Much of the Republican National Convention last week was dedicated to bashing Hillary Clinton, making it the official sport of the Republican Party.

The various speakers consistently shouted at the audience that Hillary Clinton is an American hating criminal that wants to abolish the Second Amendment, painting her as a vicious tyrant. While also claiming that she is ignorant and incapable of running the country. So, pick whatever fits, I guess. But the crowd ate it up with a ladle and politely asked for seconds.

In fact, it's not just a hyped up right-wing constituency at the convention that enjoys hearing that Hillary Clinton and the left at large is assaulting the American way, coming after our guns. It's a popular tag line amongst conservatives across the country, especially as recent attempts to pass gun legislation in the wake of the Orlando shooting failed and even a highly public sit in in the House of Representatives produced little.

It's no secret that politicians, and the media for each respective party, employ scare tactics, and it’s a powerful weapon in their arsenal.

An article in the National Review entitled "The Democrats' 'Emergency' Assault on the Second Amendment" (found here) argues that the gun legislation bills that had been proposed in the Senate after the Orlando shooting were infringements on the inalienable right to bear arms, which is protected by the Second Amendment of the Constitution. It further argues that there is no type of emergency situation that would justify the bills, including not allowing persons on the FBI Terror Watch list to purchase firearms, saying that it could give the government power to target citizens with little or no proof of actual terrorist ties, thereby infringing on the right of law-abiding citizens.

The article as a whole takes a hardline stance on the reading of the Constitution.

And though this argument is not exclusive to this article, this paranoia of government power and literal approach to the Constitution is dangerous. Even as it allows for right wing media to pander to its audience that rightly feels left out of the system.

For transparency, all four bills proposed after the Orlando shooting failed as they were expected to. Including one that would have required background checks on purchases at gun shows and another that would have alerted law enforcement if someone on the terror watch list attempted a purchase of a firearm, allowing the sale to be blocked for three days while the case was reviewed.

But if the GOP wants to solve its identity crisis with branding the party as completely mistrustful of the government and everything it does, then it's doomed to never win the Presidency. You can't claim the whole system is buggered from toe to tip as you also claim that you're the party to fix it, then you're just fear mongering.

Just as liberals have been painted with the emotions of the hippy movements of the 60s and 70s, this paranoia will define the GOP for decades to come if they don't buck it off of their backs. Compromise is the backbone of leadership.

Times change and so must we, if we operate our country on the literal interpretation of a 200-year-old document then we're never again going to be the great country people are saying that we were.

The Constitution isn’t a stone tablet, it’s a framework. We build on it, not leave it bare and claim it's perfect for all time.

If we do nothing out of fear of the unknown, we're destined to simply sit back and get used to seeing preventable mass murders occur. That, naturally, would not be “American,” that would not be the actions of a great nation.

To further my point, we don't allow convicted felons in this country to purchase and own firearms, but we also don't require background checks at gun shows. We closed the door but left the window open.

We were all too happy to close the door because we wrongly assume that all convicted felons are violent and will continue to commit crimes, but we left the window open because the right wing claims that it's an infringement on the rights of citizens.

However, you could successfully argue that not allowing convicted felons who have served their time in the incarceration system to purchase or own firearms is an infringement on their right to bear arms.

But the right wing doesn't do that because it doesn't fit the narrative they’re trying to create.

And that's really my whole point.

The Republican Party has turned into a party of fear mongering, government hating and paranoid anxiety. This having never been more clear than when discussing gun legislation. Any attempt to fix an issue with our lax gun laws is branded as an attempt by the left, usually specifically by Obama or Hillary, to begin abolishing the Second Amendment.

The Republican Party, and modern conservatism in general, is no longer about free market capitalism, a strong national defense or rule of law. It’s about making sure that the government moves the hell over and it’s about making sure the status quo doesn’t change after that.

They divide and scare the country because fearful people are easier to control.

They're lying to you.

There are types of speech not protected by the First Amendment, like death threats or perjury. So why aren’t there also similar exceptions to the Second Amendment, like suspected terrorists?

(I recognize that the above question comes back to the NRA, but that’s a different article.)

Requiring background checks at gun shows and not allowing a person on the FBI Terror Watch List to purchase firearms is not an infringement on the Second Amendment. Background checks at gun shows could ensure that violent felons don't purchase firearms, the FBI Terror Watch List prevention could ensure that a terrorist doesn't, say, massacre a nightclub.

Attach an amendment to a “No fly, no buy” style bill that allows for an appeals process with a state court and we’ve got the starting blocks for fixing a preventable problem. It’s not the final solution, but we have to start somewhere. Rome wasn’t built in a day.

For all the talk of wanting to beat terrorism, we sure are complacent in leaving stones unturned. It would save lives. It could have saved 49 lives in Orlando.

I'd like to add that claiming "it's a slippery slope" is not a valid form of argument, it's only use is to ignore facts and spread further mistrust. So please stop doing that.