HOLLYWOOD, FL – Who wants to infringe the right to bear arms? Why would they want to prevent anyone from exercising their right to bear arms? What lessons can we learn from historical examples of the infringement of that right?
Hitler, Mao, and Stalin are just a couple of the more outstanding examples of despots who in the last 100 years led totalitarian dictatorships that first confiscated guns and then murdered scores of millions of disarmed, defenseless civilians.
In America, some seem to be under the impression that only Democrats, liberals, or globalists oppose the Second Amendment. No one should forget, however, that right here in Florida, just last year, a Republican-majority state legislature passed an unconstitutional gun measure that makes it illegal for young adults to purchase rifles or shotguns.
George Moraitis, who is chairman of the Broward Republican Executive Committee (BREC), was still a member of Florida’s State House at the time that unlawful measure was passed. He voted for it.
Ad Disclosure: This site earns revenue from ads, some within content. You can support independent journalism and help us stay afloat by donating or purchasing our merch following us on social media (Facebook |
Feedspot) or just sharing content you like.
At a meeting of BREC that was held on March 19, 2018, after some discussions regarding the unconstitutional measure, by way of summing up that issue, Moraitis said, “Sometimes we have to compromise on rights.” He opposes the Constitution, which with regard to the right to bear arms states that it shall not be infringed.
But George Moraitis is Republican, not Democrat. That is so, isn’t it? Yes, he is Republican, a Republican who agrees that sometimes we have to compromise on rights. And he put that philosophy into action when he compromised on the rights of thousands of adult Floridians whose rights he caused to be abused and infringed, as did many of his Republican colleagues in Florida’s legislature. And the governor who signed the unconstitutional measure into law was Republican Governor Rick Scott (now Senator Rick Scott), who agrees with the unconstitutional principle of compromising on rights.
Fidel Castro, shortly after taking power in Cuba through armed revolution, appealed to the people of Cuba to give up their guns. He reasoned that guns were not needed, since Cuba would not be going to war with anyone. He asked, “Armas, para qué?”(Guns, what for?) And the people gave up their guns. And then they were enslaved by totalitarian dictators, who had all the guns.
“Guns, what for?” Juxtapose that statement with “Sometimes we have to compromise on rights.” How does that make you feel. If it does not make you feel queasy or uncomfortable, you have forgotten history.
But let’s come back to the present. And let’s ask why today elements within American government want to infringe the right to bear arms. We know why Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Castro, and other dictators wanted to disarm the populations they later decimated and enslaved. But why do Democrats, liberals, globalists, and Republicans who collaborate with them, want to weaken the ability of people to defend themselves?
We know that the left-leaning members of Congress and other jurisdictions of government have a certain unlawful agenda having to do with implementation of Socialism, which always has resulted in economic and moral degradation of societies. We know that a great many of them are registered members of Socialist organizations. But are we to infer from their political leanings that they are capable of violence against people who oppose their agenda?
What about Maxine Waters? Just last year, Maxine openly and shamelessly called for Democrats and liberals to actively seek confrontations with supporters of President Trump within his administration, even to harass them and make them feel uncomfortable.
In an article published on June 25, 2018, CNN quoted Maxine as saying:
“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere. We’ve got to get the children connected to their parents.”— Maxine Waters
That seems antisocial and extremely aggressive. It might be taken as incitement of some illegal act. Even if Maxine did not actually mean for harm to others to result from her words, encouraging crowds to form and push back can have violent consequences. Maxine’s words were followed by a wave of attacks against Trump supporters.
But all that was last year’s news, and we have moved on to new aggressions by Democrats, now perhaps less ambiguous than Maxine’s interpretable hyperbole. Now Joe Biden, not content to remain ambiguous, has stepped up the rhetoric. Perhaps Sleepy Joe did not really mean it when he said, on June 18, 2019, in response to a question about how he, as president, would handle opposition from Republicans in the U.S. Senate to his policies and objectives:
“There are certain things where it just takes a brass knuckle fight;” Also adding, “Let’s start a real physical revolution if you’re talking about it.”— Joe Biden
Was that also hyperbole? Was Joe just trying to show that he could be relied on not to be an ineffectual doormat in the face of Republican opposition? Or was he trying to set an example for rank and file Democrats to follow on the streets of America?
But as good things come in threes, Corey Booker, not to be left out of the fray, also put in his two cents worth of petulant hissy-fitting. His calls for violence against conservatives may be less ambiguous than those of Biden and Waters, as he asked liberals to confront congressional representatives who support President Trump, defining them as “complicit and evil.” (Evil is to be stamped out, after all.)
So in summary, we have Maxine Waters, Joe Biden, and Corey Booker, all appealing to liberals to engage in physical aggression against conservatives. And we also have the fact that all three of them are firmly in favor of implementing stronger gun control measures that would further infringe the right to bear arms of those against whom they request liberals to engage in physical aggression.
Guns, what for? For defense against antisocial elements in government, or in the general population, who would commit abuses against an unarmed populace.
How far will the people allow abusive bureaucrats to abuse and infringe their rights, until the people stand up and say, “We must never compromise on rights?”