I've been writing this week about the gun control debate and how the political characters on Morning Joe, in the Center and on the Left, have been talking about the issues. I wrote that Joe Scarborough seems politically motivated, as do all of the gun control advocates I've seen so far on Morning Joe. Scarborough said this morning that he can't wait to see a Republican oppose the common sense gun control proposals so that the Republican will get his political bones ground to dust. When Sam Stein showed surprise at Joe's violent image, Joe said that if people don't know it, he likes to win. Joe meant he likes political victory. So, he's admitting that this is about politics, pleasing the majority who favor background checks according to some poll.
If the gun control advocates were really concerned with doing things that can help with mass killings, they'd change the current background check failures that don't catch known "rapists" and such, as Scarborough seems to bothered by, and they would promote beefed up security in vulnerable places like schools -- and that's it. The proponents of gun control are using emotion to set the stage for future legislation, and this is not the way to deal with mass killings. Michelle and Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, and many others, are using family members of victims to gain public support, when they should be looking for smart solutions which can be suggested and implemented without violating the rights of others. The dangerous mindset in the Center and on the Left is that rights are secondary to government solutions which protect the collective.
If we believe security is more important that individual rights, then we'll have no rights at all, because a powerful State looking to expand and consolidate power will use security as the means to dominate. The likes of Scarborough would scoff at the notion rights are being violated, but if representatives like Ted Cruz and Mike Lee weren't trying to slow down the process and cool down the emotions, gun control advocates would have no problem violating rights to expand State control over guns of all sorts. These gun control advocates would have no problem with a national regsitry, nor would they reject confiscating weapons already out there if the weapons are the type they ban.
Each gun control advocate on Morning Joe has said that the current proposals don't go far enough, that this is a beginning. What does this mean? I think we know what it means, and it doesn't include protecting individual rights.