Yesterday I wrote about 16 GOP Senators voting to begin debate on gun rights in the Senate. I noted that, in doing so, they had done nothing to violate the 2nd Amendment or any earlier statements of 2A support they had made. The vote was procedural and merely allowed debate.
Some people understood the distinction. Others vehemently disagreed.
The objections tended to fall into two camps.
First, congress has no authority to infringe on 2A rights so there is nothing to debate. The vote should never have happened. That it did is, in and of itself, a 2A infringement.
Second, letting this camel’s nose under the tent amounts to passing the bill because GOP Senators are RINO squishes. It doesn’t matter that the vote was procedural. It’s the first step in the process and if you voted for it you may as well have voted for the final bill.
But, as in wartime – where you don’t fight with the army you want, but with the army you have – so it is here. We cannot insist on fighting the fights we want, we must fight the fights we have. We correctly believe Congress has no authority to infringe on our rights. But 2A haters don’t care.
And they are talking, long and loud.
We can engage them or not. We can defend our rights on any field of battle or not. They are bringing the fight to us. Why would we not fight back?
Some seem to believe the debate itself is an actual infringement on 2A rights. I understand the emotion but the notion is silly. To infringe on a right, Congress must pass a law which does so. Talking about passing a law which does so isn’t an infringement. We’re the ones who believe that words mean things, remember?
Currently, the loudest voices are calling for infringement, if not outright repeal. In the face of that, how is it many on our side back ignoring the conversation and claim doing so is defending our 2A rights?
Really? How is trying to avoid an unavoidable fight a defense? If we don’t engage on the issue, how can we be said to defend anything? We might get away with that if we held the majority. But we don’t. Why, then, beat up on Lamar Alexander who noted last night that,
One of the reasons Republicans don’t have a governing majority is that we often pick the wrong fights. Voting to prevent a debate on gun rights is an argument Republicans will lose with the American people. Defending Second Amendment rights is an argument Republicans will win with the American people.
Of course, none of this matters if GOP Senators are RINO squishes. But that charge can’t be used against the Senators in this debate. Because their nature is already fixed.
If they really are RINO squishes, all is already lost. They voted for cloture the first time, they will do so the second time and will vote for the final bill. That’s what RINO squishes do, after all. It’s over.
But what if they aren’t?
What if they are, at least in the area of 2A issues, quite principled or willing to pretend to be such? At that point, their assertion that they support the 2A and will fight for it carries some weight and we should be supporting them and helping them, not calling them names and calling their character into question.
The bottom line is that 2A rights are under attack as never before by people who truly hate the idea of an armed citizenry. These enemies of the Constitution will stop at nothing to get what they want.
We can correctly observe such feelings are unconstitutional but we cannot deny they feel that way – and are willing to put actions – and words – to their feelings.
The remaining question is what we intend to do to combat them.
We can insist this is a debate we should not have and disengage. Or we can run to the sound of gunfire (pun intended), loaded for bear and bring every weapon we have to bear on the arguments of the enemy in a strong defense of our 2A rights.
Look for me alongside you in that fight. And don’t be too surprised if you see a GOP Senator or two – perhaps as many as 16 – on the firing line as well.