A Disturbing Level of Ignorance

The letter was originally published in the Carteret County News-Times on Jan. 23.

Stop laughing. 

When the giggles and guffaws give you a moment, keep reading. The above letter to an editor is, unfortunately an example of a plague infecting our republic. Something that should scare citizens is that people who actually think and believe things such as this letter vote.

Each time I reread the above letter, I wonder if it was an honest letter or if it was a prank sent by somebody meaning to expose the thought process of many of the younger useful idiots in our country. Regardless, it does spark some discussion points that need to be addressed.

The above letter is a perfect example of how our kids are lied to and poorly educated by the government education system. It is intentional. In many cases, it isn't the fault of  the teachers. Many of them are told what they will and will not teach. I have spoken to several who are bloody from running into the brick wall erected before them that prevents teachers from teaching kids the truth. Then there are those diehard socialists in the schools who teach falsehoods such as those above.

Critical thinking is an important skill children need to develop. However, before doing so, kids need to first learn facts, definitions, and rules. Those rules include the basic theorems of logic (taught in learning how to do geometric proofs, for example). Those rules need to include knowing how to select the proper intended definition of a term from among the accepted definitions. They need to learn that facts trump opinions, always. Opinions need to be based upon verifiable facts.

Let's examine this lovely letter.

The author obviously failed to learn basic civics. If the school didn't teach it, then the author's parents failed. If neither presented  the facts to the student or failed to get the student to comprehend them, then the author failed to do an ounce of research before displaying his or her ignorance.

Just reading the Cliff Note version of The Federalist Papers would have corrected the false statements in that first paragraph. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is the rules and laws that the entire federal government must follow. When they fail to, the laws they enact become invalid and the officials in question face trial. that trial can be impeachment proceedings. They can be a judicial trial. The trial can also be one at the ballot box where we, their employers, the voters, fire them.

Yes, the Second Amendment says exactly that we do not need the government's permission to own and carry weapons. The fourth amendment further states that they need a legitimate reason with enough evidence present to even ask a judge to grant a warrant allowing the search or seizure of private property.

The author also failed to research federal court decisions regarding the Second Amendment. Many of Chicago and Illinois' laws were struck down as unconstitutional. Unconstitutional means that the laws violated the supreme law of the land and are illegal. Illegal laws are tyranny.

Furthermore, had the author taken the time to research the actual facts, they would know that Chicago, despite having perhaps the strictest laws that violate the Second Amendment, has one of the highest murder rates in the country. The majority of those murders (and other violent crimes) are firearms related. They are committed by felons who have no regards for laws. They acquire or build firearms without batting an eye at any laws restricting them. They simply don't care. There are far fewer violent crimes (especially ones involving firearms) in areas with fewer infringements upon the Second Amendment. Yes, Virginia, the per capita gun-related violent crime rate in Chicago (10.33 per 1,000) is higher than that of Morehead City (7.18 per 1,000). Even the murder argument is moot. Morehead's per capita murder rate is 0.11 per 1,000. Chicago's is 0.16 per 1,000. The national average is 0.05 per 1,000.

Facts are the basis of a "voice of reason". Ignoring them is not a "voice of reason". It's a voice of emotive rhetoric built on falsehood and skewed perspectives as well as snorting unicorn dung and rainbow dust.

The question concerning "wealth redistribution" being unconstitutional is rather obvious. The Third Amendment guarantees that the government cannot house military or law enforcement on private property without permission of the property owner. The Fourth Amendment states that the government cannot search or confiscate private property without just cause and a court order demonstrating reasonable suspicion backed by evidence of criminal activity. Article 1 of the US Constitution mandates congress to pass laws to protect intellectual property through copyrights and patents so the inventors and authors may accrue the wealth these forms of intellectual property may earn without somebody else stealing their ideas.  The US Constitution, the Federalist Papers which explain it, and the Declaration of Independence which serves as the ideological foundation of the above are all based upon the writings of John Locke and Montesquieu. The term "pursuit of happiness" is interchangeable with the term "private property". Thomas Jefferson used the term "pursuit of happiness" so that intellectual property would not be excluded by interpretation of "property".

The author of the letter also demanded that Obama change the US Constitution because it is so "unfair". Article 5 of the US Constitution outlines the proper means of amending the US Constitution or convening a convention for constructing a new one. The President does not have that authority.

Next we encounter the ignorant diatribe concerning the term "natural born". Had the author bothered to do a little research and bothered to check the definition of the term in a proper dictionary, he would have discovered that "natural born" has a very specific legal definition when applied to being an American citizen. It has nothing to do with being born by Cesarian Section versus the birth canal. It applies to the location of one's birth and parentage. To be "natural born" means that the person in question's parents were US Citizens or the person was born on US Soil to include the 50 states and any lawfully claimed and recognized territories. For example, somebody born in Puerto Rico is technically a "natural born" citizen. same with somebody born in the Panama Canal Zone prior to 1996. A person born to a US Soldier and his/her US Citizen spouse while the couple is stationed in Germany is still a "natural born" citizen.

Given that the name of the author was withheld, it is highly possible that the author knew the ridiculous nature of the statement he/she made. The frightening point is that there really are people who believe this garbage walking around our country. They think they are intellectually superior despite the fact simple fact-checking demonstrates their ignorance and laziness. Yes, it is laziness to not bother to research subjects before attempting to make idiotic claims. Yet those idiotic claims are made every minute by somebody whom the parents and schools failed to properly inform of the facts.