The Return of Trump and Musk's Comments on the Second Amendment
Donald Trump's recent reappearance in Butler, PA, where he was almost assassinated due to an alleged failure of the Secret Service, has stirred up the political left. This is partly due to the failure of Thomas Crooks to complete his mission, despite having every chance to succeed, but also because Elon Musk was there to support the rally. Musk's comments on the necessity of the Second Amendment for the protection of the First Amendment have provoked outrage among Democrats.
Progressives, especially those on the coasts, have been trying to disarm the nation for decades. Gun control and ultimately gun confiscation are fundamental policies around which their movement revolves. The question is, why are they so desperate to infringe on the Bill of Rights and take away firearms?
They certainly don't seem to be concerned about public safety. If they were, they wouldn't have supported the baseless and violent BLM and Antifa riots. Social media is full of woke activists calling for the deaths of conservatives. These are not peaceful people seeking nirvana, they are happy to use violence if they think it will get them more power.
Jon Stewart and the Second Amendment
This is a problem that traditional Democrats like Jon Stewart continue to ignore while pretending it doesn't exist. Stewart, clinging to cultural relevancy on his newly rebooted Daily Show, tried to mock Elon Musk over his assertions on the Second Amendment in Butler. However, his strange diatribe about representative democracy seems like a throwback to the 1990s and comes off as rather naive.
Stewart appears to have a naive view of how society came to exist. The ultimate arbitration in all political discourse is violence, which is precisely why the Founders wanted the public to be armed and not just the state. Basic political theory here.
Stewart's Obsolete Arguments
Does Stewart truly believe this nonsense? It's difficult to tell, but the past few years have made his arguments obsolete.
The First Amendment is not protected by the "consent of the governed." Americans just experienced a three-year period of active censorship under the Biden Administration working closely with Big Tech and social media companies. Stewart dismisses such censorship as if it's exaggerated and unimportant, but even Mark Zuckerberg admitted that Facebook was under pressure from the establishment to silence dissent on a number of issues from covid mandates to Hunter Biden's laptop.
Contrary to Stewart's delusions about democracy, the reality is that the Constitution does not defend itself. According to polls, a large number of Democrats desired the erasure of numerous rights during the covid scare. They don't represent the majority, but there is more than enough of them to add weight to any authoritarian effort. And, the only thing stopping them from getting everything they want is the existence of millions of American gun owners.
The Progressive/Globalist Establishment's Intentions
The progressive/globalist establishment has no intention of giving up. As John Kerry noted during a climate conference held by the WEF in September, their open intent is to shut down free speech rights regardless of the democratic process. If they could get rid of the First Amendment, they would. The only reason they haven't is because the US government doesn't have a monopoly on force.
In Stewart's fantasy world, a free Republic is a self-perpetuating entity that continues on for eternity once it is set in motion, driven only by the goodness and purity of ideology and the voting process. But elections can be subverted by top-down corruption, and the system has clearly been broken for some time.
The UK provides a stark example of what happens when a population is disarmed and the government cracks down on speech. There are examples of this across the globe, yet in the world of The Daily Show, there is some kind of magical force embedded in "democracy" that protects the populace from abuse. It's important to recognize that there's always a breaking point and America is very close now.
Stewart ironically contradicts his own premise when he claims guns "only protect the speech of the people holding the guns." Yes, Jon, that's why the Second Amendment exists, so that everyone's speech is protected.
The Second Amendment and the Threat of a Tyrannical Government
A representative government can become a tyrannical government as easily as any other government. All it takes is time. The Second Amendment ensures that the "consent of the governed" is never manufactured or forced without the threat of rebellion. Once a government has a monopoly on violence, the concept of public consent is meaningless and the elites will do as they please.
Thomas Jefferson once wisely stated in reference to the potential for future citizen rebellion:
"...What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Stewart's vision of a free society without arms is ludicrous. It is the same delusion that many progressives have about crime and criminals. Criminals are never satiated, they will keep taking simply because they can and because no one is stopping them. Defunding the police or diluting the laws only makes the situation worse. Tyrants are the same; they will keep taking simply because they can, until someone stops them with guns.
Stewart may one day find himself thankful for the very citizen militias he seems to fear. They aren't only prepared to fight for their own constitutional rights, they are prepared to fight for the rights of all Americans.
Bottom Line
Jon Stewart's vision of a free society without arms is not only naive, but it is also dangerous. The Second Amendment exists for a reason, to protect the rights of the people from a potentially tyrannical government. What are your thoughts on this matter? Do you agree or disagree with the points raised in this article? Share this with your friends and let's start a conversation. Don't forget to sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is every day at 6pm.
The Return of Trump and Musk's Comments on the Second Amendment
Donald Trump's recent reappearance in Butler, PA, where he was almost assassinated due to an alleged failure of the Secret Service, has stirred up the political left. This is partly due to the failure of Thomas Crooks to complete his mission, despite having every chance to succeed, but also because Elon Musk was there to support the rally. Musk's comments on the necessity of the Second Amendment for the protection of the First Amendment have provoked outrage among Democrats.
Progressives, especially those on the coasts, have been trying to disarm the nation for decades. Gun control and ultimately gun confiscation are fundamental policies around which their movement revolves. The question is, why are they so desperate to infringe on the Bill of Rights and take away firearms?
They certainly don't seem to be concerned about public safety. If they were, they wouldn't have supported the baseless and violent BLM and Antifa riots. Social media is full of woke activists calling for the deaths of conservatives. These are not peaceful people seeking nirvana, they are happy to use violence if they think it will get them more power.
Jon Stewart and the Second Amendment
This is a problem that traditional Democrats like Jon Stewart continue to ignore while pretending it doesn't exist. Stewart, clinging to cultural relevancy on his newly rebooted Daily Show, tried to mock Elon Musk over his assertions on the Second Amendment in Butler. However, his strange diatribe about representative democracy seems like a throwback to the 1990s and comes off as rather naive.
Stewart appears to have a naive view of how society came to exist. The ultimate arbitration in all political discourse is violence, which is precisely why the Founders wanted the public to be armed and not just the state. Basic political theory here.
Stewart's Obsolete Arguments
Does Stewart truly believe this nonsense? It's difficult to tell, but the past few years have made his arguments obsolete.
The First Amendment is not protected by the "consent of the governed." Americans just experienced a three-year period of active censorship under the Biden Administration working closely with Big Tech and social media companies. Stewart dismisses such censorship as if it's exaggerated and unimportant, but even Mark Zuckerberg admitted that Facebook was under pressure from the establishment to silence dissent on a number of issues from covid mandates to Hunter Biden's laptop.
Contrary to Stewart's delusions about democracy, the reality is that the Constitution does not defend itself. According to polls, a large number of Democrats desired the erasure of numerous rights during the covid scare. They don't represent the majority, but there is more than enough of them to add weight to any authoritarian effort. And, the only thing stopping them from getting everything they want is the existence of millions of American gun owners.
The Progressive/Globalist Establishment's Intentions
The progressive/globalist establishment has no intention of giving up. As John Kerry noted during a climate conference held by the WEF in September, their open intent is to shut down free speech rights regardless of the democratic process. If they could get rid of the First Amendment, they would. The only reason they haven't is because the US government doesn't have a monopoly on force.
In Stewart's fantasy world, a free Republic is a self-perpetuating entity that continues on for eternity once it is set in motion, driven only by the goodness and purity of ideology and the voting process. But elections can be subverted by top-down corruption, and the system has clearly been broken for some time.
The UK provides a stark example of what happens when a population is disarmed and the government cracks down on speech. There are examples of this across the globe, yet in the world of The Daily Show, there is some kind of magical force embedded in "democracy" that protects the populace from abuse. It's important to recognize that there's always a breaking point and America is very close now.
Stewart ironically contradicts his own premise when he claims guns "only protect the speech of the people holding the guns." Yes, Jon, that's why the Second Amendment exists, so that everyone's speech is protected.
The Second Amendment and the Threat of a Tyrannical Government
A representative government can become a tyrannical government as easily as any other government. All it takes is time. The Second Amendment ensures that the "consent of the governed" is never manufactured or forced without the threat of rebellion. Once a government has a monopoly on violence, the concept of public consent is meaningless and the elites will do as they please.
Thomas Jefferson once wisely stated in reference to the potential for future citizen rebellion:
"...What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Stewart's vision of a free society without arms is ludicrous. It is the same delusion that many progressives have about crime and criminals. Criminals are never satiated, they will keep taking simply because they can and because no one is stopping them. Defunding the police or diluting the laws only makes the situation worse. Tyrants are the same; they will keep taking simply because they can, until someone stops them with guns.
Stewart may one day find himself thankful for the very citizen militias he seems to fear. They aren't only prepared to fight for their own constitutional rights, they are prepared to fight for the rights of all Americans.
Bottom Line
Jon Stewart's vision of a free society without arms is not only naive, but it is also dangerous. The Second Amendment exists for a reason, to protect the rights of the people from a potentially tyrannical government. What are your thoughts on this matter? Do you agree or disagree with the points raised in this article? Share this with your friends and let's start a conversation. Don't forget to sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is every day at 6pm.
