Posted on 03/18/2009 6:34:45 AM PDT by Scanian
This will seem like a strange way to open a piece of commentary, but the gun owners who voted for Barack Obama believing he respected Second Amendment rights remind me of the bumbling Inspector Clouseau.
Specifically, I think of the scene from “The Return of the Pink Panther” in which Clouseau was getting a real dressing down from his superior, Chief Inspector Dreyfus. The issue was that Clouseau had naively stood by talking to a “blind” organ grinder outside a bank while the institution was being robbed. After Dreyfus pointed out that the organ grinder was the lookout for the thieves and Clouseau said that such a thing was impossible because the beggar was blind, Dreyfus asked how Clouseau knew this. Clouseau replied, “He told me so."
Quite frankly, this wasn’t nearly as stupid as believing that a member of Chicago’s socialist New Party, who was weaned in a black power church, was a gun caesar and not a gun seizer. And now Obama is in fact striking a blow against the Second Amendment. He isn’t doing anything obvious such as advocating a ban on semi-automatic rifles, however (not yet); rather, in typical Saul Alinsky “Rules for Radicals” style, he is attacking where his adversaries least expect.
So what is the latest change you can believe in? Gordon Hutchinson reports at a blog called “The Shootist” that Obama has just disallowed the Department of Defense (DOD) from selling spent brass shell casings to manufacturers of ammunition for the civilian market. This means that these companies will now have to by new brass and produce their own shell casings, a much more expensive — and wasteful — proposition.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
I think you have an excellent analysis there, MrB.
Thank you!
Each state must decide whether, in effect, to "rejoin" the Union, or go their own way. And, as a corollary, I believe any attempt to remake the Constitution in an alternative (collectivist) image ought to be met with the resistance of those pledged to preserve, protect, and defend it. Isn't it odd how "radical" that sounds today? Fifty years ago, it would have been commonplace and unremarkable to suggest that our foundational documents have fixed meaning and value and that a common duty of citizenship is to help defend them. Today, I fear I sound like a bomb-thrower, and I am hardly that.
I certainly do. And I believe that even the most dependent, yet able, people will support themselves when we refuse to.
Many studies have proven that a lead bullet leaches about 3” into the surrounding soil. Lead and lead oxide are NOT water soluble and are NOT a danger to the water supply.
“what the government is NOT allowed to do TO you.”
They were too high minded when they wrote the Bill of Rights. They should have put in about 40 more restrictions on government.
They actually did that in reverse*, but the left has twisted the meaning. The left would twist ANY restrictions or wording, however, to suit their agenda.
*Reverse: By defining a specific set of things that the gov’t COULD do, and flat out stating (10th amendment) that they can’t do anything else.
No sir not an anarchist, a person who wants to be left alone but have enough govt. to ensure that others who are not so inclined cannot violate your liberty without consequence is not by any means a anarchist . That person is a classic liberal (note the lower case l ) An anarchist is a fool who thinks that you have the right to do anything you want but not accept the consequences of your actions. Do not confuse the rabble you see in the various rent-a-mobs that claim to be anarchists with what real anarchy is.
It is just another name for the law of the jungle.
his job is to uphold the constitution. so far he is going around shooting holes in it.
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.