Dakota Beacon

Well, Donald Trump surrogate Ben Carson is at it again.  He has observed that some people believe 100% that as Americans we have the right to bear arms like the Constitution says, but some other people think 100% we shouldn’t have that right and it is too bad we don’t just get together and come up with a compromise solution.  He suggests putting the 2^nd Amendment on the table and discussing whether we should have it or whether we should abolish this right now.

Now that you’ve absorbed that one, I would just say this.  Ben Carson has been consistent in his “compromise everything” approach.  You may recall before he was a candidate, when he had been making headlines for his comments at the famous prayer breakfast in Washington, someone asked him to comment on the Trayvon Martin case which was in the trial stage at the time.  His comments were very revealing.  He basically said that some people wanted to convict George Zimmerman of murder and punish him accordingly and others said he had done nothing wrong and should not be convicted of anything.  Now that, as far as it goes, is about right.  Either Zimmerman acted completely in self-defense or he had brutally murdered Martin.  There really were no other options here.  It wasn’t a case of manslaughter.  It wasn't a case of "whodunit".  Either Trayvon Martin tried to kill Zimmerman or he was just ambling along with his groceries.  There just is no “middle ground” here.  So Carson suggested that it would be best to arrive at a compromise – just convict an innocent Zimmerman of a lesser crime and punish him for that, giving something to both sides!!!  Brilliant!  Except that it left the concept of justice completely out of it.  Justice would require that if Zimmerman killed Martin in cold blood he should pay the price.  If, on the other hand he did not, he was innocent of the charges and should pay no price for that reason.

The problem with abandoning the idea of a system of justice and a fair trial and the right of the accused to an adequate defense and an impartial judge and jury is that anything else is either the product of absolute despotism, where a dictator decides or mob rule, where we forget trials altogether and whoever assembles the bigger crowd decides.  In either of these scenarios the facts do not matter, adequate defense doesn’t matter, impartiality on the part of judge and jury no longer matter, the truth is irrelevant.  Do you see anything wrong with this?  In this case Zimmerman was entitled to a fair trial and a defense.  He was entitled to an impartial judge and jury of his peers.  The state had the obligation to the victim’s family of pursuing vigorously the truth in this matter and getting a conviction if the truth bore that out.  At no time was this a popularity contest in the town square.  If you want that read A Tale of Two Cities.  Or, if you prefer the despotic version, read Solzhenitsyn. 

So we have laws to protect all of us, including Zimmerman and you and me.  And Martin, for that matter.  We also have a Constitution which protects us in general and in specific rights.  One of those rights is the one set forth in our Second Amendment.  It is only useful as an absolute, like the right to free speech, association, assembly, religion and press.  We do not make exceptions to that except for inciting to riot or to stampede people in crowded theaters with a false cry of “Fire!”  We do not have exceptions to our 2^nd Amendment except for convicted criminals, for example.  If there is no conviction for commission of a violent crime there is no constraint on the American’s right to bear arms.    It is like being a little bit pregnant or a little bit dead.  Either you are or you are not.  If we follow Carson’s “logic” to its inevitable conclusion we have someone advocating the abandonment of our Constitution because the mob wants it abandoned.  It has nothing to do with our rights or our laws. 

It was for people like Dr. Carson that these laws were cast in stone.  It was because our founders realized that people of weak reasoning are susceptible to being swayed by the mob.  Every society comes up against this threat at some time.  We need our laws for just such times as those.  They must be sturdy and able to withstand the assault of unreasoning anger and caprice.  It is there just to protect us from precipitate folly.  Like that which Carson is promoting right now and like what he promoted with regard to George Zimmerman.

If this is accurate, then he is the perfect sidekick for Donald Trump.  Trump is unfamiliar with our Constitution.  He has never needed it or heeded it.  To him it is irrelevant because it never made him a buck.  That is all he cares about and almost all he knows.  He demonstrated his lack of interest in the Constitution and the First Amendment back when there was an attempt to assassinate Pam Geller, Robert Spencer and others who were promoting the “Draw Mohammed” contest to assert our freedom of expression, in Garland Texas.  We all have the right to draw Mohammed if we like, or to write an article criticizing anyone we like (including Spencer or Geller, for that matter).  But not in Trump’s view.  He was highly critical of the promoters of this competition, despite the fact that they harmed no one, threatened no one, created no hazard for anyone.  He took the part of those who would have committed murder to stop their exercise of free speech, condemning the promoters of the contest for “stirring up” a conflict with those who would shut them and their speech down.  These people, offended by Geller et al, believe that no one should be allowed to say anything adverse about Islam, or, in this case, draw, Mohammed.  What does this say about someone who wants to be the President of the United States?  It basically says he will not defend our Constitution or our rights under the law.  It means he is a dangerous demagogue.  It means his surrogate is also a dangerous man to be involved in government.  We should be highly skeptical of these two men and their supporters if we value our liberty in America. He has since mentioned "reforming" our libel laws so that he cannot be criticized, which confirms these fears.

So, think this through for yourself.  Carson wants to avoid any kind of conflict.  It is admirable to want to avoid unnecessary conflict.  But it is necessary to defend our Constitution and our rights if we are to remain America.  It is NOT admirable to abdicate our rights under our law.  Millions of Americans have fought and died for these rights – including our right to bear arms.  It was viewed as worth American blood to defend them.  If we are to remain a free republic, governed by the people, we must defend our laws and protect our rights.  Ben Carson and Donald Trump are dangerous to our freedom.