High-Velocity Rounds: Closed to Interpretation by Reid Neason

It seems that the left has thrust a lot of our Constitutional rights into the spotlight/chopping block (depending on your point of view) in the time since the 2018 midterms, so I’ve decided to do a quick-fire round of what I view on each of these issues.

“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom…of the press”
Before I get to the other events, let me vent on the Trump vs. Acosta saga. The most recent development is that CNN has pushed a lawsuit against Donald Trump and others in his staff for indefinitely suspending Jim Acosta’s press pass. They’re whining about how their right to a free press is being abridged as if they’ve been collectively banned as a network from ever being within miles of any government facility.

Personally, I side with the President and Sarah Huckabee Sanders. I believe there are good and honest reporters at CNN, but Acosta is not one of them. He is hopelessly narcissistic when doing his job(?), and he has been proven to be incapable of fair coverage. I would have revoked his press pass on the spot when he expected the full spotlight and decided to name-drop Otto Warmbier (among other taboos) during the document signing at the Singapore summit.

Then we get to the notorious press conference. It’s been said that being a leftist means you never have to apologize. Also, being Jim Acosta means you always want attention. Those two traits came to a head when Acosta seemingly wanted to have a full Lincoln-Douglas debate with the president when there were plenty of other journalists who simply wanted to ask their one question. When he declined, Acosta was having none of it, and he went so far as going full Daniel LaRusso on an aide who was instructed to move things along.

The notion that he’s a victim in this situation is ridiculous. Even more so is the left’s preposterous lie that this was the one and only incident that led the Press Corps to revoke Acosta’s badge. If CNN didn’t want to file a lawsuit that they won’t win, then they shouldn’t have let the most self-absorbed man in journalism into the most esteemed group of his colleagues in the nation when they already have 12 other reporters in the press pool.

But the situation still has some upside. It’ll be fun to watch them howl accusations of corruption and/or anti-Democrat discrimination at the moon if the federal courts throw out the case. If the alternative happens and the case is actually heard, they will almost certainly settle or lose the case to the President, in which case CNN will instead wail about Trump profiteering while in office. It’s a win-win for the 64% of voters who say the press has been more divisive than the President.

This isn’t to discourage any news network or journalist from doing what they think is right. All I’m saying is that the kind of indecency shown to those that a journalist is covering is best left to personal Twitter feeds and not pressers with the leader of the free world.

“The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
In the wake of the most recent wave of barbaric mass shootings in the US, namely Thousand Oaks and the Tree of Life synagogue, gun control has been rightfully signaled as an issue that needs resolving. So far, there has seemed to be no agreeable situation to prevent these horrific events from repeating themselves.

Once again, here’s my honest opinion: throughout the world, it seems that a common buffer to these types of disasters is to weed out the bad people, not the big guns. Even though evidence doesn’t hold much value in 2018, here’s my two cents on why I think that is. The UN Office on Drugs & Crime ranked the world’s countries by murders per 100,000 citizens, and the US ranked 87th with a rate of 5.35.

Here are some gun policies of countries with much higher rates than that. In Russia, which has more than double America’s rate, purchases are originally limited to smooth-bore firearms. You have to own a shotgun for five years before you can have a rifle. Even still, you can’t ever have handguns, suppressors, guns with less than a 500-mm barrel, or burst rifles with more than a 10-round capacity. In Guatemala, which has a rate of 27.26, it’s quite straightforward. If they see you with a gun and find out you shouldn’t have a gun, you go to jail even before trial.

Now let’s look at policies in countries with some of the lowest rates in the world. Romania, with a rate of 0.09, is particularly strict. In order to even get a gun, you have to go to the police to get a permit, then you have to register it. These permits come in different forms, like hunting and self-defense, and there are only a few people who are legally entitled to carry one. Regardless, everyone has to undergo a psychological evaluation. In Indonesia, who has a near identical gun violence rate, they’re just as hard. You have to be 21, you have to go through extensive background checks and mental evaluations, and you have to give a genuine reason why you want a gun.
I’ve seen how often the “good guy with a gun” argument gets mocked, but I want to see some factual evidence rather than the same old nanny-nanny-boo-boo tactics if they want me to look at the potential benefits of the alternative.

“The House of Representatives shall…have the sole Power of Impeachment.”
With all of the revelations regarding how the newly Democratic House plans to send our legislature into gridlock, the elephant in the room is the possible impeachment of President Trump. With that, I only have two questions: “What high crime or misdemeanor has he committed?” and “Do you realize the Senate has to try an impeachment first?”

I imagine I’d get any number of answers to the first question. “He colluded with Russia.” Did he now? While the jury’s still out as far as the final report, the fact that the probe has been going for well over a year without an iota of anything presented to a grand jury is a little telling about the level of substance that may be contained in it. Also, since many found Bob Woodward so credible regarding Washington happenings because of his book Fear, let’s look at something else he’s said. He told Hugh Hewitt that he looked for two years, and he found not a single bit of proof that there was collusion, and that it all looks like a big trap to get the President to perjure himself. And you can’t impeach based on a crime that’s being discussed in the future tense.

The second question has no real direct answer, but that’s what the more radicalized Democratic Party has Brenda Snipes and Co. for. It appears as though, between Florida, Georgia, and possibly Arizona, it is slowly becoming procedure for blue strongholds to keep on mysteriously encountering provisional ballots that happen to be mostly straight Democrat whenever a Republican has the audacity to win the popular vote.

Overall, there seems to be a nasty undertone recently in this nation that the left is morally and logically superior in every way to their right-wing counterparts, so they don’t have to be held to any standards. The added fact that all these actions carrying that ulterior message have unfolded or significantly developed within the last few weeks is simply alarming.

Expect more from me soon regarding the apparently tolerated hunting down of conservative values.

Leave a Reply

Sign up for The UC Newsletter

%d bloggers like this: