United States Congresswoman Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado) quoted a non-existent alternative “version” of the Declaration of Independence during an appearance on Tuesday’s edition of The Charlie Kirk Show.
Boebert’s rewriting of history occurred during a discussion about Americans’ Second Amendment rights with Daily Wire host Charlie Kirk.
“So Lauren, we’re seeing the gun grabbers going into full gear. Let’s just play a couple pieces of tape here. Um, let’s go to, I haven’t even heard this one yet, Joe Scarborough. Uh, let’s go to Cut 52 and you could respond to Morning Joe. Mika and Joe. Play Cut 52,” Kirk instructed his producers, who rolled footage of the March 29th episode of Morning Joe.
READ MORE: ‘Such a pathetic hateful person’: Lauren Boebert buried for tweeting unprovoked attack on immigrants
“They talk about a freedom that they’ve made up in their own twisted heads because they’ve been, they’ve been whipped into a paranoid frenzy by the NRA for 25 years. You know, now they’re claiming the Second Amendment protects things it just doesn’t protect,” MSNBC anchor Joe Scarborough said.
Guest journalist Anand Giridharadas responded, “And their position – let’s be clear – the Republican party today is waging a war on cops, right? Those cops that you saw in that incredible body cam footage, those cops would probably love to be running in on a knife, a knife incident.”
Kirk and Boebert disagreed.
“Lauren, did we just invent this out of thin air because of a quote, ‘paranoid frenzy?’ Your response,” Kirk continued.
READ MORE: ‘They can’t even afford crayons’: Lauren Boebert dragged over fear of arming ‘woke teachers’
“Right. This made-up freedom. Uh, I don’t think that defending, uh, one’s life is a made-up freedom. Um, it, it’s right there, um, in the preamble, we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, um, or personal property, whichever rendition or whatever version you want to, uh, go by,” Boebert declared. “Um, but also this is an assault on cops are, are you kidding me?”
The preamble to the Declaration of Independence never mentions “personal property” as among its “certain inalienable rights”:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Twitter users subsequently noted that English philosopher John Locke mentioned “life, liberty, and property” in his 1689 Second Treatise on Government, which Thomas Jefferson used as a model for the Declaration of Independence. But they were hesitant to give Boebert the benefit of the doubt.
Shrouded Sciuridae: “Though I’m sure she’s never heard of him, ‘life, liberty, and property’ was John Locke. Jefferson echoed Locke in a lot of the Declaration, but he made a conscious change towards ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'”
PW: “She might be referring to the John Locke treatise on natural rights that says men are endowed with the right to life, liberty and property. I know it’s hard to believe, but maybe?”
Others simply roasted the right-wing lawmaker’s glaring gaffe.
Bizarro Trump: “Free legal tip of the day. The preamble of any document has NO legal significance. It is an aspirational statement of intention for what follows. (the legal part) Hence the term ‘preamble.'”
Teasing Armitage: “My 4th-grade teacher made us memorize the Preamble to the Constitution, and to this day, 50 years later, I still have it memorized. There is nothing in there about personal property.”
Heironymous McGillicuddy: “Add the Constitution to the list of things not covered in Bobo’s GED studies.”
i publius: “This is right out of the Kellyann Conway ‘alternative facts’ playbook.”
Francesco Virzì: “Version? Is it like a remix or something?”
Toby: “‘The whatever version you want to go by’ is so incredibly Republican when it comes to the Bible and Constitution.”
Flat Circle: “That’s not how it works, Republicans.”
Watch below or at this link.
READ MORE: Lauren Boebert accused of ‘coverup’ after son’s car accident
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web