Liberals loathe the Second Amendment, going to great rhetorical lengths in order to argue that the simple and straightforward 27-word amendment means the precise opposite of what it says.

If AR-15s are not protected by the Second Amendment, then Bernie Sanders rallies and The Huffington Post are not protected by the First Amendment.

Some of the left’s most staggering mental acrobatics are employed for the purpose of denying what is quite clearly written to be a fundamental American right. There is the oft-repeated and historically tenuous “the Second Amendment only applies to those in a militia” argument. Then there is the asinine “an AR-15 is not a Brown Bess musket” argument, which presumes that the Founders could not possibly have wished to protect technology of which they were unaware.

And who could forget the intellectually bankrupt “but times have changed” argument? As if at some indeterminable point between 1776 and the present day centralized governments and standing armies magically ceased being inherent threats to citizens’ lives, liberty, and property.

But in order to truly appreciate the utter absurdity of the left’s cretinous interpretations of the Second Amendment, one needs only apply the same logic to the First Amendment.

The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. While this may seem pretty straightforward to everyday simple-minded folk who believe that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” actually means that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” a closer look reveals it’s a little more nuanced than that.

You see, freedom of the press really refers only to newspapers and pamphlets published via traditional hand-cranked, letterpress printing presses. These contraptions were the only way of creating mass media at the time, so obviously when the Founders wrote “freedom of the press” they meant only the freedom to use this type of printing press.

News and opinion and journalism transmitted through modern means of communication — like television, radio, and the internet — are clearly not covered by the First Amendment because not only did they not exist when the Constitution was written, but are far more powerful and efficient than any means of communication available at the time.

[lz_related_box id=”155808″]

And indeed, the same can be said for that whole freedom of speech thing. Despite what these old-fashioned bigots who cling to their religion and guns will tell you, “freedom of speech” refers only to the right to speak freely in a village town hall. If you thought your right to free speech is covered when communicating through a telephone, via email, or with texts — think again buddy.

Who do you think would win the Presidency?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

The First Amendment also guarantees the right of the people to assemble peaceably. Or does it? In 1775 there were fewer than 2.5 million people in the American colonies. New York, the largest city, had only 25,000 residents. Given that reality, there is no possible way the Founders could have had these giant, modern political rallies in mind, some of which draw crowds in the tens of thousands, when they enshrined the right to assemble peaceably.

Moreover, as they more than likely had assembly for the purposes of political redress in mind when they protected it, surely events like gay pride parades and football games do not apply. No. The right of the people to assemble peaceably really only means the right of a few dozen people — maybe a hundred or so at most — to gather in the village square or the local tavern in order to complain about the local magistrate.

The bottom line is that if AR-15s are not protected by the Second Amendment, then Bernie Sanders rallies and The Huffington Post are not protected by the First Amendment.