Gun Control – are Republicans in DC about to go weak-knees again?

by Skip

Are we to the point of asking “what will the Republicans stand for – do they even know what they stand for”?  Or do we relegate them mostly sit in the corner, mumbling to themselves, drooling?  Anyone that knows me knows that I am always good for a debate (er, not that I am always “good” – just always ready to debate) but I also like to listen to a good debate as well.  Best part for me is listening to the Round Table segments of Fox News “Special Report with Bret Baier”.

But as I was listening Thursday night, my head snapped around from the laptop when I heard Tucker Carlson.  They had been talking about the Fiscal Cliff and what was next:

But look, this is not the end.  Even in this month, so Democrats have said that they want to get an immigration bill and a gun control bill through by the end of January.  Whether they do that or not is an open question.

I spoke to a senior Republican, VERY senior republican last night and asked a simple question “Do you think that a lot of members in your caucus will break and vote for gun control.  He said “YES”. That has got to be the last core Republican issue there is.  If you see a sizable number of Republicans peel off to vote for a new version of the assault weapons ban, say, then, you know, it’s over at that point. They are just not a credible opposition if that happens.

Sure, I railed about the Congressional vote (“For a meager mess of porridge; so what DOES the Republican Party stand for now?“).  Yes, it could have been cast as a win, as the long decided Bush tax cuts are now permanent – but not for all.  The Republicans were willing to sacrifice some – letting Obama crow that he had broken their will on raising taxes, as their compromise did exactly that.  $620 Billion more to fund an even bigger Government (any thoughts of it going to reduce the defict are about as illusory as the “clean” air in the Choom Gang’s Volkswagen bus).

Do the Republicans wish to defend the innocence of the vast majority of Americans, many of them Republicans, who the Left are declaring to be guilty simply because we own “scary” looking rifles?

Or is it because of the reason why the Second Amendment exists – to allow the citizenry protect itself against a tyrannical government?  It isn’t about hunting at all, and not just about self-defense.  While the Second talks about a well regulated militia (the main point that the Left uses to pretend that citizens should not own guns), at that time the practice was for the citizens to bring their own armaments as they formed up into those militias.  If we were to follow what the Left is saying today (“Oh, the Founders were only talking about muskets – so that is what we will let you have now!”), the Founders would have required the Revolutionary Army to use swords, clubs, and knives only (or better yet – knights on horses?).

No, they expected Citizens to bring comparable weapons to fight against the contemporary weapons of the day.  Else, can we relegate the Leftist media of day to the old fashioned hand cranked printing presses of then as they try to use the First Amendment in pushing the Progressive / Democrat policies of today?  After all, if the argument works one way, it can certainly will work the other way as well – after all, ideas are more dangerous than firearm.  How so, you say?  Look at what the Progressive / Socialist ideas of Marx & Engles, Lenin & Stalin, and of Mao – hundreds of millions have died as those tyrants tried to put their ideas into reality by the force of Government.

Ask yourself – when you get down to bedrock, how different is the governing principles of Progressivism end goal any different than those of tyrants?  Look at what Maggie Hassan tried to do with MaggieCare – an unelected, unaccountable board of “technicians” that were able to tax the private hospitals that they had policy & pricing control over.  How different is that than the IPAB board that Obamacare calls for?  How is either “democracy”?

The answer is – neither.  Both are rather grand examples of governance by technocrats for “the common good”.  And without that democratic accountability, you have tyranny in process.And Progressives laugh at us when we say that the United States is headed towards tyranny – once again, we see Alinsky’s Rules (ridicule) at work and tyranny getting a footstep.

And they know, these Progressives, that at some point, there will be a rebellion if this continues.  To be sure, the TEA Party is the lead point of that political rebellion – even as the Establishment Republican apparatchik do the Progressive’s dirty work in trying to crush them.  But, many of those same Establishment Republicans are in bed with those same Progressives in locking in that Big Government (right, Greg Carson, Secretary of the NH GOP and lead guy for the Federalization of NH’s local communities zoning regulations via Obama’s Orwellian named “Sustainable Communities Initiative” – after all, our local communities have survived and thrived for hundreds of years without Obama and Carson and SCI – why do we need them now?).

To come back to the main theme – if elected Republicans cannot hold fast and hold firm on this, we can no longer trust them.  If they will not fight for us, we will need to fight them.  If they will not, or cannot, stand up for their own Principles, then they need to be replaced.  The Founders fought for Freedom at great risk and great cost to a tyrannical government.  They knew that it was possible that such a government could take hold again – from the inside.  The writers of the NH Constitution knew the same (See Article 10) and enshrined that Principle as a foundation of the Live Free or Die State.

Progressives wish us to lay down to the laws and regulations that form a different set of tyrannical set of chains.  Chains are chains, regardless if applied by an external force or by internal “leaders & legislators”.

Ever vigilant.

 

Second Amendment Rights?  Com

asdf

Leave a Comment

  • http://www.GraniteGrok.com/ Rick Olson

    IF the UL is any kind of litmus, then I would say, “yes.” early estimates show the UL has been running pro-gun control op eds 3-1 and UL editorials are leaning toward an assault weapons and magazine ban.

Previous post:

Next post: