The Right To Keep And Bear Arms Shall NOT Be Infringed
I don’t enjoy disagreeing with the Wall Street Journal, but sometimes I have to.
“The GOP’s Gun Control Misfire” argues that the Republicans shouldn’t filibuster Harry Reid’s gun bill because it hands Obama a victory.
In an instant, these GOP wizards have taken the onus off Senate Democrats and made Republicans the media’s gun-control focus. Mr. Reid is now bellowing about Republicans blocking a vote, and Democrats such as Mark Pryor (Arkansas), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana) and Mark Begich (Alaska) don’t have to declare themselves on provisions that might be unpopular at home.
Meanwhile, Mr. Obama can retreat to his favorite pose of portraying Republicans as obstructionists, which pressures GOP moderates like Maine Senator Susan Collins. “And yet, some folks back in Washington are already floating the idea that they may use political stunts to prevent votes on any of these reforms,” Mr. Obama said on Monday—without mentioning that the “folks” who oppose his bill are Democrats.
Obama’s gonna do what he’s gonna do. Which is lie. The media, and Republicans, should call him on this bullshit. But they don’t. THAT is the problem, not that the GOP is handing them a victory.
If conservatives want to prove their gun-control bona fides, the way to do it is to debate the merits and vote on the floor. They can always filibuster the final bill if they want to, but it makes no sense to paint themselves into a political box canyon before even knowing what they’re voting on.
There are no merits to debate. That’s the problem. The senate has NO RIGHT to debate the Second amendment. As Mark Levin said last night, there is no up or down vote on the Constitution.
They have NO RIGHT. Divided and limited government. Federalism.
The second amendment is not an irrelevant statute for the idiots in Washington to debate. Good LORD, how can we possible trust one of our basic rights to those clowns who are wrecking in our country in just about every way?
And Obama is the worst. Andrew Malcolm breaks it down for you.
Obama was out of town again, up in Hartford for a photo op with Connecticut legislators and some Newtown families. Of course, it wasn’t so much about everyone coming together to agree on new safeguards to protect children anymore, as he talked way back in December. No, as usual, this latest campaign rally was all about him. The usual suspects yelled their love. Obama mentioned himself 40 times.
And Obama told the crowd: “The day Newtown happened was the toughest day of my presidency.” Poor baby. He had to make a statement in the Briefing Room that day, tearing up on cue and promising “meaningful action.” He ordered federal flags to half-staff. Was probably a little tough too that day for the families of the 26 Newtown victims.
The toughest day in his presidency? You’ve got to be fucking me.
Obama doesn’t actually believe in the right to own arms. Sure, he “says” he believes in the second amendment, but only because he HAS to. Just as he had to say, before he was elected president, that he believed that marriage was between a man and a woman. He HAD to, but that position actually reflected not on his beliefs, but political necessity. Now- NOW – he must support “gay” marriage, so that where we’re at.
But Obama does NOT believe that private citizens should own guns. He said so in the 1990’s.
And there are no merits to Reid’s bill, even though I haven’t seen it. And the police agree.
• Asked which measure would help most in preventing large-scale public shootings, a plurality (28.8%) said more-permissive concealed-carry policies for civilians. The second and third choices were also not on the Obama agenda: more-aggressive institutionalization of the mentally ill (19.6%) and more armed guards (15.8%). Only then do we get improved background screening for gun purchasers, (14%), followed by longer prison terms for gun-related violent crimes (7.9%). Bringing up the rear were tighter limits on weapons sales (1.5%) and legislative restrictions on “assault weapons” and magazines (0.9%).
Jeff Goldstein puts the entire filibuster/don’t filibuster argument into perspective in his special way. “Rep. Peter King says Senate gun control filibuster would be ‘just wrong’–
Of course it is. Because it blunts the force of an agitated mob — stoked on by emotional appeals and grieving props being shuttled in on taxpayer-funded jets to lobby lawmakers to attack liberty — from overriding natural rights that are meant to be protected from government. Which in turn speaks to limits on governmental power.
His conclusion? “Lord. Are we ever fucked.”
And not in the good way.
Related: To insure the proggies get their way in the future,they’re miseducating and indoctrinating our children.