Creator.
She is correct about the "Emergency Powers" that are often cited by our tyrannical government.
"Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the federal government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency." ~ Justice Charles Evans Hughes (1862-1948) Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Home Building & Loan Assn v. Blairsdell, 1934
All in all, a good article. I hope she learns to fully understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment as she continues in her journey of self-education.
When I taught special education, I had a few students on the Aspergers end of the autistic spectrum: highly intelligent, but unable to sympathize or empathize, and due to messed-up neurologies, they were constantly in a state of agitation. One was a psychopath and another was a sociopath. Ages were 10 and 11. Neither could control their anger. What do you think of their right to bear arms? Also, would their age matter? I think society can agree on reasonable limits on the right to bear arms, just as we can agree that certain individuals must be deprived of their liberty and be incarcerated so that the rest of us can live freely. There is an element of justice here. The trouble is that we have lost our way in our culture, have perverted justice for too long, and forsaken wisdom. The vast, vast majority should not have their rights infringed, but that means that some others must.
Very well said, and I agree. The irony is that Biden is right, the bill of rights is not absolute, it must be applied. But of course he has an agenda. The problem today is that any capitulation on rights will be used by the other side to open a torrent of restrictions. Give them an inch and they will take a mile. And so we are forced to take a hard line. We have to proceed very carefully with regard to new restrictions, and let interpretation of current law deal with the exceptions to the general rule.
The country cannot continue with this radical lack of trust. "A house divided cannot stand." But there is hope. If Ms. Wolf can wake up, anyone can.
True freedom and liberty come with inherent responsibility and risk. That is the very nature of it. There is no such thing as justified infringement, because that goes back to inferring that government has legitimate authority over the rights of man, and not our Creator.
Your examples of a 10 and 11 year old make no sense because they are not of age. Their parents would be the only ones with any authority over them on anything.
The Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to “create” rights. Rather they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be preexisting.
Anyone who says that are rights are not absolute is not only ignorant regarding the founding principles of our Republic but is an enemy to our Constitutional Republic, and every other citizen within it. They become a Biden, and Obama, A Clinton, a Shumer, or any other politician that has forgotten their oath. That is tyranny. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. That is something well known to our founding fathers.
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." - Senator Daniel Webster
“The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions” - Senator Daniel Webster
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much ... to forget it." -James Madison.
A right is not what someone gives you; it's what no one can take from you.
Thank you for such a high-effort response nearly a month after my comment. I still want to know your thoughts about the right of a mentally unstable and violent person to bear arms. If you had met my students at age 10, you would be very concerned about them possibly obtaining a firearm at age 18 or whatever because they clearly would be in danger of depriving someone of their life. I understand that creating some type of test for mental fitness would open up an opportunity to unjustly deprive people of their rights (e.g., the "authorities" might deem anyone who is unvaccinated, or believes in God or who doesn't love and worship Joe Biden is "mentally unfit"). So do we wait for a truly psychotic individual to commit a crime before we take away their rights? I ask not as one in opposition to your view, but as one trying to philosophically reason my way through this. I am a Canadian, so I was not brought up with the same understanding of liberty as you. I appreciate your thoughts as I journey on the Great Awakening.
The solution is simple, but the government has created the complications to the simplicity of the solution by operating outside of the boundaries of the limited power granted to it. The 2nd Amendment is completely ignored today, and the majority of Americans have accepted it as though it is as it should be.
Shall not be infringed. Very simple. Very clear. Yet totally ignored by todays Americans. Our founders understood that it was up to the families of the mentally infirm to keep them safe, and to protect others from the potential threat of a mentally unstable person from within their family. The fall back to that was that ALL people be armed so that they could protect themselves from any deadly threat. They did not wait on government to help them, they did not look to others to handle what was rightly viewed, by everyone of that time, as your own responsibility to protect your life, liberty, and property.
There will still be crimes, murders, rapes, etc., in an armed society, but the instances of those crimes would be much, much lower than we see today. The gun control states vs gun friendly states are examples of that today, but even that is not correct since ALL states still infringe on the right to bear arms, even the so-called Constitutional Cary states.
The bottom line is that The people are responsible for their own safety and security. Every time a free people has become dependent on government for those they end up losing both.
Thanks for your response. Do you think "shall not not be infringed" would also mean that the type of weapon shall not be restricted by the government, to the point that billionaires like Soros and Bezos should be allowed constitutionally to obtain weapons for a private army with heavy artillery, cruise missiles, etc? Please don't interpret my question as being adversarial. I'm on your side but trying to understand better the 2A mindset, not having grown up in a country that enshrined such a right in our constitution. I'm not trying to start an argument but to learn. I really appreciated your last response. Thanks.
Good read, appreciate how she took time to engage the vernacular of the day and compare it with Austin.
She is not where I am, but moving closer, applause.
It's a strange thing to see, when you have spent literal DECADES debating that government solutions are sub-optimal (to put it mildly) and now the government is SO rogue that even previously annoying-as-fuck liberals are making the same 20year old arguments you have flogged to DEATH, suddenly be lauded and celebrated. Good job I haven't got the ego of an annoying-as-fuck liberal or I would be slightly annoyed about this.
:) Yes, but this is what we wanted for all those years. It's happening, along with the great evil that's making it happen.
I read her piece last night and was talking to my husband about it this afternoon. i found it incredibly well thought out and well-written. It is worth reading.
Her main "shtick" has always been feminism, and I really appreciated her argument that as an advocate for women she should be advocating that women arm themselves. It's the most empowering thing they can do. She said that as a mother she feels it is her duty to be armed in order to protect her children when her husband is away for work.
I'm really happy to see her come around. I think it takes courage to admit you were wrong for so many years. I think there is too much of a "purity" test done by conservatives, and it does a real disservice to us to reject anyone who doesn't meet the incredibly high threshold set by so many on our side.
Well said, and I agree on all points. She really was pretty far out there on the Left, but she saw the light and has been doing yeoman's work on the pandemic response, as viewers of Bannon's Warroom have seen. Now this.
I still am shocked every time she mentions War Room, I can't believe she's working with Steve Bannon. I went to hear her speak back in the 1990s after her first book came out (I was in college) and to go from that to this - it still blows my mind.
I know. She was indeed radical the wrong way. It's been a wonderment to me to see her on Warroom, and to listen to RFK repeatedly knock it out of the park, and wonder, how did these people vote for Hillary, or even for Biden not long ago? Where is the line on their being awake? Is it static or are they moving in a general direction? With this piece I think we have a partial answer. Their awakening is genuine and therefore it affects everything in due time. We have to give people room to grow, but without compromising our own first principles. We have the truth, we have the pleasing ways of life. But it takes time for it to wend its way through the culture.
Well said.
I never thought I'd listen to a Kennedy but i bought RFK Jr's Fauci book. He has been such an important voice these last 2 years.
Times of crisis really reveal people's character, and you can see who is willing to accept new evidence and analyze it clearly for the truth and who isn't. You can see who truly has integrity. Neil Oliver was on Bret Weinstein's Dark Horse podcast (someone else I never thought I'd listen to), and he talked about how painful and awful the awakening is but how much better it feels to go through it and realize you can survive, and you're better for it. Well worth listening to.
Did a little word study and just like that converted? Glad for her.
Read her piece. It's much more than that.
You didnt read the article. Here, first let me change a word here,
"Sounds more like bad things have happened to conservatives. They now wish for guns to protect themselves from other conservatives."
Or this:
"Sounds more like bad things have happened to blacks. They now wish for guns to protect themselves from other blacks."
Choose your prejudice any way you want. It's all the same. I see nothing wrong wanting to protect yourself when youve been awakened.
Second, I know you didn't read it because this is at the very beginning:
"The last thing keeping us free in America, as the lights go off all over Europe- and Australia, and Canada - is, yes, we must face this fact, the Second Amendment.
I can’t believe I am writing those words. But here we are and I stand by them."
Liberals are often just conservatives who haven't thought it through yet. My in-laws were proclaimed democrats when I first met them. Through pain and example they are now actual conservatives who read Q posts, make fun of Biden, and can't stand the MSM.
Liberal agendas? Yes crap. Liberals? Just need time to think through. Like all of us did. Read Art of War if you won't read this.
At the very least there are ways to use articles like this to our advantage.
Naomi is waking up. She’s not completely awake in this article because she defended the requirement that she get a permit and four references to purchase a handgun… sounds like infringements to me.
But she is waking up. And that’s a good thing.