Can you imagine the US Senate holding a hearing on gun control legislation and one of the Senators demanding that the discussion not include the Constitution: Okay. Well, yes, you can imagine it but can you believe it happened? Okay… you can believe it happened.
Yesterday, the Senate Appropriations Committee held hearings on Obama’s various executive orders expanding federal authority to regulate the sale and transfer of weapons. The main witness was Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
Maryland Sen. Barbara Mikulski said at a Senate hearing Wednesday that she wanted to avoid getting “involved in constitutional arguments.” The only problem is that the hearing in question dealt with President Obama’s recent executive actions on guns, which many believe infringes on Americans’ Second Amendment rights.
“I look forward to…listening to the attorney general and listening to this wonderful panel that you’ve invited to participate today,” Mikulski, a Democrat and ardent supporter of gun control, said in her opening remarks ahead of a Senate Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee hearing, which heard testimony from Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
“So let’s solve the problem,” Mikuski urged. “Let’s not get involved in constitutional arguments, and let’s help our American people be safe and secure in their home, their neighborhood, their school and their house of worship.”
The only reason the Committee was holding hearings on the subject was because of concerns about the constitutionality of Obama’s actions.
Oddly enough, Mikulski’s statement quite accurately portrays the progressive stance on gun control. They believe the Constitution is inconvenient whenever it makes what they want to do a little bit more difficult. And when discussions of restricting rights take place with no mention of how those rights came to be, you end up with the American university system where free speech is nearly extinct as are the rights of students who are accused of sexual assault.
Solving problems, without regard to Constitutional rights, has never worked out well for any society that has tried it. If you doubt me, take a look at the Soviet constitution.