Lets Discuss Gun Control Without Mentioning the Constitution

[Pawpaw]

Can you imagine the US Senate holding a hearing on gun control legislation and one of the Senators demanding that the discussion not include the Constitution: Okay. Well, yes, you can imagine it but can you believe it happened? Okay… you can believe it happened.

Yesterday, the Senate Appropriations Committee held hearings on Obama’s various executive orders expanding federal authority to regulate the sale and transfer of weapons. The main witness was Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

http://www.redstate.com/2016/01/21/unbe ... ign=buffer

[RoyGBiv]

The Constitution. An Inconvenient Truth.

[VMI77]

The only value the Constitution has to those on the left is in how it can be used to undermine and destroy the Constitution.

[Middle Age Russ]

Another tragic failure of the American (Maryland) electorate... Unfortunately, I don't think more apologies from Senator Cruz are likely to help much in these instances, but he does have a point.

SAFETY -- Everyone sees the appeal, but many differ in their view of how to get there. Relegating the Constitution and its amendments to the scrap-heap and making things up of whole cloth only works for citizens if the Constitution is found inadequate as the foundation of a valid government formed to protect the rights of its citizens, provide for defense of our borders and promote a thriving populace. Where any of these ends are not met today, it can be argued that the reasons are extra-Constitutional rather than the Constitution itself.

Crime statistics seem to point to lower per capita rates of violent crimes in the US in recent decades. Is this because of, or in spite of, the great prevalence of guns we have here? There are supposedly enough guns in private hands to arm each person in the US with a gun. Gun manufacturers are churning them out to meet demand. Still, the rate of violent crime wanes.

What is a nanny-State Progressive Liberal to do when facts don't line up with their agenda? Cry longer and louder than anyone else nearby, invoking "for the children" and "so we can all be safe" to eliminate the so-called problem of guns by legislating them out of existence -- at least in private, law-biding citizens' possession. Therein lies the rub, though.

Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens has three profound effects on the body of citizens in a nation founded on principles of individual liberty, individual rights and self-rule (of, by and for the People) First, it provides a monopoly of force for Government and the non-law abiding, stripping away any notion of individual liberty, rights and self-rule by ensuring that the Government and criminals can take anything they want (including lives and "safety") by force. Law-abiding citizens, lacking any real ability to exert force in support of their rights and interests, find themselves to be Subjects (subject to the whim an fancy of those in power) of the Government rather than citizens -- rule-of-man (or at least those in power) quickly replacing rule-of-law. Second, it creates instant criminals in the form of anyone who doesn't readily give up their guns. Third, it strips property from gun-owners without recourse or recompense, violating one of the basic rights that led to the founding of this nation.

Basic human rights were demanded by Americans in creating this nation, and were enshrined in our Bill of Rights to ensure protection of those rights for all the People (citizens) living within it. Tossing away those foundations in the name of Safety will never achieve anything like true safety, but will lead directly to rule-of-man instead of rule-of-law. This path we cannot walk.

[treadlightly]

I'm sure I risk horrendous misinterpretation, but I can't help noticing. In the context of legislative consideration of Constitutional separation of power as well as certain civil rights, the Constitution's most effective adversaries and our biggest worries are in the Federal North.

The South, once the bastion of the worst, most evil human rights abuses this nation has ever seen, seems generally much more respectful of the Union's keystone document than our Northern brothers' elected leaders.

Exceptions exist both ways, of course, on either side of Mason and Dixon's survey. We should mentor our exceptions, nurture theirs, and recognize statism for the tyranny it is.

If Ms. Mikulski understood natural human rights as clearly as virtually every gun owner does (Yankee or modern Rebel), and particularly if she understood rights in the way many far-postbellum Southern gentlefolk do, she could never brush away the rule of law the way she did.

Shameful.