[This is a repost of a 2018 Oath Keepers piece, resurrected here as an addendum to my AmmoLand article about Senate Majority Leader “choices,” or lack thereof. As such, links may not work but have been left to document that they once did.]
“Hundreds of gun owners in Florida have been ordered to give up their guns under a new law that took effect after the deadly Parkland shooting in February, according to a report published Monday,” Fox News reports. “Every petition filed under the order in Pinellas County has so far been granted by the judge…
“In addition to confiscating guns, the law also raised the age to buy a rifle to 21 and established a three-day waiting period on gun purchases,” the report notes. What it does not address is the level of due process afforded citizens who have not been charged with, let alone convicted of any crimes of violence; how government can justify ignoring the right to keep and bear arms of citizens old enough to vote, marry, form legal contracts and to fight and die for their country; and how a prior restraint delay on the “law-abiding” will have any impact whatsoever on the lawless.
This was all passed only with the support of supposedly “pro-gun” Republican legislators, and signed into law by a supposedly “pro-gun” Republican governor.
“We can count on Rick Scott to defend our Second Amendment rights!” NRA’s Political Victory Fund assured gun owners in its gushing endorsement for the politician they gave an “A+” rating to:
Rick Scott has an unmatched record of support for the Second Amendment in Florida … Rick has signed more pro-gun bills into law in one term than any other governor in Florida history. Law-abiding gun owners in Florida have a true friend in Rick Scott.
I don’t have any “true friends” that want to disarm me by force. You? But that was then. This is now. The fact of the matter is, when the political winds changed, so did Scott. And that leaves Florida’s voting gun owners with a dilemma.
That’s because Scott has decided to take on incumbent Democrat Bill Nelson for the Senate race in November. And Nelson has made no secret of his affinity for infringements, with his latest affront being a public hindquarters kissing of the Demanding Moms on a scheme to ban … knowledge.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=a_LKWnSSxnE%3Ffeature%3Doembed
Again, per NRA:
- Bill Nelson voted to confirm Barack Obama’s anti-gun nominees to the Supreme Court – including Sonia Sotomayor, who signed a Supreme Court opinion saying that Americans do not have an individual right to own firearms.
- Anti-Gun Bill Nelson voted to allow America’s firearms manufacturers to be sued into bankruptcy – which would have eliminated tens of thousands of American jobs.
- Anti-Gun Bill Nelson voted to spend $15 million of taxpayer dollars on a federal gun control program.
- Anti-Gun Bill Nelson voted for a ban on millions of commonly owned firearms, which included many popular hunting and target rifles.
Who represents the greater danger to gun owner rights, Scott or Nelson? And is that the right question to ask?
“Politics is the art of the possible,” those who advocate “lesser of two evils” voting advise. “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”
That assumes the alternative actually is good, and that those who encourage “pragmatic compromise” and discourage pushing envelopes are the best judges of what is possible.
Years back, Republican strategist Lee Atwater was reputed to have asked “Who else are they going to vote for?” meaning the GOP could basically do whatever they wanted and desperate gun owners would let them get away with it.
How has that worked out for us? If we keep letting politicians betray us every time things require them being the principled leaders they promised us they’d be, what “or else” incentive does that give them to change?
I’ve used a couple analogies over the years, one being would you ally yourself with someone if his history demonstrated he’d switch sides and shoot you in the back when things heated up?
Would you accept that rate of betrayal from a spouse? What’s more important to you, a partner or a politician?
What’s more dangerous, the enemy at the gate or an opportunistic traitor inside?
What will be needed to teach the object lesson that betrayal will not be rewarded but will instead be punished — every time? Can it be done without forcing the gunquislings out?
Does it make more sense to take the hit now so that next time the Party won’t dare offer a dud, to make known beforehand you are doing it, to let everyone know afterward what you did and to make sure they know why? That is, if you’re serious about sending the right message and getting an acceptable candidate next time around…?
Yeah, but…
No doubt about it—Nelson will continue to be a threat if he retains his seat and the Senate needs all the help it can get to stay out of overt enemy hands. Same with the House. And it’s undeniable that we will never be presented with a perfect candidate.
Whatever decision gun owners make, I just hope the questions and concerns raised above are at least considered. Because the choices facing us now are easy compared to what will be confronting us after enough “friends in high places” cave.
