You might have noticed that starting with the run-up to the last GOP Convention, the party has enjoyed several flavors du jour in the forms of Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich; the latter an old “flavor” with a new bit of spice added thanks to his revolving credit account at Tiffany’s. The latest entry is Texas’ first-term junior senator, Ted Cruz, he of the give no quarter, compromise on nothing, and stick to your far right principles, facts, case law and history be damned.
Cruz’ most recent example of supposedly principled inflexibility combined with a heavy dose of sophistry, involves the debate over gun registration and his “nay” vote on the bipartisan, Machin-Toomey bill that actually collected 54 affirmative votes in the Senate. In a lengthy op-ed published in several Texas newspapers, Cruz sought to justify his behavior.
In a screed that consumed almost an entire half-page, the senator used most of that space to lambast the president, going into great deal to describe Obama’s position on gun registration. The point being exactly what when what was up for debate and vote was the aforementioned Machin-Toomey proposal? Instead of undertaking a critical analysis of that legislation, Cruz engaged in the construction of a “red-colored, straw herring”, finishing with the rhetorical flourish that “…the long-term objective of extending background checks to private citizens is the creation of a national registry…(which) has historically been the predicate for gun confiscation”.
One must wonder what “history” the senator was referencing. Certainly not ours! Broad confiscation by the federal government has never happened; not in our 237+ years’ existence. There is no national registry of gun owners nor has there ever been one. Even more pointedly, there is absolutely nothing in Machin-Toomey that provides a loophole for establishing such a record. Quite to the contrary, the bill contains a provision for imposing a 15-year sentence on anyone who would seek to establish one!!! Given this fact, it is reasonable to ask “Did Cruz even read the bill he voted against; a vote that he is now defending with a false argument (there’s the sophistry) and fear-mongering?”
Finally, there is this: As has been noted in at least one previous blog* at this site, there are case law has established that there are limits to our Second Amendment rights. Cruz knows this but has steadfastly remained silent on the matter, all the better to preserve his status as conservatives’ flavor du jour. For all the reasons cited herein, this man is not to be trusted.
*See “The Second Amendment: History, Whys and Wherefores; Feb. 2, 2013.