Joni Ernst, Tim Morrissey, and Dad29

Tim Morrissey, a nooz-savant/consultant, (and certifiable Lefty) was displeased with political advertising.  On that point we can all agree, and it makes no difference which side you're coming from.  The lies, innuendos, and character-assassinations coming from One Wisconsin Now, the Democrat Party/Wisconsin, and Big Labor were horrific, X-rated TV.

Unfortunately, Tim doesn't like hard-fact news stories, either, such as the revelation that Mary Burke, the "business success", was fired from her father's own company for her failures in Europe.  There were only 4 or 5 sources with direct knowledge, which apparently was insufficient for a nooz-savant/consultant.

But Tim did manage to trip me up on the question of the Second Amendment.  He was in near dead-faint over Joni Ernst's remarks:

....Ernst’s campaign speeches often include a line about her military background, and how she’s got a gun and knows how to use it “in case the government comes after my rights”.....

...to which I made a semi-erroneous riposte that the 2A was not written for duck-hunters (etc.)

As we are reminded today, that was an error on my part, so I apologize to Tim for having misled him.

Here's the correct narrative:  (note, please, that Tim's hysteria seems to carbon-copy Paul Begala's mockery of Sen-Elect Ernst.)

What did Ernst say to prompt Begala to treat her like—using Alinsky’s carefully-chosen words—“the enemy”?

“I do believe in the right to carry, and I believe in the right to defend myself and my family—whether it’s from an intruder, or whether it’s from a government, should they decide that my rights are no longer important,” she declared.  (Cited here.)

The author, David Codrea, continues:

...the Bill of Rights gives and grants no rights. It merely defines some, but not all rights, which the Founders correctly viewed as preexisting to the government they were establishing. That understanding was further solidified in the 1875 Cruikshank decision (and repeated in the 2008 Heller decision), when the Supreme Court noted, “The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

...The Second Amendment does not “give” us the right to rebel against civil and military authorities. Focus on the word “give”. But now, to really make the critics mad, let me add that such language does not appear within its text, or within the definitions of Constitutional purposes for “calling forth the militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”...

He's right.  The right appears where no Lefty would dare go:  the Declaration.

 “[Wh]enever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,” they wrote in the Declaration of Independence.

...The proper question is not where Americans get the right to “dissolve the political bonds … and to assume… the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.” The Declaration answers that one....

Yah, well, that stuff about "Laws of Nature and Nature's God" is like a silver crucifix to Lefties.  It's why they really, really, really don't like that Declaration thing and insist that it's merely an editorial piece, paid for by the Koch Brothers, ya'know.