Democrats, You Aren’t Brave For Standing Against the Bill of Rights. You’re Tyrants.

Matt Walsh:

Today, Democrats in the House sat on their butts and accomplished nothing of value. It was just like every other day, but this time they did it without chairs.

The purpose of their “sit in” was to push gun control and protest gun violence. Of course, if they really wanted to protest gun violence by lounging on the floor, you’d think they’d at least choose a floor in Chicago or West Baltimore. But that may be too dangerous, perhaps less sanitary, and it would likely call attention to the most politically inconvenient kind of gun violence. That is, the kind that takes place between minorities in areas where extraordinarily strict gun laws are already on the books.

No, we can’t talk about that. Democrats elected to sit and sulk on the floor of the House instead. A couple of hours into it, a woman came in with juice boxes and blankets to read them a story before nap time. There was an adorable moment where Rep. John Yarmuth fell asleep sucking his thumb, but was woken suddenly when Rep. John Larson had an accident and started crying. At that point they were all too riled up to sleep so Rep. John Lewis led the gang in a rousing game of Duck, Duck, Goose.

Now, I can’t say for sure that all of that actually happened. But the part where a bunch of elderly statesmen sat Indian style on the floor and pouted for the cameras definitely did happen, so the rest may as well have. It went on for hours as anxious onlookers prayed that an actual adult might show up to give them a good talking-to and send them to bed without supper. At the time of this writing they are still on the floor, still sitting, still demonstrating their dignified resolve by playing on their phones, posing for selfies and tweeting congratulations to themselves. And all the while, taxpayers work real jobs in order to pay the salaries of a bunch of showboating buffoons.

The average taxpayer may not be too pleased to see his lawmakers carrying on this way, but the lawmakers are certainly quite impressed with it themselves. It seems they can hardly contain their self-admiration. “This is what courage looks like,” read the caption of a photograph of several overpaid politicians relaxing on the carpet. Many liberals on social media agreed, exclaiming that the protest was “heroic” and “brave” and “historic” and so on. Whatever other cause these “activists” wanted to call attention to, it’s clear that their primary mission was to courageously make sure that everyone knew how courageously courageous they really are.

You’ll notice that liberals are constantly informing us that their behavior is brave. This, by the way, is the quickest way to confirm that someone is not brave. The doer of truly brave deeds doesn’t pause in the midst of his bravery to say, “Look how brave I am.” That’s what frauds and charlatans do. And these Democrats are nothing if they are not frauds and charlatans. What else can you call a person who stands on the graves of 49 dead Americans to extol his own virtue?

As a general rule, actions that are comfortable, politically advantageous, sure to win you praise from the media, and requiring no sacrifice on your part are not brave. A brave man stands up in the face of opposition. A lazy opportunist sits down to the sound of uproarious applause. Crucially, a brave man is honest and sincere in his actions. And that is where Democrats fail the brave test most spectacularly.

They waited until now, right when they have a mass tragedy to exploit and an election to win, to push for this “common sense gun reform.” Curiously, however, when they owned the House, Senate and Presidency in 2008, they made no effort to pass legislation that could, they’ve just decided, “save thousands of lives.” That could be because Obama was still selling guns to Mexican drug cartels back in those days, so perhaps they thought the subject a little awkward.

It would have taken real courage to stand up to the Democrat president and demand he be brought to justice for funneling weapons into the hands of dangerous people. But Democrats never have courage in the moments where courage is actually required. Like true heroes, they remained silent and waited until they had a Republican majority to blame and a tragedy to utilize.

Frauds and charlatans, as I said. Liars. Hucksters. Performance artists. And, we can’t forget, tyrants.

If we can look past the insincerity of this whole charade, the actual laws they’re trying to push deserve some attention. I can’t say this for sure, but I believe this may be the first recorded case of a “civil rights sit in” being staged for the purpose of revoking civil rights. It’s especially ironic considering the bills these Democrats are courageously championing would especially harm people of color. Rep. John Lewis once fought to win due process rights for racial minorities, and now he’s fighting to take them back. An incredible development.

The Democrat temper tantrum centers around four gun control bills that were rejected by the Senate this week. The bills would intrude upon Second Amendment rights in various ways, but their primary function would be to deny guns to anyone on the No Fly List or the Terror Watchlist or the Might Be Bad Guys List or whatever other secret government list.

“If you can’t get on a plane, you shouldn’t be able to buy a gun,” the bizarre and popular mantra goes. One wonders when we’ll start extending this to other disconnected things. “If you can’t drive a car, you shouldn’t be able to practice religion.” “If you can’t procure a liquor license, you shouldn’t be able to assemble peacefully.” Etc.

You see how this works, don’t you? Take something we don’t have a constitutional right to — planes, for instance — and tie it to something we do have a constitutional right to, like guns. Just like that, you’ve erased a right by conflating it with something that is not a right. You’ve allowed the government to prevent you from exercising a right with the same ease that it can prevent you from exercising a privilege. And once you’ve done that, the process will not stop until there is no discernible legal distinction between a right and a privilege.

Read more