Here's What Happened When an Arab-Israeli Activist Attended a Pro-Hamas Rally in NYC
The Kennedy Family Is Pretty Damn Gross and Still Joe Biden Is Worse
We Were Warned
A Quick Bible Study Vol. 214: What the Bible Says About Passover and...
What Can Be Made Fun of and What Can't
The Anti-Israel Protests at Columbia Just Got Worse
Schumer Getting Rid of Mayorkas Impeachment Could Affect Democrats in November and Beyond
Justin Trudeau Announces 'Halal Mortgages' for Muslims
Democrats Promise to Keep Mike Johnson’s Job Alive After Ukraine Aid Package Passed
Trump Attorney Calls for Judge Overseeing Hush Money Trial to be Dismissed
Media Outlets Purposely Leave Out Key Detail About Would-Be School Shooter
Prepare to Shell Out Massive Amounts of Money for Taxes If Biden Is...
Democrat Makes Bizarre Comment on the Russia-Ukraine Border After Massive Aid Package Pass...
Well Of Course They Hate America
Netflix Movie Boosts Program Helping Disabled Veterans

The Second Amendment Was Written To Defend Against Alyssa Milano and Beto O'Rourke Alike

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of
AP Photo/David J. Phillip

Because of the emotionally-fueled efforts of cynical politicians such as Beto O’Rourke and ignorant celebrity activists such as Alyssa Milano, the subject of gun control is poised to become one of the central policy issues of the 2020 Presidential elections.


The tone of the arguments in favor of gun control proposed by both O’Rourke and Milano this week may seem diametrically opposed. However, they are both examples of the blind circular logic used to justify an authoritarian destruction of our unalienable rights, and stand as further irrefutable evidence of the crucial importance of the Second Amendment.

Speaking with Ted Cruz earlier this week, Alyssa Milano was joined by Fred Guttenberg and Ben Jackson as she aimed to convince the Texas Senator to support the expansion of gun control policies. When Cruz articulated the fear felt by many Americans regarding the demonstrated threat of gun confiscation, Alyssa Milano attempted to allay these concerns by applying the classic Leftist combination of presumed moral superiority and vague subjectivity.

“We don’t want to take all guns away from all people. We want to take certain guns away from certain people.”

Alyssa Milano perfectly represents those whose blissful lack of self-awareness in the pursuit of idealistic solutions acts as the perfect vehicle for cynical politicians who seek authoritarian power. Every one of the Left’s policy proposals is presented with the false assumption that it will be forever implemented in good faith. History has shown this to be foolishly naive.


While Milano and her contemporaries strove to softly push back against the perceived attack on the Second Amendment by citing some form of baseless specificity, Beto O’Rourke’s rhetoric during the latest Democratic debate should convince even the most agnostic of Second Amendment advocates that their rights are under threat. With the clear goal of improving his stagnant poll numbers, the former Congressman has been relying on increasingly radical language. During the debate, he openly admitted that his administration would actively confiscate weapons from law-abiding citizens, stating:

“Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.”

Set aside the complete lack of logic or evidence behind Beto O’Rourke’s shameless emotional appeal. Set aside the fact that so-called “assault rifles” constitute a tiny proportion of gun-related crimes. Instead, look at the cold, hard truth. Beto O’Rourke is proposing that the federal government forcibly seize constitutionally-protected and legally-owned firearms from law-abiding citizens. Under O’Rourke’s “leadership”, the federal government would literally confiscate unalienable rights from the citizenry of the United States, with the use of deadly force if required.

Beto O’Rourke may seem like a greater threat than Alyssa Milano, but they are both cut from the same immoral cloth. They both share the same fundamentally flawed logic, and are both advocating for the spread of tyranny, assuming the same form of undeserved moral superiority in order to justify the confiscation of unalienable rights. Both O’Rourke and Milano are claiming the same moral superiority which has fueled the bloodiest chapters of human history. 


The Founders understood this history, and remained wary of the moral fallibility of humans, and their propensity for tyranny under the guise of pursuing moral ends. Whether it’s delivered softly and compassionately, or screamed maniacally, we cannot allow any vehicle for tyranny to gain traction. 

After all, the operative clause of the Second Amendment reads “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” not “the right of some people to keep and bear some Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Join the conversation as a VIP Member


Trending on Townhall Videos