Yesterday I saw a headline on Breitbart.com. It wasn't much of a headline as these things go, a minor story slipped in between two more important subjects, but it started my mind ambling down a path it has followed many times before, yet for some reason I have never written about.
The Breitbart headline reported that Hillary Clinton was screeching that the problem of terrorism (she actually said the word, apparently) will never be solved until America has more gun control. Now, I freely and unashamedly confess that I didn't read the rest of the article; I have heard everything this brain-damaged, bloody-fingered collectivist harridan has to say on the subject of victim disarmament what seems like at least a hundred million times since I first regretfully became aware of her miserable existence back in the 1990s. To the best of my ability, I cannot remember ever hearing her (or her disgusting specimen of a husband or their ill-spawned daughter) utter anything that even remotely resembled the truth.
It makes me wonder whether pathological lying is genetic.
As I'm sure you know, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's a sentence that every individual reading this essay has seen many, many times before. Give or take a comma or two, it is far from ambiguous; its meaning, where rights are concerned (of the individual, as it turns out), is perfectly clear, no matter what Marxists like Hillary Clinton—out of the closet and grimly determined to see their prey (that's us) rendered helpless—claim to the contrary. Their entire cowardly purpose, theirs and their pet celebrities and their fawning sycophants in academia, is to get around our rights, and to do things to us that they can't do as long as we have our guns.
And yet, there is another aspect of the Second Amendment (which is unique among the ten articles of the Bill of Rights in many ways) to contemplate. The great, glaring failure of the Bill of Rights and its otherwise distinguished authors is that it doesn't include a severe and stringent penalty clause, a punishment prescribed for government officials and others who try to violate the rights that it protects. However the Second Amendment, by implication, contains its own penalty clause. It defines itself, and the liberty it enshrines, as "necessary to the security of a free State". It doesn't take much interpretation to infer that anyone who strives to weaken, or abolish that right altogether, is endangering the security of the free state in which we live.
A more direct way to say it is that they are committing treason.
And the customary punishment for treason is death—by hanging.
The dictionary (one of them, anyway) defines "treason" as "the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign." Or as "a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state". Or, more generally, as "the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery." I believe these definitions are overly statist in character, and wrongly-focused in a nation where the paramount concern is freedom of the individual.
From previous scholarly discussions of the issue of treason, I've been led to believe that a necessary element of the charge must be the act of giving "aid or comfort to the enemy." Since unlimited private firearms ownership and permitless carry have become the last (and, all too often, under the despicable and tyrannical Obama Administration, the first) line of defense against jihadists and other terrorist criminals, it should be more than obvious to anyone but a lawyer or a judge, that any attempt to outlaw guns or make them more difficult to own—to infringe that right in any way—gives considerable aid and comfort to those who wish for a free hand to do us harm.
I ask you, what would happen to a congressman or a senator who introduced a bill to abolish our Army or Air Force or Navy or Marine Corps or turn them over to Chinese communist control and command? Unless he wound up being frog-marched ignominiously out of the Capitol by federal marshals and hurled into a cell, this country is in deadly danger, especially if a creature like Hillary Clinton finds herself in position to provide a third term for the anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-individualist, anti-liberty dementia of Barack Obama.
And what of any politician who would strip Americans of their best (and often only) defense againt street crime of any kind, be it religious, political, or random freelance? Should his treasonous acts go unpunished, and thus encouraged? Or would it be better for traitors like Charles Schumer, Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Diana DeGette and Carolyn McCarthy find customary justice at the end of a rope, entirely under due process of law?
"A republic, if you can keep it." is the way that Dr. Benjamin Franklin answered somebody who wanted to know what kind of new government we had. In this instance, "keeping" means "defending", or else we'll all be living under Sharia Law before our grandchildren grow up.
There are many reasons Hillary must go to prison, but her advocacy of gun control is the most important.