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
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.