In Which WaPo’s Greg Sargent Gets Pwned on 2nd Amendment/Constitution, Tucks Tail, Runs Away
Last Wednesday, I had an interesting and protracted “debate” on Twitter with Greg Sargent (one of many resident tyrants riding the Washington Post’s meager staff).
The screencaps basically speak for themselves, but I’ll provide a bit of commentary at times, for the sake of context. It began when I questioned Greg’s assertion that large majorities of the country support drastic new gun restrictions. I cited a recent Gallup poll, asking about Americans’ top concerns. (“Gun control” got a whopping 4%.)
So, yes, I started it. But Greg immediately resorted to non sequitur, as Progs are wont to do (and which generally pisses me off).
Then, rather than acknowledge my response, Greg casts a completely unfounded aspersion:
Oh, really, now? LMAO! Tench Coxe (one of the principal authors of the 2nd Amendment) would disagree:
“The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier , are the birth-right of an American … the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. ”
Tench Coxe - Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788 [emphasis added]
But, our fun and frivolity at Sargent’s expense is only beginning. Read on!
(He’s referring to his asinine question regarding limos, which I had already answered, by the way.)
But then he really steps in it:
Oh? Haha! Let’s run with that one, shall we?
In case you need a refresher, Article 4, Section 4 states the following:
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against Domestic Violence.”
(That last is simply a reassertion of the Article 1 power Greg had cited before, wherein Congress can call up the Militias to “suppress insurrection”.)
After nothing but crickets in response, I reiterated:
And, wonder of wonders! this finally elicited a response from the smug one.
Oh! He wants me to type it again?
Greg fell silent again (and I’m not the least bit deluded that he was scrolling back to find my question), so I engaged in a couple of asides, hoping to prod him a bit.
Hey, if it saves just one wrist, right?
At this point Greg jumped back in, not to answer my question, but simply to throw another canard down the old coal mine.
(Notice how he gets testy, then shifts the subject to carry us further afield, simply because he can’t answer my question? Yeah. I did, too.)
The Trenches founder, Brooks Bayne, enters the fray here, to smack down the typical Prog “sensible regulations” nonsense. But Greg was having none of it.
Oh, but it does change almost everything about your “suppressing insurrections” argument, Greg. Which is why you have to change the subject.
Again.
And here Greg dives right into the deep end of the Constitutional pool. One problem, though: he forgets his Elmo arm floaties.
Remember that link to Amazon from above? Greg was attempting to send me to a book by a “Robert Spitzer”, so I decided to call him on that:
A fellow “gun nut” in PA enters now, and more hilarity ensues:
Yes, the irony of an Eastwood fanboy arguing against guns. Precious, innit?
And there’s the rub, isn’t it? Because “no one” (according to Greg) in today’s indoctrinated Legal Academy intelligentsia or Judicial Junta agrees with me (and the old dead white guys who ratified the Constitution), and because 5 people in black robes made a ruling based on that same indoctrination, the Constitution’s clear language is somehow invalidated. Automagically! How neat!
With no further response from Sargent (nor did I expect any), I went on to further illustrate the object lesson I set out to establish.
Because, as some radio guy once said, “Words mean things.” Yes, it really is that damn simple.
Again, I’ll debate anyone on this. Any time. But, for Pete’s sake, bring your A game. And please remember that “disputing” ain’t the same as “refuting.”
(Hell, for the likes of Sargent, even his “disputing” doesn’t fit the common definition.)
About Bradley S. Rees
Spent 15+ years in the fields of regulatory, tax, and education reform. Ran in GOP primary for VA-5 Congressional seat from Nov. '08 to October '09. Host of "The Brushfire Hour" (now only in podcast form at BlogTalkRadio) and "The Sons Of Liberty Show" sponsored by Conservative Broadcast Media on spreaker.com Primary author at http://sonofliberty2k10.wordpress.com
- More Posts
