Tuesday August 30, 2016
Jump to content
I hate to ruin the mood and yank us back to the topic at hand, but I offer this in response to Mr Eby's remarks:
I, too, am all for drug addicts having the right to do whatever they want with their bodies... right up until that privilege interferes with my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
As long as the most addictive drugs are lethal, they will remain illegal. And as long as they are illegal, prices on the black market will remain high and addicts will be forced to do illegal things in order to support their habits. That often means stealing things from us while we're away from our homes, robbing us when we're caught out and about unsuspecting, and even killing us if we're foolish enough to attempt to defend our lives or our property.
Even Pollyanna eventually had to wake up and smell the coffee...
(2 of 2)
Those who dare ask us to tone it down would do well themselves not just to sit down, shut up and allow us our celebration, but they might take a moment to read and reflect, maybe some for the first time, on the Declaration of Independence that we, as a nation, honor tomorrow.
They might learn what we know instinctively… that we are all equal… that winners and losers are not for the government to choose… that the prerogatives we enjoy in our daily lives are the natural rights shared by all children of God, not dispensations handed out selectively by a heckling, judgmental overlord… that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness belongs to every being, even and especially the unborn… that the very government that they straddle today was created by us, that it is temporary for them, that it endures only as long as they enjoy our consent, and that ultimately it exists solely to secure those rights for the People, not for the government.
We should all tell Reich, respectfully, to go pound sand. CELEBRATE! With all the enthusiasm and joy that we can muster! CELEBRATE! Let these fear-stricken pretenders know that we are proud of our heritage, and we are thankful to those who fought for our independence. We celebrate today not just for past patriots and for ourselves, but to keep alive for future generations the American Spirit of freedom and democracy, and to remind the world that, despite what our would-be masters strive to conceal, America remains a nation of laws, history's brightest beacon of hope and individual liberty… that we are and always will be the leaders of the free world.
(1 of 2)
So, it seems that former Clinton Administration Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich thinks we should all "tone it down" this Fourth of July for fear that such a national display of patriotism might be seen as offensive by some, what with all the flag-waving, beer-drinking, and fireworks displays. They do sound alarmingly like guns, after all.
Are we taken aback by this sentiment? Yes… but not surprised. I think we've all come to know by now that this administration, this president, all of his partisan appointees, and his legions of sycophant hangers-on, like Reich, go out of their way to offend us every-day, patriotic Americans under the tired guise of tolerance, inclusivity and diversity.
By the very nature of their ingrained, self-hating, anti-American philosophies, they are less concerned with how we here at home feel about our national identity and the legacy of our traditions than they are fearful about how a timid, submissive, impotent, and progressively more irrelevant presidency is viewed by their Fellow Travelers across the globe.
It's not that they've forgotten… it's that they simply do not care about the meaning behind the holiday, about what it means when We, The People, celebrate Independence Day, about what it is exactly that are declaring our independence from… a monarchical government on the march, intent on imposing utopian collectivism, leaving unprecedented and increasingly oppressive federal footprints on virtually every aspect of our public and private lives.
That's not just empty oratory. Congress does not use (or abuse) the amendment process because anything it proposed would have to be ratified by both chambers of 38 state legislatures before it would become the law of the land. Do you know what the odds are of that happening? Well, my calculator doesn't have enough negative decimal places either, but I'll tell you this... when the government wants to infringe on our rights by granting itself more power, a wider scope, and broader jurisdiction, it's a whole lot easier to allow one of the federal regulatory agencies to do it, like the IRS or the EPA, and then sit back and watch as a politicized Supreme Court rubber stamps the infringement.
That's not the procedure that the Founders envisioned... that's not the process proscribed in Article V. Just as is the requirement for Congress, any proposal from a Convention of States would still have to be approved by 38 state houses before a single word is changed in the Constitution... and all that it takes to kill any "crazy" ideas is for just 13 of those chambers, either a state house or a state senate, to do nothing. They wouldn't even have to vote against it. All they'd have to do is adjourn for the day and go home... case closed.
Are we fools, someone above arrogantly asked? Am I one of them? If so, I'm proud to be counted among the "fools" who share the vision of the Framers of the Constitution. They included Article V for a reason... to provide the states with the authority to propose remedies to errors discovered in the process of self-governance, and to do so independent of and without interference from Congress, because they KNEW that the day would come when the federal government would grow to a point that it would attempt to put itself beyond the reach of the people in the states, and at that point, it would either fail or refuse to respond to the wants and needs of the states.
But, don't take my word for it... I respectfully recommend to all readers - except, of course, those who are more afraid of their fellow American citizens than they are of the federal government, and those who think that they know more than the brave souls who founded this, the most perfect form of self-governance in all of history - to visit the website of the Convention of States Project. http:ConventionOfStates.com
We seem to have swerved off topic here...well, off the REAL topic. I think the question as to whether or not More Gun Control was "The Answer" was rhetorical. My assumption is that anyone familiar with, let's say Chicago, for example, just knows empirically that gun control does not solve gun violence. Chicago undeniably has the strictest gun control laws in the country, while, nonetheless, enjoying the highest gun violence rate in the nation.
The real point was the need to clarify the Second Amendment, so as to take away once and for all this red herring diversion that gun-grabbers drag out every chance they get. Once the government is deprived of "More Gun Control" as its knee-jerk, go-to reaction to gun violence, it will be forced to come up with a new response... and maybe... just maybe that response will be a relevant one. In the instance of the Orlando shooting, a responsible government would immediately focus on the shooter and the source of his hate, rather than attempt to misdirect everyone's attention instead to the tool that he used to express that hate.
Now back to the issue, to that of an Amendments Convention itself... for those who have expressed fear and distrust of the process, all I can point to is Congress. They meet up there in DC day in, day out, and they have exactly the same power and authority that the Constitution grants specially elected delegates to an Article V Convention of States. Although the country is in terrible shape, it's not because Congress has abused the amendment process... conversely, I would submit that if they HAD used the amendment process instead of allowing our Constitution to be re-written incrementally by the judicial activism of 9 unelected Justices of the Supreme Court, we'd be a whole lot better off.
To Mike DeVirgilio - Hey Mike... pay attention... nobody has proposed that MORE GUNS would be the solution to Chicago, although it might be a proposition worthy of further consideration. The only reason Chicago was brought up was to demonstrate the stupidity of those who tout GUN CONTROL as the answer to everything evil. Chicago's pretty damned evil, and they have about as much gun control as can be crammed into an American city. How about you address the crisis of logic here, rather than try to drag everyone off again on another one of your shuffle-footed "too complex for us knuckle-draggers to understand" tangents.
To Mike DeVirgilio - Once again, Mike, you've swerved off topic and dived head first into the Left's favorite political wedge issue... Gun Control. Let me try this one more time... it's NOT about your buddy Obama and his knee-jerk "G-G-G-GUN CONTROL" reaction to every and any available gun tragedy. It's about a president acting presidential and doing something about the real cause of the incident, Radical Islamic Terrorism, whether it fits with his politically motivated, Lie-Of-The-Day denial meme or not.
We're not stupid, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself that we are... Obama is using a bogus gun control tirade as a diversion from the real issue, his failed policy to "degrade and destroy ISIL"... ferkrisakes, the man can't even SPELL it correctly, let alone address the issue!
So... if you want to discuss the real issue, I'll be more than happy to engage. Obama's gun-grabbing proclivities are not even vaguely debatable, and are, therefore, not the topic of this discussion.
Tom... I'm no lawyer, nor am I a munitions / firearms expert, but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn once, and the next morning at breakfast I actually met a lawyer and a firearms expert, so I know they exist! :)
Now, it seems perfectly plausible to me that, should such an amendments convention be called, the committee charged with the clarification and resolution of all Second Amendment conflicts would either be composed of delegates who are themselves lawyers and firearms experts, or barring that, they would certainly be advised by them, and between the bunch of them they should be able to come up with some pretty concise language that clearly defines the difference between the vast number of weapons that are suitable for civilian possession and those relatively few categories that are reserved strictly for military purposes.
And as always, thanks for your relevant comments.
@Charles Eby - Of course, no politician has ever said that that they want to take all our guns away! What sane politician would ever say such an insane thing, and then think that he/she/it would ever get re-elected?
Any one who has lived on this earth long enough to vote at least once and who still thinks that a politician -- make that ANY politician -- comes right out and says what he means, then it's voters like that who are the problem with this country!
As a follow-on to the flawed Wikipedia statistics offered by the Editor above, I've been advised of the following by a friend who apparently has been barred, without notification, from posting to this forum:
"Please ask the Editor if he has researched the number of U.S. shootings and gun deaths after taking the Democrat-run, Black and Hispanic gang-controlled, crime ridden ghettoes of Chicago, Baltimore, Newark, Detroit, Ferguson, St Louis, East LA, Watts, Omaha and Kansas City out of the picture? Maybe he's not aware, but the statistics for the rest of America was around 1%, last time I looked. Also, Kennesaw, Georgia, actually requires that every citizen be armed. Guess what? Their gun crime rate is ZERO! Oh, and he might also check out Switzerland!"
Excellent points, all… but even better, since the point the Editor was trying make is that more gun control equals less shooting deaths, and since those cities, like France, have imposed 100% gun control, I'd like to see him post THOSE gun death statistics.
I'll be waiting right here.
Last login: Sunday, July 3, 2016