Posted on 01/28/2011 3:03:35 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Before the Tucson shootings are lost forever in the mists of time (which, given this country's attention span, figures to be two weeks from now), we might do well to ponder the various reactions to the outrage.
President Barack Obama responded as a president should, with dignity and eloquence. I thought his speech at the memorial service in Arizona was one of his strongest. He set the bar pretty high. "If this tragedy prompts reflection and debate, as it should, let's make sure it's worthy of those we have lost," he said. Amen to that.
House Speaker John Boehner, who has set the leadership bar fairly low during his time in Congress, didn't clear it. Justifying the House not passing a resolution to honor the victims, he said:
"We feel a litany of unwanted emotions that no resolution could possibly capture." Boehner choked up a little when he said it, but he also chokes up at basketball games.
He then refused the president's offer of a ride to Arizona for the memorial, preferring to stay a few minutes at a similar Washington event before going off to a fund-raiser.
Congress responded in a congressional way. It issued sympathetic noises and then talked about increasing security -- for members of Congress. No murmur on gun control legislation.
The American people -- a lot of them -- responded by buying guns. Gun sales surged in the wake of the shooting. Apparently people see themselves standing in a shopping mall, taking dead aim on a gunman who's spraying the place with bullets, and bringing him down with a single shot. Lots of luck with that. Life seldom imitates Clint Eastwood movies. Even when it does, you rarely get to be Clint.
Sarah Palin, the Republican Party's answer to Eva Peron, took the opportunity to excoriate "journalists and pundits" who dared to link the sometimes-violent rhetoric she and her Tea Party cohort use in political battle.
"Within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not be manufacturing a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn," she said. "That is reprehensible."
In other words, she -- the Divine Sarah -- is the victim here, not the people lying in their blood in Tucson.
In any case, "blood libel" -- an ancient and absurd belief among anti-Semites that Jews use the blood of Christian children in religious rituals -- is a curious phrase to use in connection with the gunning down of a Jewish lawmaker.
"We know violence isn't the answer," said Sarah. "When we take up arms, we're talking about our vote."
Or, to quote Humpty Dumpty: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."
I guess it was just bad luck that Ms. Palin put a gun sight over Gabrielle Giffords' district during the run-up to last year's elections. Poor Palin; poor, poor Palin. She just can't catch a break.
I know I am speaking to the wind. But after all is said and done, the Tucson shootings stand as a condemnation of our gun laws -- or lack of them. To believe, as the Supreme Court seems to do, that the Constitution guarantees the right of every person to buy a weapon that can kill dozens in seconds is to believe that the men who wrote that document were idiots.
They weren't. They were 18th-century creatures of the Enlightenment who were conscious of their limitations in laying down rules for the formation of a nation.
The country would evolve, they knew, and the Constitution would have to expand and evolve with it. Weapons of the 21st century aren't those of the 18th.
Yet a majority of our Supreme Court chooses to ignore the "well-regulated Militia" part of the Second Amendment and focus exclusively on citizens' right to bear arms. For this they went to law school?
I fear that "Supreme Court" is becoming an oxymoron, like "jumbo shrimp."
>>Yet a majority of our Supreme Court chooses to ignore the “well-regulated Militia” part of the Second Amendment and focus exclusively on citizens’ right to bear arms.
>
>Ok smart guy. what does the phrase “well-regulated Militia” in the 2nd amendment mean? Go on, give us a chuuckle.
There’s a good reason that they don’t look into that phrase: it would show that the Supreme Court could be prosecuted for Treason.
It is defined in Art 3, Sec 3, of the Constitution: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
In 1973 the Supreme Court declared abortion-prohibitions to be illegal in Roe v. Wade.
From that time to 1992, there were a total of 28,511,400 abortions; of these 25 million we could multiply by .5 to get the approximation of the number of males, slightly better approximation would be .51*, which yields 14,540,814.
The selection of 1992 is not a coincidence; it is the year in which everyone born would now be 18, which is the age normally cited in State Constitutions as being in the militia. {i.e. “All able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45.”}
Now everyone knows that one way of defeating an army is to deplete its population; that is kill or maim or severely wound all who would be capable of resisting violence. (So, a massive killing of people who would otherwise be members of the Militia IS giving aid & comfort to the enemies of the States.) The above statistics show that the Supreme Court has DIRECTLY deprived the several States of more than 14 MILLION such persons.
Therefore, the Supreme Court is guilty of Treason. (Especially since it could have revisited Roe v. Wade at any time since.)
* http://www.bookofodds.com/Health-Illness/Pregnancy-Birth/Articles/A0042-Predicting-Baby-Gender
Uh no, Mr. Science, what they see is an opportunity a government can hide behind to advance the cause of tyranny, and want to get theirs while the getting's good. Moron.
Gabby's Jewish? I didn't know that.
1 — Restore the right to keep and bear arms to ex-felons.
2 — Allow felons and other criminals to carry weapons, for their own protection, within [federal] prisons.
3 — Give actual consequences to governmental-agents who would deprive a freeman [or even otherwise] of the right to keep and bear arms."
Man! I need you to explain #2 to me. Did you mean, "NOT allow"???
Nope, it WOULD allow them to carry weapons in prisons (re-read how it is written).
Now, you might be uncomfortable about the prospect, but if you’ve either been a [US] prison guard or known one then you’ll know that prisons actually have a LOT of weapons therein. The prisoners themselves are crafty about making shivs, in particular — some of the methods are quite unsanitary and that is the point in some of them: to introduce not only a wound but encourage infection.
Keep in mind that these are our current prisons I’m talking about. The “no weapons” policy is therefore more of a myth and illusion-of-safety. If we remove the federal government’s ability to prohibit people from carrying weapons wholly and completely then this illusion is destroyed. {Furthermore, it would mean that any secure/”no weapons” prisoner-facility MUST be under a State’s control.}
No, I’m sorry, I still don’t get it. Help.
Hm, ok.
Let’s put it this way: if we allow the federal government *ANY* way to deprive people of the right to keep and bear arms they will. It may start off as a small thing like them saying “well, gee, no civilian REALLY needs a minigun...” (ie 20,000-60,000 rounds per minute) and then they’ll say “well, we don’t want bad-guys to have fully automatic rifles” and so they illegalize civilian possession thereof. Then they say, well felons are bad-guys, why don’t we bar them possessing guns? And so forth, until you get where we are today.
You may think we have a lot of gun freedom, but we really don’t. In fact there’s a bit of a timebomb: in 2014 obamacare kicks in and makes it a felony for someone not to have qualifying healthcare. {As far as I know there are no exceptions for unemployment or ‘gaps’ in coverage if you want to switch providers.} Now consider that carefully, a felony for not having health insurance! And out current real unemployment rate +20% , and looking like it won’t improve any time soon.
So yes, I mistrust the federal government when it comes to weapons so much that I’d rather see every felon issued a 9mm upon internment into federal prison than have the government abridge the rights of people who have otherwise served their sentences (which is the case today). What’s the worst they could do? Kill each other and reduce the prison population? Kill prison guards? {Yeah, they could... and then the question becomes “who’ll bring them food?”}
Ha! Ha! I getcha. I guess I'd rather see the same, also - every felon issued a 9mm upon internment into federal prison than have the government abridge the rights of people. Thanks so much for taking the time to keep responding.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.