Sans-Culotte, great, but are you going to write him and encourage him to focus on little personalized anecdotes about guns? To play their little liberal game that our unalienable right to effective self defense (from bad guys and despotic governments both) actually depends on whether or not our stories appeal to the masses and the media?
Or are you going to write a letter to give Senator Cruz the WISE AND TOUGH COUNSEL HE NEEDS, and tell him NOT to play that pathetic game, and instead tell him to USE HIS BULLY PULPIT to educate low information Americans about AMERICAN PRINCIPLES, and how any discussion about limiting our right to self defense is OFF THE TABLE and DOES NOT DEPEND on selling little stories to “a majority” ???
President Reagan as the great educator would NOT take to route of anecdotes, and his staff would not be asking for them. He would educate on principle.
Senator Cruz is a new Senator. It was not HIM directly asking for help — it was staff or friends or whoever — they have mislead our conservative legislators over and over in the past. We are the board of directors, and the Senator is one of the legislative executives we have working for us, and it is our job to protect him from continuity staff, and set the tone for the entire war.
The war on communofascism is not going to be won by acting like our unalienable rights are up for grabs if we can’t cite appealing stories.
Even one as principled as Ted Cruz can end up playing the wrong game if we just go blindly along with bad ideas. Tell him the truth.
I said in my earlier post that replies like yours are best ignored. However, I have to respond to your innacurate post about Reagan. He frequently took the route of anecdotes, and people often asserted that he'd made them up. Have you never read a biography of Reagan or watched any of his speeches?
I thought about sending you a letter detailing how I live far from the nearest streetlight (10s of miles), and how it takes a half an hour for Law Enforcement to reach my location when the weather is nice, which is only a few months out of the year, and how it might be critically important to be able to defend myself should the need arise against multiple assailants who decided they wanted a place to commandeer, but really, that isn't the point.
The point of the Ssecond Amendment is written out in The Federalist Papers, No. 46, to be precise, and no further reason is needed.
That there should be no infringement on the type or number or feed devices for my firearms is self-evident to anyone who understands that purpose.
This is my unalienable Right, a fundamental Civil Right, reserved to the people without infringement.
As in the case of other Civil Rights, from which seat on the bus to the right to vote, infringements are forbidden. You wouldn't tell Rosa Parks she can sit anywhere, so long as it is an odd numbered day, or that she could only ride the bus five days a week, so why put limits on my civil right?
Only the fear that government has left its Constitutional boundaries and might suffer the remedy in Federalist 46 would compel anyone who had taken an oath to uphold the Constitution to violate that oath by infringing that right.
Respectfully,