Some people still argue that this isn't a liberal vs conservative issue, but this seems to disprove that - among our representatives, at least.
I think there are a handful of Dems at least in the House that wouldn't have supported Feinstein's Bill and there are a number of Republicans in both House and Senate who cannot be counted on to vote against even an AWB. Let's not forget that Cuomo's "SAFE" Act was rammed through the NYS with OVERWHELMING Bi-Partisan support and that if the Republicans had held firm against, there were enough Dems prepared to vote against it to have stopped it.
But, I think we have to reframe this "national discussion". First of all, based on population centers and the recent Presidential election, allowing this to continue as a Democrat vs Republican debate is a loss for citizens' RKBA. The issue is a Liberal
and Conservative
vs an
Illiberal one.
I know that no one here would agree that introducing slavery as a means of economic gain would ever deserve a vote, let alone any type of serious discussion. Why? Because it's so obviously in contravention to our constitution. It's the same for this AWB.
This is good thinking.
The Democratic leadership are no longer even Liberal. The current debate over 2A rights is not solely about RKBA. There is a much larger issue at stake and the more we point this out to real Liberals, rather than the Neo-Libs that have hijacked the Democratic Party, the less and less comfortable they are going to be with "their" Party, just as many Conservatives have been deeply disappointed by the Republicans.
We have an Administration and Democratic Leadership that has betrayed its Liberal supporters time and time again. This Administration has the worst record on Freedom of Information Act disclosures since the law was enacted. The Democratic leadership has not only embraced the violation of Civil Liberties in the Patriot Act, it has extended and broadened them in violation of the 4th Amendment. This Administration, with the approval of the Democratic leadership, is responsible for the increasing militarization of law enforcement organizations and a massive growth in their numbers. This Administration has denied US citizens abroad their 5th Amendment rights and illegally executed US citizens without due process. Eric Holder, the Attorney General, even after grudgingly answering Sen. Rand Paul that the President could not deny US citizens in the US their 5th Amendment rights and execute those he deemed "at war" with the US on US soil, continues to assert that the President can do so if he deems them "combatants". Not "if a Grand Jury deems them combatants", not "if they are found guilty by a jury oof their peers". If the President deems them so, they may be executed on US soil without due process. That means that
anyone the President deems "at war" with the US. Tomorrow that could mean people who refuse to obey unconstitutional laws. In a future Administration it could mean groups of ethnic minorities who believe they are singled out by LEOs and are assembled to protest their treatment...
The fight over RKBA is only part of a broader effort by the political elites of both parties (the latest President Bush and his Congressional allies were a party to much of this as well) to increase the power of a Central Government and to diminish both States' rights and individual rights. Mandated Obamacare is very much an issue of enhancing and empowering a Central Government (we call it
Federal, but that term lost meaning a long time ago) at the expense of States' rights.
Real Liberals may be tax and spend crazies and may still believe that Big Government social engineering is good for Americans, but they are also deeply concerned about civil and individual liberties. If we can successfully frame the "national discussion" around the systematic diminution of civil liberties and individual rights, of which the assault on RKBA is just one part, there are many Liberals (not the Neo-Libs who are in fact Etatist Socialists) - and importantly many Liberal jurists and Judges - who will be able to see the issue form the perspective of pro2A activists. The problem is that if this is framed as Republican vs Democrat, we lose because there are many Republicans who have shown themselves no great friends of Civil Liberties and guilty of their own infringements of the Constitution. If we believe that RKBA is protected by the Constitution and that politicians must respect the Constitution, then we have to embrace the entire Constitution. That's going to be a problem for many Conservatives who aren't very comfortable with the separation of Church and State, for example. (
Nevertheless, when in doubt, be aware that the vast and overwhelming majority of Dems will vote for stringent gun control in a heartbeat whereas even the most lily-livered Republican can often be scared into voting against it, at least West of the Hudson...)
In any event, the point is RKBA is a broader Civil Liberty issue and real Liberals should be equallly concerned. If I had the money, my advertising campaign might include things like:
==============================
"
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
First Amendment to the US Constitution (The Bill of Rights)
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed."
Second Amendment to the US Constitution (Bill of Rights)
Is either of these restrictions on law-makers hard to understand? Dianne Feinstein can't seem to understand the Second. Let's hope she never gets her hands on the First...
or the Thirteenth.
=====================
