Republican Betrayal

So, I popped over to War on Guns this morning and came across this post about Republican Mark Kirk and his desire to subvert the Constitution "reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act".

As if HR1022 wasn't bad enough there's now this.

Anyway, even as the press touts the success of the gun rights movement in protecting their inalienable rights, the hoplophobic gun grabbers continue to try and deprive free men and women of their right to keep and bear arms. WoG also linked to a blog called Team America's 10th District, a Republican willing to throw the Constitution under the bus so that Kirk can keep his job. I left a comment there in the hope that he might be convinced of the wrongness of his actions. It made me think though about how few gun owners in the States are willing to actually do anything about protecting their rights.

I'm sure that if asked about 99.999% of gun owners would declare themselves patriots and would also declare their desire to protect the rights enshrined in the Constitution. The problem is, though, that far too many of them won't do anything about the constant assaults on their liberty. In this case we have an attack on "assault weapons", and blogger Team America thinks it's fine because his Beretta won't be affected. And anyway, he doesn't see a need for a magazine which holds more than 10 rounds. In the not too distant future though, Barack Obama might be doing a fair bit more damage to the Second Amendment. If you own any kind of gun or know anyone who supports Obama because he would only support "reasonable gun control", you need to head on over here and read this and this and then tell your friends about it. Seriously. The only reason he hasn't acting on his desire to ban guns thus far is that he's a political animal and he knows it would have hurt his chances of winning the election. Get him in the White House and with a Democrat controlled Congress and it will be a different matter.

Now, gun owners who won't do anything to fight the attacks on their rights- what's up with that? Mark Kirk wants to ban certain types of firearms- he's clearly infringing the rights of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. Some, like this Team America blogger, seem to think that the only option is to continue to support him so that his opponent, who might be even worse, don't get into office. And while I can see their point they seem to believe that they have no influence on what Kirk does. Have they forgotten that he's supposed to represent them? How long do you think Kirk would continue this un-Constitutional nonsense if every gun owner in the district picked up the phone and called to protest? Or how about Republicans across the nation calling the GOP to express their fury with this attack on their inalienable rights and betrayal of gun owners? How long would it take to phone, fax or email his office- probably less time than it takes to clean one of your guns. And yet gun owners will do that in order to keep their weapons in working order, but they won't make a simple phone call to protect their right to own those same weapons?

It doesn't make any sense to me. Great successes have been won in defending the Second Amendment recently but the fight isn't over. Obama and the Democrats might be in power soon- and Republicans Kirk and his Republican co-sponsors Castle, Ferguson and Shays have put forward anti-gun legislation. It beggars belief. If any of these people are your representatives and you value the Constitution and the rights enshrined therein, you need to call them and let them know that you will not stand for this. Trust me- the UK has not only banned most guns but they've completely killed the legal gun culture here. Fight your battles now before it's too late.

As I've said before, it doesn't matter if the ban directly affects you or not. The fact is that if one kind of firearm is banned now it only serves to make it easier to ban another type later on. Banning so-called assault rifles now won't affect crime so maybe the next time (and there's always a next time) the gun grabbers will come after something you do own. Just look at the UK- a series of ever more draconian gun laws and now semi-auto rifles and all handguns are banned. Bear this is mind-chipping away at the Second Amendment doesn't make it stronger. Maybe you don't see the "need" for someone to own a semi-auto AR. The gun grabbers, on the other hand, don't see the need for you to own a handgun, or a semi-auto shotgun, or a semi-auto rifle either. Not even one of those sniper hunting rifles which could penetrate police body armour. Why would you need one of those? An attack on one gun owner is an attack on all. Sooner or later they will come after whatever firearm you do own. What's better: stop them now or wait until various classes of other firearm are already banned- and a precedent set in the public forum- and then wait to defend your rights?

Local voters should be attacking Kirk (and Castle, Ferguson and Shays) and telling him that they won't stand for his un-Constitutional acts- and nationally Republicans should be letting the GOP know in no uncertain terms that this won't wash. Especially not in an election year.

In my lifetime, the UK has moved from a strict licensing system to an outright ban on everything but manually-operated rifles. And unless there's a seismic shift in public opinion that will never be undone. Don't let the same thing happen to you.