Wednesday, March 3, 2010

The Charitable Bill of Rights

Man, it drives me crazy to see this time after time after time, and not from drunken NASCAR fans or Tea Party protesters, but the elitist legacy media: Justices consider whether Second Amendment gives a right to have a gun at home.

I thought reporters, journalists, writers, editors, and the lot were supposed to be educated and smart. I remember learning in elementary school that the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights included in it, did not give anything, but merely told government what it could and could not do.

It doesn't give rights; it spells them out for government to see.

If the document went up in smoke today, nothing would theoretically change because the rights exist in the hearts and minds of the people. The whole damned reason that anyone bothered to write it down in the first place was so that, when push came to shove, the people would have something to stuff in the face of self serving representatives and biased Supreme Court Justices.

"Oh, you think so, do ya! Well, read em' and weep, bitches!"

Apparently, important stuff like this falls into the ditch from time to time. Shame on me: I really did think that the now legacy media, considering its main function of being a government watchdog, and taking into account how much face time they get with government officials, would have a thorough understanding of this most simple concept. That won't happen again.
Post a Comment