Challenging the Statists…

March 15, 2013 at 7:36 AM

Yesterday, Sen. Ted Cruz hammered home to Sen. Dianne Feinstein the concept of free speech vs. the right to bear arms.  You can see the entire transcript of the exchange here:  Cruz vs. Feinstein

More interesting than what was said during the exchange was the typical Leftist response to that exchange.  Even Charles Krauthammer sided with the Left on this one, so Cruz must have been wrong, then…right?  Wrong.  Krauthammer is at times, right on, in my opinion, but given the fact that he used to work with Walter Mondale, really, what side is he truly on anyway?

Sen. Cruz was asking a very pertinent question about the government’s role in deciding which type of gun(s) law-abiding citizens can have access to for their own personal use (and safety).  Feinstein of course, did not like the “tone” of Cruz’ questioning and took him to task on it.  She claimed that she had been around for 20 years and had studied and greatly respected the Constitution.  She referred to the Heller decision and then introduced the subject of pornography as one of the ways the 1st Amendment limits speech, since a good deal of pornography is illegal.  First of all, if it’s illegal, that is what limits it; not the 1st Amendment.

More importantly, Cruz had been asking about books; plain ol’ books, not pornography.  Should Congress be in the business of deciding which books law-abiding citizens are able to read and/or own?  That’s when the subject of pornography was introduced by Feinstein’s team.  But pornography is not the type of book that Sen. Cruz was referencing.  He said books.  Should the federal government decide which books remain legal for citizens to read or own?

Let me explain it this way.  There are already many types of weapons I am not allowed to own and they have never been legal to own.  I cannot – by law – own a working rocket launcher, even if I wanted to own one (which I do not).  It is illegal for me to have one in my possession.  Yet, this law apparently did not stop some people in Los Angeles from owning a couple (though they turned them in for money to police). [1]

Beyond this, there are certain rifles that it are illegal for me to own.  Because an M4 has the capability of firing in fully automatic mode (and are assigned to special law-enforcement units of the government), it is against the law for me to own one.  This happens to be one of the weapons that FBI Special Agents have, but it is not available to average citizens, though some semi-automatic versions are available.

What we are essentially talking about – concerning the gun debate – is whether or not guns that have been legal for me to own should be made illegal for me to own?  Cruz’ question was whether or not Congress should be in the business of deciding which books (that have been available to consumers) should be made illegal, or kept legal?  It’s a fair question and it goes to the heart of the matter.

Of course, neither Feinstein nor any of those on her side of the table saw it that way and took umbrage at the “junior” Senator’s approach to the great and mighty Sen. Dianne Feinstein.  One individual on her side of the table pointed out that – according to Heller – none of these amendments are “absolutes.”  Really?  That’s very interesting, so that actually answers the question, according to them, even though Feinstein – with a great huff and a puff – finally answered Cruz’ question with a resounding “NO,” saying the answer was “obvious.”

Why is it “obvious” that Congress should not be in the business of determining which books should be kept legal or made illegal, yet with the 2nd Amendment, Congress not only believes it can decide which guns (and how big magazines should be) are available, but should do this?  If the answer is really that “obvious,” then there is an obvious contradiction here somewhere.

In New York State, Gov. Cuomo’s legislature rammed through passage of new gun laws that simply and arbitrarily lowered the number of bullets that a magazine can hold down to seven.  So now, law-abiding citizens are not legally able to have guns that hold more than 7 bullets or they could be charged with a misdemeanor.  They have one year to comply with the law.

Again, does anyone think that criminals will comply?  You do?  Stop being so naive.  Even if every state followed suit and did the same thing as New York has done, criminals would still not follow suit.  The only ones then who would be jeopardized would be law-abiding citizens.

But people like Feinstein believe that eliminating which types of guns (that have previously been legal) or reducing the size of a magazine (from what has been a larger legal capacity) is something the federal government has the right to do.  Not according to the 2nd Amendment.

The Left is trying to ram home their own point by continually referring to “assault” rifles as military weapons.  They don’t believe that military weapons have a place on the streets of America.  Except for what is illegally obtained, there are no military type weapons on America’s streets!

First of all, the weapons they refer to are neither truly “assault” weapons, nor are they military because of it.  An “assault” weapon is a weapon that is fully automatic at the very least, not semi-automatic.  Would we really give our military people semi-automatic rifles?  No.

These “assault” rifles look tactical, therefore they remind us of weapons used by the military, but that’s as far as it goes.  An AR-15 (i.e., a .22 caliber long rifle) does exactly what my Ruger .22 long rifle does, but they don’t look anything alike.  Both guns will fire a bullet every time I squeeze the trigger.  If I hold the trigger in after one shot, nothing happens.  But the Left has endeavored to portray these AR rifles as true “assault” weapons and something the military would use.  They are deliberately distorting the truth by lying to win a point.  That’s what the Left does.

If we allow Congress (which already has too much power, according to the Constitution), to decide arbitrarily that certain guns (which have already been legal since their introduction) can no longer be owned by law-abiding citizens, then Cruz’ question is very pertinent.  What if there is a book that offends one group of people; should Congress be allowed to take that book off the market?  Should Congress decide that no one will have the ability to read it?  Most of us would say that’s absurd.  Guess what?  Just like the forbidden fruit, that book would become a staple of the Black Market where anyone who wanted to lay out the money for it would have access to it.

Cruz has very good points and his points reflect the accurate understanding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  In spite of what Sen. Dianne “smarter-than-a-sixth-grader” Feinstein would like us to believe, she really does not understand the Constitution.  I seriously doubt that she understands the fact that this country is a Constitutional Republic either.

People like Feinstein need to be stopped and the only thing that can stop them is the Constitution/Bill of Rights and our continued reliance on it.  Yet, they prefer to twist the meaning of these documents in order to have their way.  They want to pull us away from those documents, telling us that they are not absolute in meaning.  They do this to get their way.  It’s simply another form of relativism that works so well with the Left.

The Left is not interested in making society a safer place and the fact that too many young people in Chicago alone have been dying for years proves it.  They’ve done nothing to make these young people safer.  But they’re quite content to use Sandy Hook to their advantage.  Their goal is to ban guns, period.

It’s ironic that there have been so many movies produced like Equilibrium, starring Christian Bale.  In it, “all forms of feeling are illegal,” [2] and because of it, books (or anything that can create strong feelings within a person like music) are outlawed.  Movies that reflect this type of future fascist society do not portray societies that happened overnight.  They happened over the long haul, with this right or that one carefully chiseled away, bit by bit, by overlords who believed they knew what was best for society.

Or, take 26 minutes out of your life and watch this movie called, “2081” where a society has come to the fore where everyone is finally “equal.”  No one stands out anymore.  Those who are more intelligent are handicapped by having to wear headphones that keep their brains from working well.  Those who are stronger are forced to wear weights to make it more difficult for them to move in society.  Of course, none of these “handicaps” apply to anyone in the government.

This is what has been happening in America and it’s more than a shame.  With much of the Left representing fascist elements of America, they want to create a totalitarian civilization where their vision settles over America.  Whereas during Hitler’s regime, fascism was tied to race, today’s fascists are more inclined to see their restrictive ideology as the means to gain equality for everyone throughout society, even though it restricts freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  This does not matter to the fascist on the Left because they believe society should be controlled.  For the Left, more regulations and laws are better, even though the more laws that are created, the less freedom exists.  This is also why they desperately try to paint those on the Right as the “extremists” or “racists” or “bigots.”  We see this with Van Jones who just recently implied that Rand Paul has similarities with the KKK. [3]  It is their way of using misdirection to get the attention off of their motives and actions and onto something else.

Society has been changing slowly, consistently over time.  Marxists have been working from within to create that change.  The thumbscrews have been tightening and most don’t even realize it.  Most are too preoccupied with their own lives to notice.  For too many, the government keeps them distracted with the latest baubles and shiny toys.  The Left is the culprit because too many of them in society believe that human beings are basically altruistic and will make the “right” choice if given the chance.  That’s not what the Bible says about fallen humanity and we have seen it proven repeatedly throughout history.

Cruz did a fantastic job the other day of reminding the “senior” senator from California that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not documents to be messed with and they are there for a reason.  The number one reason is not to protect government or even to allow government to create arbitrary laws that lord it over the common person.  Those documents exist to protect the common person from the overreach of the government.

People like Feinstein and those like her will never understand or admit that.  They believe they are little kings and queens, dictating to citizens of America their wishes and we are then obligated to obey and conform to those wishes.

No, it does not work like that.  This country needs more Ted Cruzes and Rand Pauls.  We need people who understand that the founding documents are the directives for the operation of this country and we should be constantly referring to them.  Instead, many on the Left choose to label people who are “originalists” or Constitutionalists, as home-based terrorists.  They tell us we need to be flexible.  We need to be willing to change because the face of society is changing.

Of course, the Left has its share of loons and hypocrites too, like Michael Moore, who the other day tweeted that capitalism is a crime. [4]  This, from a guy who is worth over $50 million dollars and he didn’t get that money from donations either.  He got it through capitalism.  I guess we should throw Moore in jail then.  To see where he came from to where he is now, while he tries to pass himself off as part of the Occupy Movement is absurd.

Of course, this is the same Michael Moore who lays the death of the Sandy Hook children at the feet of Sean Hannity and the NRA. [5]  Moore has called for the release of photos of dead children in Sandy Hook to make a point about the NRA.  This is what the Left does.  They use emotion as opposed to reason to sway opinion in order to get their way.  This is simply built into Cultural Marxism because it moves us away from absolutes toward relativism.

No, we need to stick long and hard to the facts of the Constitution.  It’s really so simply that even a Leftist should be able to understand it. Unfortunately, they live in their own world created by their own special brand of racism, bigotry, and elitism.

The problem of course, is that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were not created by Leftists, but by those on the Right.  That fact alone distinguishes the ongoing reality of war that exists between the two factions.  Think about it.  If the founding documents of America were creating by those on the Right, then how could those on the Left even think they have a workable argument in their favor?

The Left works to destroy rights and freedom in the name of “co-existence” or “multiculturalism.”  They tout political correctness as the means of creating a society without racism and inequality.  The problem is that whether it’s co-existence, multiculturalism, or political correctness, it all comes from the same thing:  Cultural Marxism which generally describes those on the Left perfectly.  (By the same token, it amazes me when I read about those who say they are “Christians” but also “Leftists.”  Frankly, I do not see how the two go hand in hand at all.  They are polar opposites, but then again, maybe I’m misunderstanding the Left’s use of the word “Christian.”)

Knowing this, why would there ever be any question of the ultimate intentions of the Left?

[1] http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/12/rocket-launchers-turned-in-at-lapd-event-from-military-owners-say.html

[2] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0238380/

[3] http://twitchy.com/2013/03/14/van-jones-sees-similarities-between-rand-paul-and-the-ku-klux-klan/?utm_source=autotweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter

[4] http://twitchy.com/2013/03/14/michael-moore-says-capitalism-is-a-crime-shall-we-lock-him-up/?utm_source=autotweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter

[5] http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sean-hannity-and-panel-savage-michael-moore-for-suggesting-sandy-hook-victims-should-be-used-as-political-props/

Entry filed under: Religious - Christian - Prophecy. Tags: , .

Obama to Seize Power? Pope Francis: a Jesuit


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 6,203 other followers

Donate to Study-Grow-Know 501 (3)(c) Non-Profit)

Study-Grow-Know Archives

Blog Stats

  • 742,606 hits

%d bloggers like this: