The 2nd Amendment protects the First

Just ask the heroes of Ukraine!

At a gathering of well aged Democrats, the Head Groundskeeper ventured that if Ukrainians had enjoyed Americans’ Second Amendment rights for more than a few days before the Russkies invaded, they might be marginally better off than they are now. (“Ukraine locks and loads.”)

A liberal acquaintance — Madison folks would recognize his name immediately — objected to my defense of gun rights. He raised the specter of right-wing militias here in America. To the liberal mind, gaggles of backwoods Randy Quaids, armed with AR-15s, are plotting the takeover of this capitol or that village. Experience over the last few years says otherwise: as Antifa and BLM proved in Kenosha, Seattle, Portland, etc.

A grand jury did indeed today indict former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio for conspiracy in the January 6 Capitol attack last year, making him the second leader of a far-right group to face charges in the past several months. We wouldn’t blame Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer for carrying, either. We get that.


But one could just as well regulate the First Amendment to a husk in order to prevent its misuse by the likes of Tucker Carlson or Joy Reid. The Czech Republic, that doughty little democracy, is doing just that. The country is moving to criminalize speech supporting Russian President Vladimir Putin or the Russian invasion with sentences of up to three years. “It is a curious way to fight tyranny,” observes super lawyer Jonathan Turley, “with tyrannical measures against free speech.” Damn Near Putin.

The assault on the First Amendment, we think, is far more injurious in the long run. And it’s endemic here in the U.S.A. Turley is riding this issue like Mario Andretti in the Brickyard.

→ Jeh Johnson withdraws as Vassar commencement speaker after protests.

→ Bolshoi conductor resigns over free speech controversy.

→ How the Senate is poised to codify censorship of social media.

→ Students block Shapiro from speaking at Hastings College of Law.

It’s a great title for a book

One Damn Thing After Another. That’s former Trump Attorney General Bill Barr’s tell all. Especially riveting is his encounter with #45 in the White House after telling the news media that his Justice Department found no irregularities in the 2020 election that would overturn the results. “You must hate Trump,” the President bawled. Barr offers his resignation then and there. Trump slams the table. “Accepted!”

In the limo on the way out, two aides pound on the car windows. Come back! He doesn’t want you to resign after all! Eventually, of course, Barr did just that.

Hated by the Let for being (allegedly) Trump’s enabler, our RITO … friends now denounce Bill Barr as an apologist for the Deep State. But our purpose here is to document the former attorney general’s higher authority for something the Werkes has been preaching Lo these many years: Instead of the notion that “poverty causes crime,” he argued the opposite was true — crime causes poverty. (More here.)

Blaska’s Bottom Line: On the Second Amendment, it would be wondrous to think that the gang bangers and drug cartels would surrender their weapons to civil authorities. But they’re not even applying for concealed carry licenses now.

Will you be silenced?

About David Blaska

Madison WI
This entry was posted in Free speech, Gun control, Ukraine, Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to The 2nd Amendment protects the First

  1. georgessson says:

    RE: 1st Amendment & Ukraine…

    An actual endless list of reactions to the Ukraine exists, they could never be listed in their entirety because more are posted each minute, if not every second. So:

    I propose a list of “ere(a)ctions”! Comments that are slightly more than “knee-jerk” than knee-jerk… Tho still made by the same old jerks… 2 Examples:

    John Cena tweeted the weirdest cross-promotion between his HBO show Peacemaker and the invasion of Ukraine. He tweeted, “If I could somehow summon the powers of a real life #Peacemaker I think this would be a great time to do so.” Can you feel the cringe?

    AnnaLynne McCord on twitter, “If I was your mother, you would have been so loved, held in the arms of joyous light.” The rest of the short yet gagworthy tweet is here.

    Humph ! In retrospect, that list might be endless as well….


  2. David Gerard says:


    You say: “To the liberal mind, gaggles of backwoods Randy Quaids, armed with AR-15s, are plotting the takeover of this capitol or that village.”

    You are misreading and downplaying what will occur in the next decade. You may want to read the “Guide to the Analysis of Insurgency,” a CIA document published in 2012 (available at

    It describes what we are seeing today as “incipient insurgency.” This is the pre-insurgency or organizational stage before an actual insurgency gets off the ground. It can involve inchoate action by lots of groups, followed by a sort of organization, training, building external and public support. And what you see over time is increasingly frequent anti-government incidents that display better organization and forethought.

    The act that we saw take place at the Capitol building was an insurrection. By definition, it was aimed at the government or authority as opposed to, say, a person. But that insurrection is a symptom of a larger growing insurgency. And as the days move forward, we’re likely to see an indigenous permanent insurgency take hold in America. It will resemble the “Irish Troubles,” last just as long, with bodies buried throughout the land.


    • RMX says:

      There will be no insurgency in the USA. For that to happen, the USA would need to win the war against Russia and China, which will not happen.

      For some reason the communists believe the people they refer to as “domestic terrorists” and “insurgents” are going to forgive and still fight for this. NOT GONNA HAPPEN!

      If the USA wins this war it will be due to the military successes of women, minorities, and homosexuals. Good luck!


  3. Bill Cleary says:

    I will take issue with anyone who insists on taking my first or second amendment rights away from me in part or in whole.

    The reason I say that can be stated in two parts:

    1. In 2020 there were approximately 45,222 gun-related deaths in this country.
    2. In an average year there are approximately 95,000 alcohol-related deaths in this country.,death%20in%20the%20United%20States.

    Therefore, in order to reduce the number of alcohol-related deaths, which are more than twice the number of gun deaths every year and is been proven to effect the number of gun related deaths, I propose that we ban the manufacturing sale and distribution of alcohol in this country.

    Oh but wait, we already tried that with the 18th Amendment. And how did that turn out? Just a quick look back into history will tell the tale.

    I would predict to you right here and now that if we ban the manufacturing, sale and distribution of guns and prohibit the debate on such a law, the only people with guns will be the thugs who will not give up their guns despite any law forbidding them, the police, the military and those in private or government security who guard the rich and those in government.

    We the people who make up the vast majority of this country will be stripped of any right to protect ourselves, and even the right to question a law, from any of the above with the ability to carry guns.


Comments are closed.