In response to a number of leftist lawmakers proposal to make felons out of those who exercise their right to bear arms, State Rep. Mike Leara (R) proposed legislation that,
"... would make state legislators guilty of a Class D felony if they introduce legislation "that further restricts an individual's right to bear arms." Leara said that the bill is needed because he sees a growing number of his colleagues looking to take away gun rights from the state's residents.He explained that,
“We seem to be having a lot of people willing to further restrict our constitutional rights and take our rights," Leara told The Huffington Post. "It is a push-back to the people who don’t believe in our constitutional rights. There have to be consequences to removing our constitutional rights.”"
"... he filed the bill "as a matter of principle and as a statement in defense of the Second Amendment rights of all Missourians. I have no illusions about the bill making it through the legislative process... ."Leftists have been going moonbat crazy in response. One leftist State Rep., Stephen Webber, in response to legislation that sought to defend rights, called
"... Leara's bill a blatant assault on free speech rights."Ha! Webber, who is apparently unfamiliar with what ideas are, also said,
"I find it ironic that people are willing to sacrifice the First Amendment at the altar of the Second," Webber said.
"You don't make it a crime to bring up an idea."Pssst Stephen! His 'legislation' did not propose to make it a crime to bring up an idea... or speak about an idea, or to print an idea or to distribute an idea.
What he 'proposed' outlawing, was the attempt to put those ideas into action by bringing govt force against all of those who exercise one of their natural rights. Which, according to our constitution, would be unconstitutional, and so criminal.
(And btw, if you did manage to put the 2nd Amendment to death, you could no longer have any meaningful right to speak freely. Think about it. Please.)
Hey kids! If you can propose, or even compliment, legislation which explicitly criminalizes the right to bear arms, and then come out and call legislation written in defense of that right as an attack upon the right to free speech - care to take a guess what you are NOT talking about?
That's right - rights!
If you can propose legislation outlawing one right, and then criticize someone else's defense of that right as an attack upon free speech, then whatever it is that you think you are defending, it is not Rights. What it is you are defending are little better than privileges, and only the preferred and sanctioned privileges of a favored few, at that.
For the benefit of our leftie friends... I should probably say a just a few more words on that (they did give me a free laugh after all):
Rights can be forfeited, but only by criminally trespassing upon the rights of others.
- If Individual Rights follow from the nature of being human - and they do - then they cannot be given, created, bestowed or revoked by legislators; they are natural to us by virtue of being human.
If you propose legislation, no matter how un-seriously, in defense of our rights, that is not an attack upon the right of free speech, or any other rights.
If you propose legislation, no matter how seriously, attempting to make felons of those who are exercising their own rights, then you are attacking individual rights as such, and so are in no way able to call yourself a supporter of the right to free speech. In fact, in the opinion of the author of the first draft of our Bill of Rights, James Madison, father of our Constitution, he believed that no one could credibly be thought to have a right to free speech, without also having an unfettered right to self defense and to their property.
Mr. Webber, and your fellow lefties Ellinger, Schupp, McNeil & Gray, if you propose to make felons of those who exercise their right to bear arms, then you are no defenders of freedom, rights or liberty, but are instead proposing a form of tyranny yourselves.
It was against people such as these, that the Bill of Rights was insisted upon before our Founders generation would ratify our Constitution to begin with, so that there would be a clear declaration to those in power in our government, that they may go "This far and no farther!", The Bill of Rights were erected as barriers against against the power of the many who might seek to 'do good' against the liberty of the few, in order to prevent a tyrant from coming to power over us.
But thanks for the laugh!