In case you are not aware, Cruz is the “freshman” Senator from Texas. Freshman Cruz came to town with strong conservative views and a big set of cojones thus he does not subscribe to “sit down and shut up”. Mr. Cruz apparently still believes in conservative principles and the guiding force of the Constitution. He has every intention of protecting that document…something for which he took an oath and Cruz takes that oath to heart. Unfortunately, the older conservatives populating Washington have long since lost their “conservative spark” thus have no problem joining the left to subdue Cruz.
Let us stop here and converse a bit on the Constitution/Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment clearly states that no actions put forth by the federal government (i.e. a standing militia or army) shall infringe upon the citizens’ right to bear arms. In other words, don’t lean on the excuse that we have protective measures in place at the government level therefore the 2nd Amendment is null and void. That about sums up what is being said today and the strength of the 2nd Amendment is all that stands between the citizens and those like Feinstein who would take all the weapons if possible.
In addition, there are no provisions for exceptions to the 2nd Amendment short of either repeal or amending. There is no current wording contained there stating, “except in the case of any situation in which some liberal Senator with every expectation of limiting the guns in private hands shall propose a list of banned weapons which shall then be considered outside the limits of the 2nd Amendment and therefore illegal.”
No such exceptions exist in that Amendment today. Further to that point, if such exceptions can be established then what is to stop additions or expansions to that exception until finally the “right of the citizen to bear arms” is totally a moot point?
In raising his voice, Senator Cruz, questioned the “constitutionality” of Senator Feinstein’s proposed weapons ban. He asked Feinstein to demonstrate, relative to the 2nd Amendment, as to why such action she proposes would be anything but unconstitutional. Senator Cruz never received a direct answer to his question. Instead, Senator Feinstein decided it was time to take the freshman senator to the woodshed and lecture him on his audacity to question a senator who has been in Washington for 20 years. In other words, if Diane Feinstein proposes it, you can take your Constitution and shove it.
Ms. Feinstein did not offer a defense but attempted a wood-shedding of Cruz. The deflection was further enforced by the other liberal senators including the one from Connecticut who suggested that one should not question Feinstein in light of the fact that she was a first-hand witness to the gun-fire murder of her beloved San Francisco, Mayor George Moscone, and City Supervisor, Harvey Milk, who were killed by former city supervisor, Dan White. Thus, that experience and Feinstein’s 20 years in Washington put her outside the boundary of question on constitutionality.
Dan White could have used a baseball bat and consequently killed Moscone and Milk. Instead he chose a firearm. The question then is sidestepped as to the real problem behind the deaths, which has everything to do with security and mental illness but less to do with the method employed. This particular situation simply becomes a convenient rationalization for Feinstein’s passion to get rid of all guns, and damn the 2nd Amendment!
Feinstein is aware that her proposed legislation has no “constitutional basis” but that is of little importance to progressive liberals currently populating Washington who find the Constitution to simply be an encumbrance on the road to expanding government’s domination over the citizens of this nation. Ms. Feinstein, like Nancy Pelosi, believes that we are too stupid to make choices for ourselves. Therefore the more intelligent and elite of the country, such as herself, need to make choices for us. By invoking constitutionality, Senator Cruz is complicating matters and thus infuriating Feinstein and her ilk.
According to those like Feinstein, law-abiding citizens, though functioning within their “rights” under the Constitution have no right to “due process”. The very purpose of that committee was “due process” and Senator Cruz questioning the constitutionality of the proposed ban only complicates things. He was not only well within his rights as part of that committee but also following the oath he swore to uphold. In other words, he was providing an element for due process of the American people.
Feinstein can claim that she is only looking at the increased safety of every American in her efforts and then appear to be sincere as such. But, in other matters, such as abortion, she so easily turns her back on so many young lives snuffed out in an inhumane process of partial-birth abortion and justifies it claiming, “a woman’s right to choice”. To employ the now famous words of former Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton (smartest woman in the world), “What difference does it make, Senator…what difference does it make?”
Whether you want to believe it or not, there exists a “progressive liberal movement” in America occupying not only the Oval Office but many senior seats in the Senate and the House. Their efforts have one singular focus and that is to undermine the Constitution and its shelter over the American people. These are “big government” people who thrive on power; who believe that the nation is far better off if the citizens are more dependent on the government. They fully understand that the Founders envisioned such people in the future of the country and wondered how long the Constitution and Bill of Rights could protect the citizens from the government and the progressive power-seekers. If you find that you place little or no value on such considerations, then you also place little value on the freedoms and liberties which you currently enjoy as an American. You are more than willing to forego “due process” and allowing government the power to declare you “guilty as charged”.
Senator Ted Cruz and those like him should be applauded for their strength in upholding conservative principles and for their courage to stand up demanding to be heard. Cruz is a strong believer in constitutional government and he is willing to fight for those beliefs either alone or in harmony with his fellow Senators and Representatives. The majority of the American people have a very intense belief in the rights of gun ownership. For any in government to desire to punish the actions of law-abiding citizens on the back of the actions of those who are mentally unstable and twisted in their own choices is nothing less than an outright attempt to strip freedoms and rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Senator Cruz should be applauded for his resistance to these efforts.
For too long now, Americans have accepted the so-called reasoning and solutions which have little or nothing to do with “cause and effect”. The action carried out cannot be stopped by the action(s) taken. Getting rid of firearms, which in someone’s opinion, are considered “assault weapons” because they do not look like a regular gun, will not stem the growth of violence or killing in our society. In questioning the Chief of Police of the City of Baltimore, a city with very stringent firearm laws, Senator Cruz demonstrated that very fact.
Senator Cruz asked Baltimore Police Chief Jim Johnson to demonstrate any empirical evidence that gun control resulted in lower crime. The chief could not defend the position. Cruz cited the murder rate for Baltimore at 31.1 murders per 100,000 and pointed out cities in Texas like Austin and Houston with far lower numbers per 100,000 people and much more lenient gun laws. The chief could only reply that “different states had varying laws and guns flowed in unchecked across borders.” Given Texas’ proximity to the Mexican border, one can conclude that border sources would more likely affect Texas cities. In other words, there is no correlation between controlling guns and a reduction in murders.
Of course, the liberal element will only shrug its shoulders and continue in the efforts of its agenda. Their goals have nothing to do with reducing murder rates and everything to do with undermining the Constitution by exercising greater control over the people. If they can win the gun-control issue, they disarm the public and establish precedence for attacking some other sectors of our lives. The Founding Fathers recognized this possibility and they attempted to insulate the people from it as much as possible in drafting the Constitution. The goal of progressive-liberals is to eliminate that barricade; everything else is just an excuse to work in that direction, gun control included.
Hopefully, the American people will come to recognize the determination, dedication, and courage of those like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, and Paul Ryan. Optimistically they will see that this is a group of people elected to office in Washington interested in protecting this nation from those who desire to fiscally bankrupt it, over-regulate it, and eliminate that protective instrument called the Constitution. These young men are fighting the good fight for all Americans. God Bless Them!
©Copyright WBrown2013. All Rights Reserved.