A Democrat finally says out loud what they all think about the Constitution

 The Democrats have made it plenty clear over the years that they don't like the Constitution as written.  They hate free speech, a free press, religion that is free from government intervention, and most of all the Second Amendment and its clear recognition of every citizen's inherent right to bear arms.  Unable to change these principles, they opt for imaginary rights (e.g., abortion, same-sex "marriage") and dream of packing the Supreme Court to circumvent the intentionally cumbersome amendment process.  But they always pay lip service to the Constitution — that is, until Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) spoke openly about his contempt.  He is to be praised for his honesty.

The occasion for Cicilline's outburst was debate about the Democrats' latest effort to use ordinary legislation (as opposed to the amendment process) to curtail Americans' Second Amendment rights.  More specifically, Cicilline was outraged that anybody would think there was a constitutional problem with proposed federal red flag laws.

The way red flag laws work (and many states have them) is that anyone may go before a court to say that someone else is a danger and should be disarmed — without providing notice or the opportunity for a hearing to the person whose guns will be seized.  Indeed, the laws are fraught with potential problems, especially at the federal level, none of which Democrats seem inclined to address:

That said, the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental constitutional right, and any deprivation of that right — even temporarily and for compelling reasons — requires the highest standards of due process.

[snip]

Any "true" federal red flag law — one that enables red flag petitions to be filed through the federal court system — would likely suffer from a serious constitutional flaw. The federal government, unlike state governments, lacks general "police powers" and cannot broadly regulate the public safety, except in those limited scenarios specified by the Constitution.

[snip]

As for a federal bill that attaches federal funding to the adoption of state red flag laws, that raises its own concerns. It's very unlikely that any set of minimal federal standards would compel states to provide either adequate due process protections or the sort of comprehensive, detailed approach necessary to avoid objection.

That's especially true if the Justice Department's recently issued "model red flag law" is any indication of where federal advocates stand on this issue. The model law contains numerous nonstarters, including allowing a defendant's rights to be revoked at one-sided, ex parte hearings based on nothing more than "reasonable cause," an incredibly low burden of proof when dealing with fundamental constitutional rights.

As a reminder, the Second Amendment isn't for deer hunting or trap shooting.  It exists to protect individuals from their government — and, as I never tire of reminding people, nothing is more dangerous than a government that turns on its people.  Just ask those on the wrong side of the Nazis, the Soviets, the Chinese Communist Party, Pol Pot's Cambodian government, Castro's government, the Kim family in North Korea, etc.

In the trade-offs that life always demands, the deeply tragic, yet statistically inconsequential number of school shootings does not justify abandoning the Second Amendment.  Instead, shootings should be met through different, lesser means — all of which the Democrats refuse to try.  They want to seize your guns because, as is true for all political entities that want to control you, your guns stand in their way.

And Cicilline, with admirable honesty, said the quiet part out loud:

Incidentally, Cicilline supports 100% the right to an abortion, which seven White men found by searching through the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution.  Cicilline also supports 100% same-sex "marriage," another imaginary constitutional right.

One more thing: Cicilline has never objected to the free armed protection he gets from the Capitol Police, nor was he complaining when 25,000 National Guard troops protected him from equally imaginary deadly enemies in early 2021.  He wants to take the guns that protect you, not the guns that protect him.

Thanks, Rep. Cicilline, for letting us know where you stand.  You want unfettered power and aren't shy about it.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/06/a_democrat_finally_says_out_loud_what_they_all_think_about_the_constitution.html

https://renewedright.com/tucker-carlson-revealed-the-real-reason-joe-biden-wants-to-ban-guns-in-america/?