Debbie Wasserman Schultz Shows Her Hypocrisy When it Comes to Gun Control
With the shooting incident in Virginia of a reporter, a cameraman, and the interviewee, gun control activists rabidly set about to attack the Second Amendment and those who support it. Everyone in America knows it is a predictable reaction to an incident where guns, the lack of gun control laws and gun rights organizations are to blame instead of the individual who actually committed the crime. Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz wasted little time in attacking comments made by former Florida Governor and potential 2016 GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush, along with other Republicans, who indicate the federal government has no business establishing gun laws.
At a town hall event at La Progressiva Presbyterian School in Miama, Florida, Jeb Bush stated, “The federal government shouldn’t be involved in gun laws. The country is very different.” Bush added, “If you go to a rural area where guns are a part of the culture, to impose laws from Washington that are going to work for New York City, or work in a rural area, makes no sense.”
“Historically when this happens, the 99.9 percent of the cases of people using guns for their private pursuits, using them legally, their rights get restricted, and it doesn’t solve the problems of these isolated sad tragic cases,” Bush later added.
More on Jeb’s statement later. In true Democratic, liberal fashion, Wasserman Schultz accused Bush “and other Republicans of wanting America to ‘accept’ gun violence and ‘excusing’ murders as a price to maintain constitutional liberties, and even being ‘complicit’ in future shootings by not passing new gun laws.”
From The Blaze:
“In claiming that there is no role for the federal government in regulating gun safety, Jeb Bush is insisting that Americans simply must accept future violence and leave a response to the possibility of a state-by-state solution. I am speechless,” she said.
“Republicans like Jeb Bush should put the wishes of the American people, who demand action like universal background checks, ahead of the endorsement of special interest groups,” Wasserman Schultz continued. “They must stop excusing the murder of our neighbors as the inevitable price we pay for constitutional liberties. Geography should not determine whether one has basic protections from gun violence.”
She referenced a comment by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) when she stated, “To remain silent or to discourage action is to be complicit in the future shootings that will occur.”
For someone who declared to be speechless, Wasserman Schultz talked a plenty. Bush is correct that the federal government “shouldn’t be involved in gun laws.” But, neither should the States. The geography reason Bush gives is totally off base. The reason the federal government, and by extension the States, should not be restricting guns is the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the united States of America.
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.
It doesn’t say “Congress shall not” or “the States shall not.” It states “shall not be infringed,” meaning by any government entity — federal, state or local. The right of the people to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with geography, rural culture or “private pursuits.” The right to keep and bear arms is the same across the entire nation regardless of geography for the purposes of repelling invasions, providing protection against a tyrannical, despotic federal government and self-defense. This right secures a free State for the people.
Bush is correct when stating that gun laws only restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens and will not prevent these types of incidents from happening. In fact, as Americans have purchased more firearms, crime dropped 51 percent. Firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens curbs crime, protects rights and secures freedom.
It would have been wise for Wasserman Schultz to silence herself after declaring speechlessness; however, she continued on exposing her own hypocrisy, along with that of the Democrats and the left.
She claims Republicans, such as Bush, should place the wishes of the American people before special interest groups. Really? Well, Debbie, the majority of Americans rejected Obamacares, but Democrats shoved it down the throats of Americans anyway. Where was that sentiment about “placing the wishes of the American people before special interest” then? Democrats as well as Republicans cater to “special interest” regarding immigration instead of following and enforcing the law as per the “wishes” of the American people. It’s the same with the “small” sodomite special interest groups — their interests are placed ahead of the American people by both sides of the aisle.
Truth be told, government’s responsibility is to secure individual God-given unalienable rights of the people, not “bend” to the majority or the minority. Regardless of issue, politicians bow to special interest groups, minority opinion and, at times, “mob rule” over their declared function as outlined in the Declaration of Independence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — ….”
In reality, bending to the wishes of the American people is operating on the concept of mob rule, or “democracy.” While popular vote may be acceptable for electing officials, popular sentiment is unacceptable when it comes to law, according to the founding documents of this nation. The tenet of the Constitution limits government since it establishes the framework of the nation and outlines the authority of each branch of the federal government. Any assumed power grabbed outside of the established limited authority of the Constitution is a usurpation.
Wasserman Schultz , Democrats and liberals remain silent or discourage action when it comes to the Planned Parenthood baby murder mill, meaning they are complicit in the murder of every baby in the womb occurring in this nation — if you follow their logic. Every police officer attacked and/or killed by “Black Lives Matter” activists and every individual assaulted by this group backing a lie falls at the feet of Democrats, liberals and politicians supporting “Black’s Lies Matter,” including Obama. By supporting illegal alien invaders and releasing those from prison that have committed heinous crimes, Democrats, Republicans, Obama and his administration are complicit in the commission of further crimes these individuals perpetrate against citizens. Sanctuary city governments promote the continued criminal activity of illegal alien invaders, along with local law enforcement, by protecting the illegal criminal.
The examples could go on, but the point is made.
No one who supports the God-given and constitutionally protected right to bear arms excuses the murder of any individual by a criminal. In fact, Second Amendment supporters clearly oppose the acts of criminals. What Second Amendment supporters do is hold the individual accountable for their actions, not the gun. Maybe if Democrats, politicians and bleeding heart liberals weren’t soft on punishment for criminals, letting the punishment fit the crime instead of taxpayers keeping up the criminals, commission of crimes might actually go down further.
*Article by Suzanne Hamner