Senator Graham mocks Ted Cruz for his far-right stance on the Second Amendment.
One of the biggest falsehoods perpetuated by the right wing is that the Second Amendment is in place to protect citizens from government tyranny. While it’s cute to fantasize that a few well-armed “militias” could revolt against the country which boasts the largest military-industrial complex in the world, armed with handguns and various assault rifles, the fantasy has very little basis in reality.
Perhaps that notion had its time as a realistic possibility back when the government and the layman were all armed with the same caliber of muskets and cannons, but today our government has billions of dollars poured into defense every year and all kinds of toys that can kill hundreds, even thousands of people from a distant location.
Which is ironic because the very party that wants to revolt against the government is the same party that makes sure the military is well-funded and heavily armed.
But that little tidbit of reality isn’t stopping Ted Cruz from striking that fantasy into the hearts of “patriots” across America:
The Second Amendment to the Constitution isn’t just for 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 government tyranny — for the protection of liberty.
It’s an argument echoed by many on the far-right, militia members, and open-carry nuts who want to keep guns absolutely unrestricted to all citizens (or just the law-abiding citizens but with no oversight). However, today guns are only realistically used to protect homes, to hunt with, and for target practice. Oh — and for making doughy Tea Partiers look tough, we can’t forget the importance of that.
But that view is so extreme even Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) mocked his statement outright, saying:
Well, we tried that once in South Carolina. I wouldn’t go down that road again.
Senator Graham was referring to the American Civil War, in which South Carolina was the first state to secede from the union after President Lincoln was elected President, and the state where the first shots were fired in the civil war. It was the site of abhorrent violence and bloodshed in which those fighting against “tyranny” eventually surrendered and were dragged kicking and screaming into a progressive age.
Continuing, Sen. Graham said:
I think an informed electorate is probably a better check than, you know, guns in the street.
Did he just use logic? Some members of the right wing are capable of logic?! Stop the presses! Throw a parade! There is some sanity left on the right!
Senator Graham actually sits to the left of Ted Cruz, but is still considered to be a hard right ultra-conservative, which makes Cruz an extremist.
Many on the far-right political spectrum really vie for another civil war, because if you can’t talk your country into being a gay-bashing, poor-hating, God-fearing land of bigoted and racist Christians, who want a theocracy rather than a democracy, with no taxes and the privatization of all industries, you might as well force them with guns and violence, right? So Ted Cruz is trying to play his far-right constituents’ song for revolt, as he fights his way to a Presidential nomination.
Sen. Graham thinks there is a better path than proposing a violent revolution and he’s primarily trying to get his party focused on beating Hillary Clinton to the White House — by using actual words rather than arming everybody to the teeth.
I’m not looking for an insurrection — I’m looking to defeat Hillary. We’re not going to out-gun her.
I think in a democracy the best check on government is voter participation. I think the First Amendment probably protects us more.
While it’s a sweet thought to think a Tea Partier could actually campaign with their ideas, reason, and diplomacy without pandering to violent, borderline insane party members, it isn’t likely that tactic will actually be employed by the right this election cycle.
Instead, Cruz is campaigning on guns, God, guns, anti-tyranny and guns, saying:
I am the only candidate running for president who not only believes in the constitutional right to keep and bear arms — but has the record of fighting for it, tooth and nail.
But that’s not exactly true — Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and ex-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush also spoke at the National Rifle Association’s convention. Rubio has a B+ rating from the NRA and believes new gun laws are “ineffective.” Ex-Governor Bush boasts an A+ rating from the NRA and has a sterling record, by NRA standards, of protecting Second Amendment rights during his time as governor. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who also has put his hat into the ring for primaries has an AQ rating, which means he does not have a voting record but has been vocally supportive of gun rights. Even Hillary Clinton won’t take away Americans’ Second Amendment rights.
It’s just another Red Herring in a campaign bound to be full of Red Herrings.
At this point, it’s looking like whoever says ‘guns’ the loudest wins. Eventually, we have to contend with a right wing candidate whipping the country into a frenzy that if they don’t win, tyranny and revolt are right around the corner. So the big question is: How gullible is our country?