David Hogg’s ‘Big Lie’ about Second Amendment Falls Apart Under Minimal Scrutiny

Hogg’s response tells us all we need to know about him and the goals of those he represents.

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “Here’s @davidhogg111 in NYC today with armed guards and bunch of publicists.” Twitter user Sean Di Somma posted Wednesday. “#neveragain #Hypocrites.”

He was referring to photos of “Parkland survivor” turned rising gun-grabber “star” David Hogg, evidently in the Big Apple to promote a book he purportedly wrote in short order with his 14-year-old sister Lauren. That’s despite their other daily advocacy and media schedules and his reported “dyslexia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.” None of the adult communications professionals “working behind the scenes” received authorship credits, so it must be so.

The photos themselves don’t exactly prove the “armed guard” claim, but significantly, Hogg’s reply did not deny the allegations in his initial passive/aggressive “Love you too” reply.  If the description is accurate, it points to yet more protection than is afforded “ordinary” citizens who must walk New York City streets denied the means of self-defense by draconian citizen disarmament edicts that only “permit” that for the elites. The Hoggs are no strangers to that, having grown up under the protection of an FBI agent father, a federal “Only One” empowered to bear arms between state and municipal jurisdictions, presumably still eligible to do so in retirement via the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Improvements Act of 2010.

What Hogg did say in his response tells us much:

“[Y]ou know @SeanDiSomma you should really read the book if you did you would know we’re pro second amendment.”

One need not read the book to see that the “Look inside” preview on Amazon lists “The Parkland Manifesto” (interesting choice of terminology) among its chapters. Tellingly, what they’re after has nothing to do with the Second Amendment except to eradicate it.

The UK’s The Guardian posted the document authored “by Editorial staff of the Eagle Eye” (registrant contact “redacted for privacy,” naturally).  Among the many ways they are “pro second amendment”:

“Ban semi-automatic weapons that fire high-velocity rounds – Civilians shouldn’t have access to the same weapons that soldiers do. That’s a gross misuse of the second amendment.”

That lie would have been a call to arms for the Founding Fathers, whose sentiments on the subject  were unmistakable and clear. “Ordinary military equipment … that … could contribute to the common defense” is precisely what citizens were intended to have access to (which even a flawed Supreme Court opinion could not deny). Those who would impose infringements have never been able to provide evidence based on writings from America’s Revolutionary era to substantiate their claims to the contrary– although they have lamely tried to deflect from that truth when challenged.

As for “well regulated” Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist 29, while admitting it “would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss,” concluded “[l]ittle more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped.”

“Properly armed and equipped” for what…? Not duck hunting, that’s for sure.

The rest of the “manifesto” is equally as subversive and deceptive. Since the Founders intended for the citizenry to have “ordinary military equipment,” that is, the same equipment available to forces that would need to be “suppress[ed]” and “repel[led],” restricting magazine capacity is a clear infringement. So are the various other prior restraints and citizen disarmament schemes offered by the “manifesto.”

Those behind the appropriated “Never again” phrase (and that’s an interesting choice considering Hogg’s affinity for arm bands) are also against bearing arms, as evidenced by their rabid insistence on maintaining killing fields of convenience otherwise known as “gun-free zones.” And speaking of bearing arms, those who would eviscerate the right also never want to talk about another infamous Supreme Court opinion, that nonetheless recognized the right of the people “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

“We’re pro second amendment” reveals itself to be not just a lie, but a big one.

About David Codrea:David Codrea

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.