January 18, 2013 - 3:06 pm
But we’re not supposed to be worried about him going to far, right?
Now, in the aftermath of the Connecticut school shooting, polls show the general public — and specifically the president’s core, liberal political base — expect him to use the political mandate that comes with reelection to go bold on gun control.
As this was published the same day President Obama announced his new “sweeping” gun agenda, it’s easy to infer that the liberal base isn’t going to be satisfied with just that. In other news: Juan Williams needs to have the real meaning of a “political mandate” explained to him.
It’s not paranoia if they’re really out to get you.
Come and get them ,Barrie.
I ask forbearance for a moment as I ask a pertinent question, though it may take a second to realize the applicability. And the question is:
If Scotland can get a referendum on independence, why can’t, say, Texas? Both were fully independent countries once. It certainly seems logical.
And how can you say you will bind a people in perpetual union made before they were born based on ratification votes hundreds of years old and then in the same breath say the charter itself that was ratified with those same votes is made invalid by age and changing times, and should be honored mainly in the breach? Is it not *more* logical to say that if the Union is to be perpetual and considered binding on those who never actively voted to enter it , then should not the actual clauses and amendments of the Constitution voted on be more binding than current desires? For the Constitution was never voted on by any of the present day, either, and yet we hold people to a Union they never agreed to. Shall we not then hold all to the Constitution as it is, not as they would have it–not a Living Constitution, but the historical one? For others certainly intend to hold peope to the historical Union. I say that if we are to have a “Living” Constitution, why cannot we then have a “Living” Union also, one that changes to meet the evolving needs of the citizens of a state? Now, after considering all this, would it not be better it to say that if a modern desire and a Constitutional clause clash, the desire must give away? That is–*if* you are going to hold people in the present day by decisions made by those long ago, then would it not be humble before God to say you yourself will agree to be held by different decisions made long ago?
Therefore, the Second Amendment is quite clear. There shall be no infringement. If this bothers you, I offer you the amendment process, and nothing else.
If Puerto Rico can vote to leave the United States, then why not Georgia? In their current incarnations, both became part of the current Union by war, without consent of the majority.
Sounds like a plan.
Sound like treason and an idiocy, when all that is required now is an amendment to all those effects, if you can get it.
And in not getting it, the constitution’s legitimacy is continually affirmed, even by the Confederates, implicitly, in seeking by violence to achieve what they could not by right of the law they affirmed in ratifying it in the first place.
In the end the best solution may be an amendment which suits the needs of both. It would be an amendment that repealed the second, but simultaneously allowed states to legally succeed from the union without fear of violence. Liberal states would vote to ratify because they hate the second, conservative states would vote to ratify because they’d be able to get the hell out and thus not be affected by the repeal of the 2nd and no longer have to deal with the blue states. The liberals could even tack on other parts to the amendment like a guaranteed “right” to housing or healthcare or abortion or whatever else they wanted. Whatever they thought was necessary to create their utopia. If it really came down to it sometime in the future, that would be the best way to legally and democratically solve a number of issues while preventing violence.
Sorry, that should be “secede”, spell check got me.
“Therefore, the Second Amendment is quite clear. There shall be no infringement. If this bothers you, I offer you the amendment process, and nothing else.”
‘Shall not be infringed’ is pretty clear but ‘arms’ is wide open to interpretation. Given that ordinary citizens cannot realistically oppose the US military simply by owning weapons (modern warfare having at least as much to do with intelligence capabilities, logistics, mobility, etc as it does with who has the most guns) and given that self defense can be accomplished with non-lethal weapons, the second serves no good purpose as currently construed…and causes massive harm.
“‘Shall not be infringed’ is pretty clear but ‘arms’ is wide open to interpretation.”
“Arms” is a word not honestly open to interpretation. It refers to what is useful to a soldier, single and plural. The writings and opinions of the writers and ratifiers of the constitution are quite clear about that. The 2nd in intended to protect the private ownership of”intelligence capabilities, logistics, mobility”, and it clearly covered the private ownership and operation of armed naval vessels.
It is the disrespect of that document that causes the harm.
Yes I’m sure it was disrespect for the constitution that riddled 20 children with bullets, the easy availability of the weapon that fired the bullet of course has anything to do with it…
::eyeroll::
Also I like how you say arms is not open to interpretation by… assuming that YOUR interpretation is the only one. That says a lot about you but nothing at all about the term in question.
Methinks a lot of nervous Democrat senators and representatives from Red States would beg to differ with Juan Williams and his good-time buddies.
Given that the Donks have to defend 20 Senate seats alone next year (most of them in Western and Southern states), folks like Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) are no doubt wishing that gun-control triumphalists like Juan Williams would just STFU and go away.
Would this be the “mandate” in which he received fewer votes than John McCain did in 2008?
Legacy? Who cares? One shouldn’t ruin people’s freedoms for vanity.
And it will fail, just like everything before it.
I guarantee you the dozens of Gun Appreciation Day rallies today across the country, with a combined total of hundreds of thousands, outdrew the Dim’s Day Of Worship Statism.
Once again, that story is being spiked.
Obama’s proper legacy would be his wanted poster for treason, nailed up in every Post Office.