“We’re in second amendment territory.” Sounds like something a gun-toting conservative would say, doesn’t it? The same person later explained: “The second amendment refers to the right of the people to rise up and defend democracy.” Well, if you think these quotes came from MAGA country, you’re dead wrong.
It was famous climate scientist Michael E. Mann, the father of the so-called Hockey Stick climate graph, perhaps the most influential factor leading to the modern climate change narrative – who recently uttered these words. But there’s more. On Bluesky, Mann shared an NPR story titled “Judge blocks Trump administration from closing the Education Department,” and the full version of the first quote above was the caption: “If Trump doesn’t comply, we’re in second amendment territory.”
And just like that, it takes on an entirely different meaning.
When the Left Loves the Second Amendment
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution officially recognizes the right of the people to be adequately armed. It speaks specifically of defending a free State, though that same right is generally recognized as extending to defense against violent crime and even for hunting, sport shooting, and collecting firearms.
It reads, in full:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The standard anti-gun progressive interpretation – aside from that it should be either removed from the Constitution or ignored entirely – is that the Second Amendment only guarantees the right of the people to form a well-regulated militia for national defense. Furthermore, they typically argue that the National Guard now serves that purpose and that anyone wishing to fulfill their Second Amendment rights should go enlist.
To interpret it as a justification – a mandate, even – to form a civilian militia and either violently overthrow the US government or assassinate the president (Neither Mann’s short initial message nor his follow-up explanation really specified which) is quite the hard 180 from a generally anti-gun stance. But that’s just the latest sign of the havoc wreaked on the liberal psyche by the most severe cases of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
“The second amendment refers to the right of the people to rise up and defend democracy. To argue this is a threat against Trump is very dishonest,” he averred in a follow-up.
Just how dishonest is it, though? What else could he have meant? The Second Amendment is about keeping and bearing arms and maybe also about forming independent militias, depending on the interpretation. What else could “If Trump doesn’t comply, we’re in second amendment territory” possibly mean? Is there some fear that abolishing the Department of Education will result in hordes of newly unemployed bureaucrats either staging a coup or turning to violent crime to make ends meet? Will citizens be forced to defend themselves using deadly force against roving gangs of former administrators bringing chaos and destruction to their neighborhoods?
That Mann was saying the American people should take up arms and rise up against Donald Trump using physical violence is the only interpretation that makes any sense, given the context in which the statement was made. But does this come as any surprise? Recall former FBI Director James Comey’s now-infamous “86 47” debacle. Again, what other meaning that makes sense in context could it possibly have?
A Democratic Double Standard
Donald Trump has faced violent rhetoric since before taking office the first time. In fact, there were actual attempts made on his life during the campaign trail leading up to this previous election, like near Butler, PA, when he was shot during one of two highly publicized assassination attempts. The bullet that grazed his ear – a close call indeed – was fired from an AR-15-style rifle. Later, a man carrying a semi-automatic SKS (initially reported as an “AK-47-style rifle”) was caught at a golf course in Florida, apparently waiting for a chance to shoot Trump. Both of these rifles are considered by many to be “assault weapons,” a category invented by politicians from the Democratic Party for the purpose of pushing strict gun control.
Trump himself was accused of inciting insurrection for his non-violent words before the January 6, 2021, storming of the US Capitol, during which the only person actually shot was an unarmed veteran killed by the Capitol Police. But it’s not violence when people like Michael E. Mann say on social media that “If Trump doesn’t comply, we’re in second amendment territory,” or when the former director of the FBI and now rabid anti-Trumper posts “86 47.” We’re told it wasn’t incitement of mob violence when Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) told people: “If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station; you get out and you create a crowd, and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome,” during Trump’s first term in office.
Those are just a few examples of violent rhetoric from the left; there is a plethora to choose from, many of which were uttered by elected politicians in the Democratic Party. But Americans are expected to believe they aren’t threats, that they’re just non-violent figures of speech. One can use the actual words “fight” and “push,” very literal, physical terms, or declare “war” on the Trump administration, as Rep. LaMonica Mclver (D-NJ) did, yet Americans aren’t supposed to take them seriously – or even suggest that some unhinged individuals might take them at their words?
That’s just too hard a pill to swallow, coming from the “words are violence” crowd. The double standard is stark, but it’s far from shocking. This is the progressive way: rules for thee, but not for me.
Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.
