Originally published on May 11, 2011
If there are any certainties in life, among them is determining people’s character by examining the company they keep. Rachel Maddow considers it her mission to have as many nationally known “Republicans” on her show as possible. Of course, the only “Republican” she regularly chats with is Michael Steele. Steele is well-liked but clearly not very conservative and was unable to hang onto his position as the head of the RNC. Under his watch, they almost went bankrupt.
But guess who showed up last week to join the Twit for her Republican/Crazed Leftist love fest? None other than the legendary Meghan McCain. (And by “legendary,” I mean her legendary lack of conservative chops.) While Maddow patted herself on the back for deigning to rub elbows with a nasty Republican, I found myself remembering Meggie Mac’s infamous Sarah Palin bashing. Let’s see, McCain is pro-gay marriage, pro-feminist, pro-global warming alarmism, and pro-flash-your-boobies-on-the-internet (sorry Meg, you posted the photo). The most conservative thing about this girl is her father and he’s not exactly a shining star of conservatism, so you can understand my snickering when Maddow referred to her as a “nationally recognized Republican.”
However, I got to thinking I might have to take back all the ungenerous things I’ve ever thought or said about McCain when she took Maddow to the NRA convention. It turns out she’s a Second Amendment fan. Of course, that doesn’t make a person conservative either. Ted Kennedy owned guns.
While wandering around the convention floor with MSNBCs cameras lingering on little kids handling handguns (gasp) Maddow grilled McCain on her thoughts about reviving the assault weapons ban. My hopes for McCain were finally dashed against the rocks with her reply.
McCain can think of absolutely no reason why any American should be able to have a semi-automatic military style assault rifle. Considering McCain claims to understand the Second Amendment, it is disappointing that she didn’t have an answer for this question that didn’t involve capitulating to leftist pressure. Sure, it sounds ridiculous that someone would want an extended magazine that holds 33 bullets instead of 12. It sounds dangerous. What would a hunter need with all that firepower? If the Second Amendment were written for hunters then I would agree.
But anyone who has read anything remotely close to an accurate history of America’s founding would know that the Second Amendment only has one purpose: to arm the people against a tyrannical government. What would happen if the United States military was loosed on the citizens of this nation and the only ones with assault rifles were the military? The Left likes to deride people who make these queries as crazy conspiratorial nut jobs, but this is not some fantasy that has never occurred. Governments are only benevolent until they aren’t. Then what? Lucky for us our founders thought of that and gave us the remedy. An armed populous is an unconquerable populous.
If the military is allowed far more powerful weapons than the average Joe, then the constitutional antibiotic for bad government is contaminated. The right to bear arms has nothing to do with duck season. It is this one thought that should be hammered into every argument with the Left. If that one point is left out and all one discusses is personal self-defense or hunting, then there really is no reason to have a semi-automatic assault rifle. For that matter, all semi-automatic weapons would be totally unnecessary. And that’s what the Left really wants: the outright banning of all semi-automatic weapons.