Each day we overwhelm your brains with the content you've come to love from the Louder with Crowder Dot Com website.
But Facebook is...you know, Facebook. Their algorithm hides our ranting and raving as best it can. The best way to stick it to Zuckerface?
Sign up for the LWC News Blast! Get your favorite right-wing commentary delivered directly to your inbox!
ROLLING STONE: 'Repeal 2nd Amendment.' But You're Just Paranoid...
We've covered the leftist media spinning the Orlando shooting into a platform for gun control (Orlando Shooting: Everything Wrong With the Liberal Media...). Suddenly everybody and their mother is a gun expert because they Googled "AR15." The Rolling Stone (the same Rolling Stone who published a fake rape story), for example, published an article suggesting America repeal the Second Amendment. Here's all the context you need, in the form of a foreword from the author:
I revere the [constitution] when it is used to further social justice and make our country a more inclusive one.
There's your first clue. The Constitution stands on its own. You either revere it without qualifiers, or you do not revere it. Anyone who says "I love this thing when it's used for..." is someone who misunderstands real love. Or he's got the mental capacity of a street curb. Perhaps both. The Constitution was written to protect the rights of Americans from the government. It was not written to further social justice or make our country "more inclusive." It should be loved for its totality, not picked sliced, diced and used randomly. It's not a buffet. No second helpings of the chicken wings here.
We'll LOL over the "inclusivity" line later.
In the face of yet another mass shooting, now is the time to acknowledge a profound but obvious truth - the Second Amendment is wrong for this country and needs to be jettisoned. We can do that through a Constitutional amendment. It's been done before, and it must be done now.
The Second Amendment needs to be repealed because it is outdated, a threat to liberty and a suicide pact.
Yep, he used those words to form that sentence. The Second Amendment - which seeks to arm you so can protect yourself and your freedoms... is a threat to liberty (a fancy word for "freedom"). Even though the same writer is employing the First Amendment, using a computer or a tablet, transmitted and published via the internet, while insisting the Second Amendment is "outdated."
The Founding Fathers were brilliant, both individually and collectively. They wrote for freedom of speech without mentioning the medium (spoken word, parchment and quill, or printing press) for which to enjoy said freedom. For this same reason, the Founders didn't define what qualified as a "firearm" (firing speed, ammunition capacity). The Founders knew human beings invented, evolved, advanced. As the printing press replaced hand-written transcription, so too a musket would one day be replaced by something more advanced. #Progress
Also, if you think there were only muskets at the time of the founding of America, you're an idiot. Do not operate machinery. In fact you're not responsible enough to use a toothbrush. Set down the dangerous projectile. Go watch The 2nd Amendment: Is It for Muskets Only?!
Gun-rights advocates like to make this all about liberty, insisting that their freedom to bear arms is of utmost important and that restricting their freedom would be a violation of basic rights.
But liberty is not a one way street. It also includes the liberty to enjoy a night out with friends, loving who you want to love, dancing how you want to dance, in a club that has historically provided a refuge from the hate and fear that surrounds you.
The left is demanding a 100% safe environment like it's a right, while saying your actual right to own a firearm is all in your delusional little head. No. Safety is as much a right as Lena Dunham is a pinup model. Oh snap, trigger warning: upchuck reflex check.
Nobody, and I mean nobody, can ensure your safety, not even with gun laws (see Obama Praises Australia's Gun Ban. The Actual Results...). Because, once more with feeling, SAFETY IS NOT A RIGHT. There has never been a sane person in the history of humanity who has said "you have the right to be safe." Well, not any human with half a brain, using said brain.
Protecting one's safety and life, from someone who seeks you harm? That's a right. Specifically it is your right to life. Commandeering guns from everyone with the hopes of making life a smiley-faced, rainbow dream...not a right. See the difference?
If we take the gun-rights lobby at their word, the Second Amendment is a suicide pact. Just think of what would have happened in the Orlando night-club Saturday night if there had been many others armed. How would it not have devolved into mass confusion and fear followed by a large-scale shootout...
FIRST OF ALL, this guy assumes a lot about anyone with a gun who might want to defend himself or others from a gun-wielding madman. The writer assumes the responsible gun owner is an incompetent rube who would only shoot innocent bystanders while trying to drop the bad guy. Therefore all those innocent bystanders should be left without guns. Because they're too STUPID to shoot the bad guy with the gun. Anti-gun nuts like this sucktard paint all gun-owners as incompetent, irresponsible hooligans out to get their trigger happy on.
The evidence points to an .357 ear-splitting no. Let's think about what could have happened if just one of those victims were armed. Wait, actually we don't have to guess, because there are examples of gun-owners in action aplenty. For instance, this 7-11 customer who saved the day when a hatchet-swinging madman sought to paint the town red with blood. Or these gun owners who used their evil guns to stop an armed robbery. Or any of these 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 examples. Take your pick. What say you?
I get it, a psycho with a gun is scary. Scarier still is being trapped in a room with him with nothing to defend yourself besides your bare hands. And the occasional umbrella drink. Mojitos anyone?
Because if even one of those club-hoppers had whipped a weapon from their leather chaps to fire at the shooter, we'd have a much different story to tell, wouldn't we? But remember, the writer here is all about "inclusivity." Apparently that means being trapped, defenseless, in a room with a madman. As opposed to one of the patrons having a little surprise for the shooter of his own. Is that a gun, or are you just really happy to see me?
Of course we expect nothing less from The Rolling Stone and its cronies, who keep trying to paint guns as self-aware boom-boom stick death machines. Guess what they keep ignoring? The dude pulling the trigger. In this case, the Muslim dude pulling the trigger to bring glory to Allah. But what else would you expect from a medium who flat out lies to its readers because feelings (Rolling Stone Sued by Fraternity Named in Fake UVA Rape Story). Rolling Stone just said what every leftist has been pushing for the last several years.
But remember, "nobody's coming for your guns." You're just paranoid.
Oh, and if you didn't want to divert your attention away from the post in order to click that super informative article about the pervasive "muskets only myth," voila, here's the video. I call that love.