The "reasonable" voices in the gun control debate are once more "re-branding" their arguments in an effort to restrict our rights . . . it's the same old song with different lyrics.
"Morning Joe" Scarborough, former congressman, self-righteous hypocrite and conservative in name only (CINO) was at it again this morning, erecting more strawman arguments to push his and his fellow liberals' radical anti-gun agenda.
According to them, anyone who believes that an expansion of background checks would be a dangerous prelude to confiscation, because it means de facto registration, anyone who believes that an expansion of background checks would have no effect on criminal use of firearms, must automatically believe "we must protect the right of rapists to own guns," "criminals must be allowed to buy guns in gun shows," and "criminals and rapists must be allowed to buy guns on the internet."
People like Joe and his fellow gun-grabbers understand nothing about our Constitution or our natural, inherent rights. They understand nothing about how a constitutional republic functions, and they understand nothing about what our Founding Fathers intended.
So, for "Morning Joe" and Dianne Feinstein and old Chuck "Microphone Moth" Schumer and for all of you other ignorant, gun-grabbing fools who believe government is only out to help you and has never and will never represent a threat to your freedom, here is a little primer on what a constitutional republic is.
- A constitutional republic doesn't restrict the rights of all citizens because of the bad actions of a few malcontents.
Our system was designed to protect, to the maximum extent possible, the rights and freedoms of all citizens and to impose as few restrictions as possible on the actions of each. If we were to pass a law based on every possible criminal contingency, then investors would be outlawed, because some choose to invest by fraudulent means. Salesmen would be outlawed, because some salesmen choose to behave in an unethical manner, doctors would be outlawed, because some choose to write illegal prescriptions or perform unnecessary procedures.
We seek to have a government which has the least possible negative impact on the lives of of as many citizens as possible.
- A constitutional republic protects the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
One would think liberals would know this since it has been used to ensure that minorities are not discriminated against. It has also been used by liberals to promote feminism (even though women are a majority), Title 9 entitlements, the "gay" rights agenda, and virtually the entire menu of leftist social causes.
Of course we all know that such principles are only valid in the minds of liberals if they enable or promote leftist/statist causes.
- A constitutional republic doesn't pass laws based on the results of opinion polls.
- A constitutional republic doesn't pass laws riding the crest of a wave of emotions.
Our system was designed intentionally to avoid such an eventuality. Laws passed on the basis of the ebb and flow of the emotions of voters invariably are bad laws. One of the most glaring examples of this was the 18th Amendment--"Prohibition."
Part of the problem here rests in the passage of the 17th Amendment, removing a layer of political insulation between the voters and the Senate. The Senate was intended to represent the interests of the various states. It was the most "republican" portion of our constitutional republic. With the passage of the 17th Amendment, America moved closer to the abyss of democracy and away from the protections which were designed into our system by our Founding Fathers.
We are constantly being bombarded with polling data about the issues of the day and we are informed that X-percent of Americans believe that such-and-such law should be passed, so Congress needs to do so. Again, the principle of protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority applies here. Just because a majority of people think that Congress should ban so-called "assault-weapons" or high capacity magazines doesn't automatically mean that it is good policy to do so. Just because some percentage of Americans believe that gay marriage should be legal, doesn't make it wise or legitimate for Congress to pass laws making it legal.
The wisdom of our Founding Fathers is self-evident in this principle.
Liberals are quick to denounce laws which restrict presumed "rights" of those whom they currently favor as "oppressed minorities (as in the case of gay marriage)," but in their hypocrisy, avidly seek to impose restrictions on actual rights of citizens when those rights are inconvenient to their agenda.
America is a constitutional republic. We elect representatives in whom we place our trust to exercise caution and restraint in passing laws.
Laws are not the result of a popularity contest, but should be the result of careful, fact-based, deliberation and consideration. We should never rush to pass laws in the heat of the moment.
The actions of politicians like Andrew Cuomo and other Democrat Party leaders following a tragedy like Sandy Hook are examples of opportunism, not careful deliberation and such laws inevitably result in all Americans having fewer rights, less freedom, and more government interfering in their lives.
When advocates of laws which restrict our rights are reduced to using straw man arguments, lies, and emotional arguments, you can bet their agenda has nothing to do with the causes they espouse and everything to do with seizing greater power over our lives . . . that or they're just plain stupid, like "Morning Joe" Scarborough.
Famously (and apocryphally), Benjamin Franklin was asked by a lady as he left the Constitutional Convention, "Well Mr. Franklin, what have you left us, a democracy or a monarchy?"
Franklin stated: "A Republic, madam, if you can keep it."
Sad to say, America is well on the road to becoming a democracy rather than the republic our Founding Fathers left us.
Long Live Our American Republic!!!!