Commenter Nelle left some words for NH House Rep Jeanine Notter’s Op-Ed “Democrats removed a Constitutional Right from the NH House – what will they do to you?” Apparently, Nelle is in full agreement with what the Democrats have done – made a Right subject to the Collective and when Governments says when it is a Right – and when it is not and rather condescending about it to boot (emphasis mine):
It’s interesting how different people view this. You all see it as a right, but for me and others, rights have boundaries framed by the public good. Think yelling something uncouth on a plane or in a movie theatre.
I’m an old fart. Most people of my generation I know who own guns keep them secured and take them out only to hunt, sport shoot, or clean. What they don’t do is parade around with them like some insecure but perpetually hopeful peacock flashing his feathers to excess.
The State House is the people’s house. It’s a place to gather and discuss, and it should start with respecting each other by not bringing weapons into the facility. It shouldn’t have to be mandated, it should just be common sense. Since common sense doesn’t seem to come into play, it had to be mandated.
Most I know on the left have no issue with gun ownership (at least most guns.) We do have issue with this need to pollute our common spaces with what in too many cases are unnecessary demonstrations of insecure manhood
To that last part, I guess Nelle must then believe, out of thin air, that Rep Jeanine Notter is trans (with nothing with which to back it up – sad). And she gets all uppity because others disagree with her “common sense” and has no problem with Government, without the slightest of evidence, of having The State mandate behavior that she approves of.
Of course, with a comment like that, I could not help myself (slight editing here):
We disagree – if you choose, in being an “old fart” to behave in a given fashion stated above, you have that freedom. But what is “common sense” to you is not the same to others and the fact that you agree with mandating that a Right be withdrawn does mean that there is no Right at all – merely Government privileges that can be dispensed or taken away at any time and solely based on the Political Wind.
If you look at Article 2-a, there are no exceptions to it – a Right IS a Right and it is a shame that the plain language of our Founders has been perverted. If they had decided that exceptions were to be included (e.g., felons, certain places, ages, mental incapacities), they would have written them in. It is only because of Political Correctness and the judiciary now deciding, not on our Foundational documents but on mere case law, that we have arrived at where we are.
If some wishes to carry, they are NOT “peacocks” for exercising a Right – in this, you’ve become part of the problem of disrespecting the original meanings of those Articles. Words SHOULD and DO have meanings – when one decides, for the sake of an ideology, to dismiss them outright, we are in far more trouble than not.
There is nothing “sacred” about the State House – it is merely a meeting place. Nothing less, nothing more. What you have exhibited is a “feeling” that the “public good” should come before the Individual (the smallest Minority there is) – again, contra the thrust of both Constitutions that were written to protect that Individual and his Rights against the “public good”, a “majority”, as well as the Tyranny of the Majority (otherwise known as direct democracy in which Rights can be stripped as we just saw by the Democrats in the NH House).
It is that last part that our Founders were so scared about and why we are supposed to have a representative Republic and not a democracy – they knew that the latter was always a failure over time.
They also believed that Rights were, unlike a building, were to be sancrosanct. How far we have fallen when numerous Representatives have literally said that our Constitutions are only a “guideline” (meaning it can be ignored) or “not my job” (and therefore relieving themselves of the responsibility of remaining with constraints of both the Letter and the Spirit of it.
And that would be here:
https://granitegrok.com/blog/2018/10/progressive-view-of-the-proper-role-of-government-and-your-subservience-to-it
And I totally disagree that just because one doesn’t share your version of “common sense”, that The State must ram it down someone else’s throat as you wrote above. I also disagree that most on the Left have ‘no issue’ with guns – one only has to lightly peruse the blogosphere and see how hotly they hate the idea that civilians should own firearms.
And you used EXACTLY one of their reasons by devolving downward to sexual innuendo. And that’s why I now dismiss your sincere intent.
It’s what the Left does all the time across a lot of issues – with that, you have proven that you are quite ensconced within it.
It always seems to be that they can’t just debate on the merits of the topic – they always have to make it personal and throwing shade (peacocks, insecure manhood). They truly do believe that this kind of debate is of the highest rhetoric even as it shows the rest of us that they “don’t got game”. That reasoning is simply to bolster their own sense of moral superiority with which her retort is dripping. A very dismissive attitude completely devoid of the “inclusiveness” that they cloak themselves with when they rant against the Right. Once again, the inability to make a cogent argument sticking to the topic and not understanding that they reveal that their playbook is quite hollow when they can’t stick to their own redefinitions of commonly used words (e.g., inclusiveness means including EVERYTHING and in this context, even that which you don’t approve of).
No, Nelle is just one of the Left attempting to “sound reasonable” but letting the mask slip – and slip quite low.
