Why Have a Congress? Or a Constitution?

There's nothing more disappointing than putting your faith and trust in a person, or group of persons to watch out for you, and have them leave you hanging.  Or in some instances, helping dig the hole that you are about to be thrown into.

In this instance, I am speaking of the Republican-controlled Congress which has done nothing except kowtow to our current POTUS as he has run roughshod over the U.S. Constitution, to say nothing of the will of the people.

I have been convinced for some time that only a complete and total act of stupidity (nominating Trump, Christie, or Bush) would prevent the Republicans from regaining control of the White House.  After the debacle that was 2015, I'm not entirely positive that's true, anymore.

The main reason that I mention this has to do with what the POTUS' press secretary had to say in response to the President's intent to remove (or prevent them from obtaining them) guns from the citizens of law-abiding citizens (something that was considered crazy as little as 18 months ago.)  A sampling of the P.S.'s commentary:

@POTUS believes in 2nd amdt. Said so today. Let's keep guns out of wrong hands AND protect our 2nd amdt rights. 

In case Mr. Earnest has forgot, that is the same man who swore that "if you like your health plan, you can keep you health plan."  Then nearly everyone lost the health plan they wanted to keep.  So, yeah, forgive me if the man's words don't tantalize me.

Close the No-Fly/No-Buy loophole. If too dangerous to board a plane, then too dangerous to buy a gun.

Because no one has ever ended up on a no-fly list when they shouldn't have.  Ooops...

I'm confident families of gun violence victims didn't find @POTUS's words or actions to keep guns out of the wrong hands "condescending".

Never let a good tragedy go to waste, right Mr. Secretary?  Also, who decides whose hands are *wrong*?

No govt action can stop every act of gun violence, but if we can prevent one innocent death, we should.

I think the one thing that the government has proven over the years is that they are fairly incapable of doing anything to stop anyone from doing whatever they want, especially if they're willing to go down in a blaze of glory.  There certainly is no other way in the world for someone hell-bent on murder or terror to accomplish their mission...except knives, cars, jets, rocks, bio-terror, bombs...no, really it's all about the guns.  If only we could get rid of them all, there would never be another death in this world.

Won't be solved overnight but if we work together to pass common sense gun safety measures, our kids will be safer.

When all else fails, pull at the heartstrings and swear you're doing it "all for the kids".  Also, ignore the facts about how many crimes are prevented or stopped because a law-abiding citizen has a weapon (and doesn't even need to use it most times.  Simply having the weapon is enough.)

I've written someplace before, but am unable to find it at the moment, that the 2nd amendment is the most strongly worded amendment you'll find going in our current Constitution.  There is no ambiguity in the language whatsoever:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

SHALL.  NOT.  BE.  INFRINGED.

You will read many other commentators who will insist that our Founding Fathers never intended this to mean that you could own a hunting rifle in order that you may go fetch your dinner from the woods.  It's patently the dumbest argument ever presented, and if you fall for it, then you are deserving of whatever comes of that.

Our Founding Fathers, having just defeated the greatest military presence known to man at that time, were not interested in how persons went about getting their dinner, or any meal, for that matter.  They had thrown off the bonds of an oppressive government, to establish a free Republic, and it was their desire that it should always remain so.  They had no desire to see an oppressive government set up on these shores, and the right to bear arms was meant as a deterrent for a government that would overstep its bounds.  If you don't believe me, then feel free to research the history and commentary of the men who wrote the Constitution.  You'll find that to a man, they would not approve of government controlling arms in any fashion.

As the fallout from the POTUS' most recent usurpation (or attempts thereof) at *gun control* make the rounds, ask yourself the important question:  What would George (Washington) or Tom (Jefferson) have said?  If you believe they would favor the unConstitutional executive orders that have come out of D.C. over the last several years, than you absolutely deserve the  government you currently have.