The Weekly Standard reports that the elected representatives aiming to infringe on citizens’ right to self-defense have exempted themselves from gun control legislation proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein. Nowadays, those of America’s self-imagined ruling class are acting more like aristocrats than servants of the people.
Should anyone take this to be unfounded, knee-jerk reaction, the author of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Dianne Feinstein once said if she could get Americans to turn in all their guns, she would do it. Meanwhile, the former concealed-carry permit holder explained that she once armed herself so that, “If somebody was going try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.”
Now that it is established that the main legislator at the forefront of the reflexive gun control push is a one-time pistol packing, would-be gun-grabbing politician, the exemptions proposed for government officials should be all-the-more stark in their hypocrisy. This assessment is reinforced by citing a prominent left-wing source:
The Huffington Post confirmed these exemptions. “[T]he bill includes a number of exemptions: It exempts more than 2,200 hunting and sporting weapons; any gun manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action; any weapons used by government officials and law enforcement; and any weapons legally owned as of the date of the bill’s enactment.”
The bill’s provisions would halt “the sale, manufacture and importation of 158 specifically named military-style firearms and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. It would also ban an additional group of assault weapons that accept detachable ammunition magazines and have at least one military characteristic,” according to the Huffington Post.
The left-leaning website added: “Other new provisions include requiring background checks on all future transfers of assault weapons covered under the bill and eliminating the 10-year sunset that allowed the original ban to expire.”
What about background checks for all politicians? If gun control is going to be so effective, why do government officials need special exemption and armed protection? If all men are created equal, as President Obama made a big show of mentioning in his second inaugural address, why do the laws apply unevenly to citizen and citizen-legislators?
Because they’re not laws, that’s why. They’re fiat.
The United States never had a feudal society on its shores, but the current crop of elites is trying to change all that. It has taken nearly a century of European institutions, such as the central banking system vociferously opposed at the Constitutional convention, and a deterioration of federalism based on state sovereignty and individual rights, to bring America to the brink of the world’s tyrannical status quo.
The nation has progressed far along the road to serfdom; and the incremental deterioration of the last line of defense against Leviathan unbound is imminent, as blue-blooded statists are poised to make permanent the series of oppressive measures passed under the auspice of crisis. The arbitrary rule of their fellow men was specifically revolted against by the Founders, who are yet revered by the majority of the population despite the best efforts of the ruling class’ megalomaniacs.
As Americans instinctively cling to the Second Amendment, we need to place the debate over why citizens have the right to bear arms front-and-center: it is because the underlying right to self-defense protects individuals’ other inalienable rights — life, liberty, and property. It is time to renew the ideological underpinnings of our Constitution, and not just point to the document as self-evident truth. As we have seen all-too-often to our chagrin, there are far too many citizens who do not get what once passed for “common sense.”1 2