The editorial board at the Washington Post decided that Donald Trump’s “assassination joke” (as it were) was not the only problem with his speech in Wilmington, N.C. on Tuesday. The other problem was…well, let them tell it:
“Donald’s Trump’s latest on-stage outrage was really two,” they write. “The one that got the attention this week was his apparent suggestion that ‘Second Amendment people’ rise in an armed insurrection against the federal government if Hillary Clinton wins the election. The second was his premise for the claim: that ‘Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment.'”
According to the editors, that’s “absurd.” In fact, they say, her “positions are, if anything, too modest.”
The shifting of the Overton window…can you see it?
Now the claim from one of America’s most influential newspapers is that gun control efforts like the “gun show loophole” and background checks is simply not enough. This, after years of saying that was the only goal. Well, now it’s apparently a mainstream liberal position to want a little more.
In their estimation, the next president “should aim to move well beyond this familiar policy template.” They advocate requiring all gun owners to be licensed, and they eagerly await smart-gun technology, which can then be made mandatory for all new guns manufactured in the U.S.
And who knows where the next step will take us.
So, in one sense, the Washington Post editorial board destroys their own argument. They insist that Hillary Clinton does not have any designs on abolishing the Second Amendment before going on to suggest a number of restrictions that could feasibly be applied to the RIGHT to bear arms.
A Supreme Court that worked to chip away at that RIGHT, they say, “would not be anything like abolishing an amendment, which no court can do.” Instead, it “would reflect a legitimate legal debate, anchored in the text, on the Second Amendment’s confounding words.”
See, that’s just the problem. Because to those who believe in the truth of the Second Amendment, there’s nothing “confounding” about it. And the fact that there’s a whole political ideology out there that thinks otherwise gives rise to a frightening future where nothing actually means what it actually means. Once we head into that land of fantasy, we no longer have anything that can even casually be called freedom.