Politics is such a bizarre arena. Especially in modern times, debates tend to revolve around shallow policy points and less around constitutional topics. Such is the case when a Democratic Hillary Clinton supporter is running for Congress in Maine’s second district. On the one hand, the state that just legalized constitutional carry has a stronger tradition of gun ownership in the second district. But on the other hand, coming out in support of guns could seriously upset leftwing supporters.
For this point, Congressional candidate Emily Cain must have consulted her revised pocket Constitution.
Emily Cain’s revised pocket Constitution? To be clear, there are two types of Constitutions in this country. This is the actual Constitution that was debated on by the Founders and subsequently ratified by the States, then there is the Constitution that a liberal like Emily Cain selectively enforces and interprets according to politics.
Cain has already previously attacked the First Amendment, by stating Donald Trump criticizing other people is unconstitutional. Under the actual First Amendment, the right to speak freely is protected, regardless of whether you agree with what political opponents say or not.
Now Emily Cain is taking a step forward with a bizarre take on the Second Amendment. If her interpretation of the Second is anything like the First, this should be interesting. And it was.
In a Facebook post, the Second Congressional District Democrat staged an awkward photo op while holding a gun in an orange vest. While the photo op was clearly intended to appeal to gun owners without actually saying it, the post doesn’t actually use the word “gun.”
What was the original intent of the Second Amendment? To understand this point, it is important to understand where the founding generation was at during the time of the country’s founding. While liberals would like many to forget the history of the founders, the truth is that gun ownership was seen as a form of protection from tyrannical government. While the founders had a degree of faith in the government they were creating, it was still necessary to ensure the protection of the people.
To understand this point, we can look to a historical event more recent than the American Revolution. In Nazi Germany, gun ownership wasn’t quite to the level it is in America. Under the Weimar Republic, gun control was actually quite strong and thus, when Adolf Hitler and the Nazis came to power, gun ownership wasn’t as big of a debate as it is in America now.
With that said, gun control laws were changed by the Nazis.
Nazi party members and the military had laws loosened, allowing for gun control. At the same time, “unreliable” citizens were refused guns. What defines an “unreliable” citizen?
This sounds remarkably like the debate that occurs in American society now, where people debate who can and cannot own guns. “Unreliable” citizens will be decided by the government and in the case of a corrupt, genocidal government like the Nazis, that came down to Jews and political opponents.
What if the United States Government ever fell into the hands of someone corrupt? To make this clearer to Emily Cain and the left, what if Donald Trump was elected and loosened gun control for those more aligned with him, while disarming Muslims and minorities?
It is for this reason, the Second Amendment protected the right to bear arms without discrimination. It protects all people, whether they be Jews, Muslims, or any other group of society. While Presidents such as Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt have violated the principles of freedom by rounding up Japanese-Americans like Hitler himself did the Jews, this was something the founders actually sought to prevent from happening. Why? Because morally, it is wrong.
These are the things you will not learn reading Emily Cain’s revised Constitution, however. In the copy of the Constitution that Cain follows, the First Amendment only applies to those she agrees with. Disagreeable people have no right to speech. Similarly, there is only a right to hunt in relation to gun ownership.
These things together paint a disturbing picture of the America that Emily Cain envisions. Is this really what Maine wants for our future?