Daily Kos readers need a safe space because Ted Cruz campaigning on the Constitution is a triggering event for most of them.
Here’s the headline: “Presidential candidate Ted Cruz says Americans need guns in case they need to shoot the government.”
Sen. Ted Cruz goes full LaPierre:
“The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution isn’t for just protecting hunting rights, and it’s not only to safeguard your right to target practice. It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny — for the protection of liberty,” Cruz wrote to supporters in a fundraising email on Thursday, under the subject line “2nd Amendment against tyranny.”
This “insurrectionist” argument, as Second Amendment expert and UCLA law professor Adam Winkler calls it, is popular among passionate gun owners and members of the National Rifle Association. But major party candidates for president don’t often venture there.
Indeed. Relatively few lawmakers are fans of the notion that our guns exist in case everyday American citizens decide they need to start murdering government officials. It is a theory most popular among lunatics and people on FBI watch lists, though the NRA embrace of this central doctrine of the far-right militia movement has given it new prominence.
While I don’t imagine anything I say can stop Kos readers from melting down, I’ll try.
In the first place, I’m sorry if we’re all in perpetual danger because of the Second Amendment, but it is there and you can’t pretend otherwise. Cruz has three options: 1. never mention the Second Amendment, 2. lie about the Second Amendment, or 3. tell the truth about the Second Amendment. What he said is option number 3. If you don’t like it, take it up with the Bill of Rights. Cruz didn’t invent the political history of the seventeen hundreds and earlier. Cruz didn’t write the Second Amendment. This isn’t about him; it is about the Constitution.
Secondly, acknowledging that an armed populace is the “ultimate check” on government is, in no way, a call for “murdering government officials.” “Ultimate,” here means last desperate measure.
Thirdly, barring that ultimate situation, the Second Amendment doesn’t mean that “everyday American citizens” get to kill government officials; it means that government officials have to think twice before they decide to use guns to coerce “everyday American citizens.” We already know the government has the people massively outgunned. But there is still a question that haunts the social planners:
How easy will it be to push these people around?
If the government has all control of firearms, then they simply do whatever they want. But if people are armed, they do have to worry more about how things look to the populace. They have to operate like they have a conscience to some extent.
Naturally, the people at the Daily Kos prefer Lindsey Graham to Ted Cruz:
… Ted Cruz so far finds himself rather alone on this particular party plank, with other potential presidential candidates wanting nothing to do with it.
[Sen. Lindsey Graham] demurred. “I’m not looking for an insurrection. I’m looking to defeat Hillary,” he said. “We’re not going to out-gun her.”
Perhaps, but that’s why Ted Cruz is going to get the NRA’s endorsement in the race and you’re not, Lindsey Graham.
Newsflash Kos people: A guy who says that, if he were President, he would use the military to force Congress to vote is a stellar example of why we are better off with an armed populace.