Remember how liberals feigned reverence for the Constitution during its alleged wholesale destruction while George W. Bush was president? With a Democrat ensconsed in the White House, they are reverting to old habits when it comes to the blueprint for our republic.
On his radio show Friday, Schultz argued with a caller who said he usually agrees with Schultz, citing "socialized medicine" and higher taxes as examples of common ground they share. But the Second Amendment must be protected, the caller said, lest changes to it erode other freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights (audio) --
CALLER: From a legal point of view, I'm pro-Second Amendment and the reason why is one of the legacies of our founding fathers is the Second Amendment and we cannot go and do a full-scale overhaul on it because it will let the cat out of the bag, we can now tear into the First Amendment, you know, all the other amendments ...
SCHULTZ (interrupting): OK, all right, let me, let me back up a little bit. Respectfully, the founding fathers aren't here anymore. We are the founding fathers of this country now. Things change in America. Social mores change, attitudes change, habits change, the way we think change (sic), technology is changing. The idea that we need to be stuck in the mud of a different generation because some dead people think that's the way we oughta live 200 and some odd years later, I'm not there. I'm not there.
Societal behavior in this country has gotten to the point where we need to do something. We can still be free and we can still be a great nation and we can love, you know, ice cream and apple pie and our next-door neighbor and our family members and we can still prosper as a nation, but dammit, it's the guns. Period!
Psst, Ed, those 27 people murdered in Newtown -- they are also "some dead people." Try to show at least a little respect while the families mourn their losses.
After hanging up on the caller, Schultz's kneejerk response while talking with a more intelligent person on the other end of a phone line, Schultz elaborated on his loathing for the Second Amendment (audio) --
I hope I didn't lose a listener there, but I think we have to drag ourselves into this century. How many souls have to be lost, how much do we need to be shaken between our ears to understand that the Second Amendment doesn't apply today. Not with the technology that we have. We have to adjust our Constitution to society. They didn't have the recognition of gay marriage back with our founding fathers. They had black people as slaves! We have evolved as a country on so many things. We need to evolve on firearms!
To paraphrase Gandhi, let the change begin with you, Ed. Seeing how you've often said over the airwaves that you own numerous guns and are an unapologetic hunter -- a "meat and potatoes liberal" -- how about setting an example by surrendering your firearms to the proper authorities? Seeing how those guns might someday be stolen, as was the case with the firearms used in Newtown.
We've all heard of the Buffett Rule, named for the billionaire tax avoider who wants the wealthy to pay higher taxes. Here's to the Schultz Rule, named for the liberal gun-owner who wants other people to relinquish their guns while his remain stubbornly immune from confiscation.
Schultz being Schultz, he couldn't end the week without more idiocy while talking with another skeptical caller (audio) --
CALLER: I've got two little kids, one's in kindergarten, and this obviously hits home for me as well. But I just wanted to ask people to maintain some perspective on this and I've got three quick points. Number one, there are bad people in this world that exist and do harm and there always will be. Shootings are tragic, just like any other catastrophe, but if you look at the statistics, these kinds of incidents are still very rare when you look at the overall condition of our society. There's about 30,000 deaths a year average in the United States that come from guns. About 55 percent of those are suicides and then there's another classification that makes up for a large number of those deaths, but it's still rare.
SCHULTZ: Gun violence, death from gun violence, may overtake car accidents this year.
CALLER: It won't, it won't. But the number two point, the only thing, and this is what I don't understand people can't figure out, the only thing that ever stops these people that are armed is other people that are armed, whether it's the police ...
SCHULTZ: No. I can't, I'm beyond, Cameron, I'm beyond that. I can't, I can't, I can't consume that anymore, respectfully. We're beyond that conversation. We're beyond that point in America. We need to do something and you know what? I would rather do something and err on the part of doing something than err on the part of not doing something.
Vintage Schultz -- he's comfortable being wrong regardless of what's done, all of the sake of doing something, anything. He also hopelessly struggles to "consume" an argument he can't refute.
