The gun control debate was settled…in 1791.
Greg Abbott @GregAbbott_TX
Governor of Texas
Tweeted on June 25, 2018
[It may have been settled then but that didn’t mean it wouldn’t became an issue years later. And with the return of the debate we, of course, now have massive infringements of our natural and constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.
Still, it’s a decent response to gun controls advocates. Tell them the issue is settled and, “Your move. Are you volunteering to take them away from anyone?—Joe]
The issue of robbery is settled too– it’s been outlawed. Of course it still happens however.
The point is that settled law, in this case the Bill of Rights, is no guarantee of compliance. There will be violators. The law that “bans” robbery also has provisions for arrest, prosecution and sentencing because we know for certain that there will be transgressions of that law. All laws have those provisions, because all laws get violated.
The problem with the so-called “gun control debate” is that we’re insane. There is no “robbery debate” because we simply enforce the laws against robbery. For some reason (that reason being our insanity) we don’t simply enforce the law against violations of the second amendment. That’s not even a consideration.
Imagine the outcome if we treated all crimes this way. We argue and we bargain and we make deals with the violators rather than prosecuting them. But robbers don’t want to be prosecuted, and they’ll usually fight back. That usually doesn’t stop us from prosecuting them though, does it? Or rather, should it?
If all we did was try to bargain with criminals, so they won’t hurt us, well now, who’s in charge? That’s right; the criminals are in charge.
The petty robber we prosecute because it’s still relatively safe to do so. The most aggressive, unscrupulous, psychopathic, organized criminals, on the other hand, are at the top of the societal hierarchy. If the truth be known, that’s the essence of the history of Mankind. That pisses people off, so they often dispose of the criminals at the top, only to become just like them. One set of criminals will be replaced by another, and so the worst criminals always rule.
We don’t see the more egregious violators (those being violators of their Oath to uphold, protect and defend the constitution, in this case) as the criminals they are. They hold title and hang out in fancy buildings, and that’s enough, apparently, to mesmerize us.
If we don’t see a criminal as a criminal, we can’t possibly act in a manner appropriate to the situation, and things will certainly get worse. We will have guaranteed it.
We deserve what we’ve got because we have a tendency to bow to the greatest criminals, thinking ourselves prudent for doing so, often even being proud of it.
And guess what; it isn’t going to change until we change. We’re born, bred and inculcated into this criminal hierarchy, and we pay homage to it. It’s all we know. Of course that will have a bad outcome, and there’s no alternative because we’re pre-programmed to see no other alternative and we’re programmed to hold on to that programming as though it were life itself (when in fact it is death).
Okay so when is Texas going constitutional carry then Greg?
You took the words right out of my mouth. We need to strike the police power clause from our state RKBA amendment. Until that’s gone, we’re trapped in a debate over the scope of state powers our forebearers should never have surrendered in the first place.