By Selwyn Duke

It has been said that to identify a liar, look for
contradiction, because it’s hard keeping lies straight.

It’s no revelation that leftists would like to effect gun
confiscation (except for themselves and their bodyguards, of course), but they
generally maintain plausible deniability so that the world’s Dirty Harry Reids
can convince the flyover-country bitter clingers that they believe in the
Second Amendment. And they certainly do — the way the Devil believes in God.
Nonetheless, leftists sometimes tip their hand, and such is the case with a
recent New York Post editorial.

The paper posits the idea that the “application of modern
military design to civilian firearms” has produced weapons so dangerous that
the Second Amendment is rendered obsolete. Of course, the editors are referring
to what are incorrectly called “assault weapons,” such as the AR-15-type rifle
Adam Lanza used to do his evil in Newtown. And they take, or at least imply, a
position that low-information voters would consider reasonable: they don’t
propose to outlaw all guns, just those dreaded “assault weapons” (that aren’t).
These, the editors say, are so deadly that it’s “[t]ime to get rid of them.”

Now we come to where they betrayed themselves. When
describing Lanza’s arsenal earlier in the op-ed, they noted that he had his
rifle and, as they put it, “two equally deadly handguns.”

Well, well, if they’re equally deadly, why pick on the
AR-15? Some guns must be more equal than others.

If the “assault rifles” (that aren’t) are too deadly to be
legal, and the handguns are equally deadly, it follows that the handguns are also
too deadly to be legal, no? Or did I just commit the sin of applying white male
linear logic?

Actually, the Post’s
implicit position is the only consistent one. As the editors correctly point
out — and I’ll give them a smidgeon of credit for understanding that the AR-15
is not a machine gun — the rifle fires only one round with each trigger pull.
In other words, its function is semi-automatic, just like that of the handguns.
(This is why it’s not actually an assault weapon, which would have a “special
fire” feature allowing it to be operated fully automatic, semi-automatic, or in
three-shot bursts.)

Semi-automatic — just like most all guns owned in the US
today.

But consider what that implies. If semi-automatic handguns
are too deadly to be in circulation, and most all guns in the US are
semi-automatic and, presumably, equally deadly, then….

So what are we left with? The possible exception of
small-caliber, low-power firearms? Maybe not. Sirhan Sirhan murdered Robert F. Kennedy
with a .22 revolver.

So what’s the end game, libs? You never do say. You never
tell us your vision: how many programs, laws, mandates, and regulations will be
enough, nor what should be allowed for self-defense. Bolt and lever-action
firearms?

Flintlocks?

Bows and arrows?

Sticks and stones?

They may break my bones. I’d say we could still hurl names,
but you libs like hate-speech laws, too.

Speaking of honest liberal agendas (an incongruent
adjectival juxtaposition, I know), let’s get to the Post’s assertion that the Second Amendment is obsolete. For
argument’s sake, assume this is true. What logically follows from that?

Obviously, if part of the Constitution is insufficient for
the times or handicaps us, amendment is in order. This is the vehicle the founders
gave us through which we can lawfully alter the supreme law of the land. But
the Post doesn’t even hint at such a course
of action. Instead, the implication is that we should do what the left always
does with the Inconvenient Document: massage its meaning with a wink and a nod.
Find living-document jurists enlightened enough to eschew literalism and melt
black and white into a gray interpretation. As long as the children get what
they want at the moment, right?

But the problem with juveniles is that they don’t consider
consequences. Once you set a precedent stating that the Constitution can be
viewed as “living” and interpreted to suit the agendas and whims of those with
clout, then all your rights are in jeopardy — including those you hold most
dear. Of course, that precedent was set long ago, and now constitutional
trampling is common practice. And you folks at the Post would exacerbate the problem further simply to achieve
immediate gratification.

This is ironic, too, since you Post purveyors of pablum are deeply involved in the use (and abuse)
of the First Amendment. Of course, you can’t imagine how what you sow today
could germinate as weeds that would choke your pen and tongue tomorrow. You
can’t imagine at all. That’s why people such as you are known as useful idiots.

Anyway, enough with the artifice. If you libs want to repeal
the Second Amendment, say so. Start a movement. Marshal your lobbying groups.
Put-up or shut-up. Or don’t put-up and just shut-up. That’s okay, too. 

            
                     Contact Selwyn Duke or follow him on Twitter

                                       2012 Selwyn Duke — All Rights Reserved