One of my absolute favorite quotes is by George Orwell, when he said “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”

I truly believe this defines so much of the Progressive left.  Just when you think you read something so dumb that it might give you an aneurysm, another “intellectual” comes along and says something that gives you cancer.

For today’s near bout with death, we have to turn to the deep thinkers at the Huffington Post.

A Revision on the Bill of Rights, Part III

Oh great, here is some leftist who is going to deconstruct our God given, Constitutionally protected rights, and tell us why they are so bad today.

Lay your big brain on me Snowflake.

The Second Amendment is highly contested. There is no doubt that people do have the right to carry and have a stockpile of guns (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms”) and a state has the right to organize a well-regulated Militia. But, the main issue is on the right to self-defend with a firearm.

Holy shit, he got that right!

The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights.

Oh for fuck’s sake Snowflake, we’re past Forrest Whitaker Eye here.  I think this gave me a stroke.

Let me explain why this is so wrong.  Your right to a fair trial does not supersede my right to life.

At the very beginning of this country.  Before any other law was established, the very first thing our Founders put on paper was the right to life.  It’s in the Deceleration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I have the right to meet force with force.  I can meet the threat of deadly force with deadly force.  My top priority is the preservation of my life.

You are literally asking me to die so that you can exercise your right to a fair trial for my murder.

You are placing the rights of the attacker over the life of the victim.

Do you have any idea how awesomely bat-shit crazy that sounds?

In addition, one’s mental capacity is a major factor in deciding whether a man or woman has the right to have a firearm. There are two reasons for ensuring mental capacity. First, one of the Five Aims is to ensure domestic tranquility and there can be no tranquility if one does not have the capacity.

First of all, the Second Amendment was ratified along with the rest of the Constitution in 1789.  The ban on those adjudicated mentally ill from possessing guns was passed in 1968.  For 179 years, this wasn’t an issue.

But to the point, this definition of domestic tranquility is wrong.  Domestic Tranquility as it pertains to the Federal Government is to enforce peace among the states, such as settling interstate disputes and quashing rebellion.  It has nothing to do with mentally ill people.

Second, if one’s brain is distorting his or her reality, they do not have the proper reasoning and deduction skills to use a firearm.

Given how this article started, it’s clear that Snowflake here doesn’t have the reasoning and deduction skills to own a gun.  Now he’s just projecting that onto the rest of us.

Therefore, if we ponder and meditate on the recent events in news about guns, it would be obvious that the current state is incorrect.

It’s not, see Heller v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago.

A gun for civilians is a weapon for a revolution and not for ordinary use.

It’s good for both.  McDonald addresses this.  So does Moore v. Madigan.  I have the right to carry a gun outside the home for my own defense.  That is an ordinary use.

The belief that a gun is a useful tool to protect one is counterintuitive because guns get into the hands of people who use them for horrible reasons.

Snowflake here as a First Amendment right to print this shit-smear advocating against civil liberties.  I believe in the First Amendment even though horrible OpEds like this get printed.

Also, just because one person abuses their gun rights doesn’t mean I should lose my rights.  That’s called collective punishment, and is antithetical to civil rights.  We are a nation of individuals, not a collective mass.

In addition, there are reasons why cops are trained to use a firearm in stressful situations.  It is not to keep their mind at ease or anything of that sort, but to be able to fire accurately at the target in the correct location

Technical foul – appeal to authority fallacy.

Cops are poorly trained.  Case in point: two officers with the NYPD get in a shootout with a bad gun.  They fire 16 rounds and hit 9 bystanders.  This is not a lone example of the NYPD spraying bullets into bystanders, it’s happened more than once.  These “New York’s Finest” are more of a danger to the public than I am.

It is immensely difficult to fire when under pressure.

That’s why I practice.

Moreover, one may argue this is an analogous argument and yes it is because the United States government is lobbied to not study or fund research that observes the effects of guns. This cripples the chance of evaluating a proper policy to deal with gun violence. But, there was one study by ABC, which observed using guns in a classroom. All the participations poorly performed at the mock situation.

I wouldn’t call that video a “study.”  But so what?  So what if in one mock scenario the concealed carrier didn’t go all John Wick on the shooter?  Are all of our civil liberties at the mercy of a ABC new special report?  Some sleaze-bag reporter stages an incident and now the Bill of Rights is null and void?

Our Constitution was drafted EXPLICITLY to preserve our rights no matter the way the winds of public opinion blow.

Once again, if there is an argument in the reasoning of this amendment and others, one must filter it through the Five Aims of the USA and the Bill of Rights. This is to ensure that any argument can be answered, avoiding a political divide.

What the fuck does that mean?  The Preamble doesn’t trump the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment is IN the Bill of Rights.  So that is a nonsensical statement.  The avoiding political divide part is laughable.   This whole OpEd is a Progressive attack on gun rights, using every opportunity to restrict that right.  This is a partisan hackish as one can get on the subject.

This OpEd is not deep.  It is a shallow bit of bullshit that tries to justify taking away civil liberties because of the writer’s opinion on how guns are hard to use and scary.

It’s my opinion that stupid, historically and legally illiterate OpEds in HuffPo reinforce an echo chamber and are bad for the national discourse and should be banned.  This Snowflake is abusing the First Amendment and so we should end that civil liberty, right?  It’s the responsible thing to do for the domestic tranquility, right?

Or let’s not open that can of worms and respect the Bill of Rights.

Stupid fuck.