Common Sense – Chapter 5; Part 6
It’s not just our homes that are no longer secure from the whims of the State—it’s also our own bodies. Almost all states now require mandatory blood-screening tests with limited opt-out provisions. The experts tell us that the testing is necessary for a host of profound medical reasons, such as protecting children. But that slippery slope is already rearing its head as efforts are now also being made to empower the State to retain, test, and research blood and DNA of newborn babies.
I understand this can sound conspiratorial, but I do not apologize for not trusting the government to exercise caution and sound judgment. Even if their intentions are good now, who is to say what they will be in ten, twenty, or a hundred years? What limits can there possibly be on State power if it is allowed to extract a blood sample from every newborn baby without the consent of the parents?
Just as the backward idea that helping others in danger is not mandated by law, but recycling is, I believe another sign of a society in decline is when those accused of murder and rape have their blood and DNA protected more than innocent newborn babies.
2. Remind them about the tens of thousands of political, labor, and antiwar activists who were arrested for speaking out against their government and its policies beginning with Woodrow Wilson and continuing through FDR’s presidency. Once again, the constitutional protections of free speech and the right to assembly meant nothing to the Progressives, who successfully argued that the “greater good” and “national security of government” were best served by arresting Americans who exercised those rights.
We see the same mind-set today—albeit on a different level. The Department of Homeland Security recently issued a report titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” It essentially concludes that those who are passionate about the sanctity of life, believe in their Second Amendment right to bear arms, or are veterans of the armed forces pose a heightened security risk to the country and may require heightened monitoring. True, no one has started rounding up those “extremists” yet—but how long do you think it will be before that “national security of the government” argument is resurrected again?
There is a sad irony between the rights our leaders fight for and the ones that really matter. Remember all of those politicians who strongly objected to the wiretapping of calls between the United States and someone overseas when at least one party was suspected of terrorism? They couldn’t believe that the government would egregiously violate the rights of Americans like that! Yet when the Department of Homeland Security says to keep an eye on tens of millions of Americans who have done nothing except obey the law and exercise their constitutional rights, these hypocrites say absolutely nothing. They truly are cockroaches who care nothing about liberty and freedom.
3. Remind them about the law-abiding citizens of New Orleans, who, while trying to protect their families and property in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, had their guns unlawfully confiscated under orders from the mayor and chief of police. This is a modern-day example of Progressive thought in action. Americans who legally purchased and owned their guns had them taken away by politicians who dismissed the Constitution and the law because it was necessary for the “greater good” and “safety of the public.” And, to add insult to injury, the city of New Orleans won’t try to find the rightful owners of the guns they confiscated; if they stole your gun you actually have to apply to have it returned!
And what did our elected leaders—the people who took an oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic—do after the guns of law-abiding Americans were unlawfully confiscated? They passed a law that made it illegal to take guns from law-abiding citizens. Isn’t that already one of the protections of the Second Amendment? If the Constitution won’t stop Progressives, why would passing another law?
But they had no choice. The politicians, who for decades repeatedly chastised those worried about the government confiscating guns as conspiracy theorists, got caught in their own lie. So they did what politicians do best—they tried to cover it up. They needed to deflate the fear and anger in those who realized that they’d just witnessed the Constitution being shredded, so they passed a law and said, “See, now we can’t take your guns even if we want to. There’s a law that stops us!”
Unfortunately, the law doesn’t mean much to Progressives, because they answer to a higher moral authority. Their every action is rationalized by their belief that “the experts know best” and that their understanding of the “greater good” always trumps your individual rights. Always. When Progressives look at the Second Amendment, they don’t see an individual right to bear arms, they see a collective right, under a militia, and organized by the State. While they’ll rarely admit it overtly, their constant erecting of barricades to individual gun ownership indicates their real agenda.
For decades the Progressives have tried to restrict the rights of individuals to hold, possess, and use firearms, but the American people have successfully rejected most of those attempts and, fortunately, the mind-set seems to have turned against them. A 2008 Gallup Poll found that support for a handgun ban is now at its lowest level since the question was first asked… fifty-one years ago.
But Progressives are patient people. They move their agenda along methodically and never lose sight of where they want to take the country. The right to bear arms is a perfect example of that patience. Since Progressives can’t restrict guns outright, they’ve tried to do an end run. In 1997, President Clinton signed a multilateral treaty called the “Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and other Related Materials Treaty.” Why have you probably never heard of it? Because our system of checks and balances worked: the Senate never ratified the treaty.
But now, with drug violence in Mexico as the pretext, President Obama has resurrected the treaty and is urging the Senate to ratify it. Progressives like Obama don’t let the law or facts slow them down in their attempts to “do good,” so, during a recent visit to Mexico, the president proclaimed, “This war is being waged with guns purchased not here but in the United States. More than ninety percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States…”
It was a compelling statistic: 90 percent of the guns being trafficked are from the United States. QUICK—we need to do SOMETHING!
There’s only one problem… the figure was wrong. The truth is that 90 percent of the guns that are returned to the United States by Mexico originally came from America—but no one knows how many guns aren’t returned or how Mexico decides which guns to return, two important factors that skew the data. Other independent research suggests that anywhere from 17-36 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes can be traced back to the United States.
Unfortunately for those trying to promote an agenda—such as an international firearms treaty—36 percent doesn’t sound nearly as convincing as 90 percent, so it’s ignored.
Since President Obama and other Progressive politicians have come to power, gun and ammunition sales have soared. Is that justified? I don’t know—but based on previous attempts to restrict our rights, you certainly can’t fault people for being cautious. After all, what most of the “experts” in both politics and the media don’t understand is that just because a gun is bought doesn’t mean it has to be used. Believe it or not, exercising a right is mutually exclusive from breaking the law.
I want to propose a new American “trust indicator.” When the sales of guns and bullets go down, it means that the American people have more trust in the government. When those sales rise, it means that their trust in the government to protect them and their property is falling—it’s just common sense, right?