Respectfully Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger
When it comes to the Second Amendment and guns, it seems that President Obama can’t make anyone happy. Ever since Obama announced his candidacy for the Presidency, the NRA has screamed that Obama will be taking away the guns. This scare tactic continued when Obama defeated John McCain for the Presidency. Just what has Barack Obama done to make the NRA and gun owners frightened for their guns? The simple answer to this question is nothing. The head of the National Rifle Association, Mr. Wayne LaPierre actually admitted recently that Obama has done nothing to attack gun owner’s rights to bear arms, but claims Obama’s inaction against guns is actually a conspiracy to take away guns!! ‘ “[The Obama campaign] will say gun owners — they’ll say they left them alone,” LaPierre told an audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Friday. “In public, he’ll remind us that he’s put off calls from his party to renew the Clinton [assault weapons] ban, he hasn’t pushed for new gun control laws… The president will offer the Second Amendment lip service and hit the campaign trail saying he’s actually been good for the Second Amendment.” “But it’s a big fat stinking lie!” the NRA leader exclaimed. “It’s all part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and destroy the Second Amendment in our country.” ‘ Raw Story
Now, before anyone thinks I am making this stuff up, the linked site includes a video clip wherein Mr. LaPierre verbalizes this alleged reverse conspiracy. Mr. LaPierre makes a point of throwing in the necessary names of alleged liberal co-conspirators to rev up his base. ‘ “Sotomayor, Kagan, Fast & Furious, the United Nations, executive orders. Those are the facts we face today… President Obama and his cohorts, yeah, they’re going to deny their conspiracy to fool gun owners. Some in the liberal media, they are already probably blogging about it. But we don’t care because the lying, conniving Obama crowd can kiss our Constitution!” ‘
The lying, conniving Obama crowd as Mr. LaPierre labels them has not done anything to harm the Second Amendment rights that the NRA claims to be at risk. I was interested in the last few words of LaPierre’s quotation above. The phrase “kiss our Constitution” appears to lay claim that the NRA and its followers own the Constitution and its protections. I could have sworn that my law school Constitutional professors taught me that the Constitution protects all citizens, but maybe I heard them wrong. But, I digress.
As the Raw Story article suggests, President Obama has actually taken heat from his own supporters over his alleged conspiracy to not take away the guns. NPR Does Mr. LaPierre provide any evidence of this bizarre claim? None that I could find. Maybe you will have better luck than me in finding evidence of presidential actions to hide President Obama’s intentions and/or actions of stealing legal guns from their owners.
I have to admit that if you read the comments section of the NPR article that details how the Left is disappointed with Obama’s inaction on gun control, you will read almost nothing except gun owners claiming that Obama’s words of inaction are actually code words that the End is Near and the Sky is Falling for gun owners! Just what will it take gun owners to ask Mr. LaPierre for evidence of his wild claims? I, for one would love to hear his answer to that question. I understand that candidate and President Obama may have stayed away from the 2nd Amendment issues for political reasons, but where is the evidence of this alleged conspiracy? I would think Fox News would be sending Bill O’Reilly’s reporters all over the country to uncover such a heinous conspiracy.
If Mr. Obama has not written any executive orders or supported additional legislative steps to control or take away guns since he has become President, just what is the basis for these wild claims? I realize that the NRA has a financial interest in getting gun owners scared into buying more guns, but are there other, underlying reasons why the gun owners are frightened so easily, when the facts do not support the NRA’s claims?
Respectfully submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)- Guest Blogger
Additional sources: Gun Owners of America; NRA-ILA; Pajamas Media;
Why am I not surprised. Of course the teabaggers and Randians feel that unfettered free markets without regulations will guarantee largesse for the masses. Because the super rich create jobs and have the other 99% best interest at heart.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html
Bron,
I’m sorry you’re for a non-functional government. Size is irrelevant. Functionality is the only test. Big enough to get the job done and no bigger . . . including the job of providing for the general welfare of citizens whether that fits in with your greedy philosophy or not. Our current problem isn’t size of government. It’s non-responsive, malfunctioning government that services only corporate and wealthy interests at the expense of the welfare of the whole. As to Jefferson? He would be appalled without a doubt. Just not for the reasons you think.
Gene H:
I believe in the rule of law as well. Limited government as was originally intended is the best course.
I am sorry you are a big government, cradle to grave liberal who thinks the government should handle all sorts of things it was never intended to handle.
I have a sneeking suspicion Jefferson would be appalled at the state of our government.
Slarti:
“But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
and how do you do that? It doesnt go to the next kid who comes along, it goes to the old guys and the poor for the most part. And the middle class is so stupid they think the government is giving them benefits when in reality all the government is doing is giving back some of the money it took from them in the first place.
A small fraction goes to roads, police, and fire. She is a socialist, which is fine just dont blow smoke up my ass and tell me I am on fire.
Are you a moron or an extremist?
And no I am not a liar, just expand on what she is proposing and on what you said. It ends up where I have indicated.
“maximizing the social benefits of law and governance retained by entering the social contract.”
social benefits? Like welfare, social security and socialized medicine? I dont think the founders would have gone along with that.
Bron,
Do you realize exactly what a child you look like when you repeat the statements of others in your “I know you are but what am I” mode? Not that I care. Except that it is really, really funny coming from an allegedly grown man.
An appeal to authority, even when that authority is Jefferson, is still a logical fallacy over proper logic – in this case because it lacks context. Jefferson was a brilliant and great man. He was not perfect. Neither is your copy/paste understanding of him. Jefferson believed that preserving individual liberty as much as possible was essential to the social contract. As our social contract in this country is contained in the Constitution as informed by the Declaration of Independence, you’ve conveniently forgotten Jefferson’s response to a Bill of Rights not being included in the Constitution as drafted by the Convention (from which he was absent). He said in a December 1787 letter to Madison “A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth.” He did, however, believe in the rule of law. “Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.” (Jefferson in a letter to Wilson Nicholas, 1803.) He wanted a way to balance liberties against the rule of law. Now where have I heard an idea like that before? http://jonathanturley.org/2011/09/25/second-amendment-boogey-man/#comment-273212
You don’t know what fascism is any more than you understand the nature of the social contract – which Jefferson understood far better than you do as evidenced by your superficial cherry picking. He knew the trick was to maximize liberty while maximizing the social benefits of law and governance retained by entering the social contract.
You acting out like a child saying “Daddy said so!” has absolutely no relevance to finding solutions whatsoever other than as a guide of what not to do, Bron. However, to those capable of rational thought, it does say a lot about you and your Objectivist religion that is the distorting lens by which you look at all things. The prism of “you and you first”. Just like a child. And a spoiled selfish one at that.
Bron,
Who pays the most taxes EXPRESSED as a portion of their income? Who pays the least?
You said:
In response to me saying:
Anyone with two functioning brain cells can see that I said absolutely nothing about Ms. Warren having the right to do anything whatsoever, so the question becomes: Are you an idiot or a liar?
http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html
def need more chocolate….QUICK!!!!!!
NATURAL RIGHTS, Self-government
and.-Every man. and every body
of men on earth. possesses the right of self-government.
They receive it with their being
from the hand of nature. Individuals exercise
it by their single will; collections of men
by that of their majority; for the law of the
majority is the natural law of every society
of men. When a certain description of men
are to transact together a particular business.
the times and places of their meetinlot and
separating, depend on their own will; they
make a part of the natural right of self-government.
This, like all other natural rights,
may be abridged or modified in its exercise
by their own consent. or by the law of those
who depute them, if they meet in the right
of others; but as far as it is not abridged
or modified, they retain it as a natural right,
and may exercIse them in what form they
please, either exclusively by themselves, or in
association with others, or by others altogether,
as they shall agree.-OFFICIAL OPINION.
vii, 496. FORD ED., v, 2Olj. (1790.)
NATURAL BIGHTS, Authority
over.-our rulers can have * * * authority
over such natural rights only as we
have submitted to them.-NoTES ON VIRGINIA.
viii, 400. FORD ED., iii, 263. (1782.)
NATURAL RIGHTS, Equal
Rights va.-No man has a natural right to
commit aggression on the equal rights of
another; and this is all from which the laws
ought to restrain him.-To F. W. GILMER.
vii, 3. FORD ED., x, 32. (M., 1816.)
NATURAL BIGHTS, Retention
of.-The idea is quite unfounded that on entering
into society we give up any natural
rights.-To F. W. GILMER. vii, 3. FORD ED.,
X. 32. (M.. 1816.)
This guy Jefferson gets it, how come you dont? He says you can change it up as long as you dont infringe on any one’s rights. But that is pretty limiting. So you cannot go all socialist and make people buy national health insurance and you cant tax the piss out them (The DOI says that basically by talking about a right to Life).
Let me know when you figure out about individual rights and all that implies. Right now you and Slarti are just a couple of intellectual teenagers wanting to save the world at the expense of others. Problem is though, totalitarian societies limit human potential and life for that matter.
You 2 enjoy your Fascism.
Gene, Slarti, et al: Looks as if we have another clinical example of the Dunning–Kruger effect. Heh!
Bron1, October 2, 2011 at 12:57 pm
Slarti:
who pays the most in taxes in this country? the Top 10%.
—————————————————
would who pays the most in taxes in this country? the Top 10%., be a collective #????
could you provide that number and your source?
could you pass the chocolate please……
Gene H:
As to what you and Slarti think of me personally? The “Bron Cares What You Think” Ride has minimum age, height, intelligence and rationality requirements. Sadly, neither of you meet the requirements to get on board.
sLARTI:
“similarly, Ms. Warren is far smarter than the average of 300 million people who are acting in their perceived best interests (which is rarely truly in their best interest).”
So Warren by implication should be listened to by the “unwashed” masses because we are too stupid to make our own decisions for ourselves and our families.
I havent laid out a straw man at all. Because given her rhetoric she thinks she is smarter and she thinks she knows what is good for people and god damn it she is going to give us what we should have for our own best interest (as she perceives it to be).
I think you would go along with that because you think she is right.
I dont see any straw man there at all. Not even a red herring.
I think you wish I had laid out a straw man.
People should be listening to Warren–just like they should have listened to Brooksley Born during the Clinton Administration. Unfortunately, Born was pushed out by the likes of Larry Summers, Robert Rubin, and Alan “The Oracle” Greenspan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKGTGji8zhs
Why is it that so many men dislike or fear Elizabeth Warren–even some in the Obama administration? WHY? Because she tells people what is actually happening on Wall Street–and she doesn’t let Congress or the bankers intimidate her. She’s a woman to be silenced! She’s my kind of gal.
I’ll definitely contribute to her campaign and work hard to see that she gets elected to the Senate.
Bron,
Wow – another straw man from you. How surprising.
I said Elizabeth Warren was smarter than the average of 300 million people (and, in fact, I think she’s smarter that 99.99% of individual Americans in her specialty). I didn’t say that she should therefore be obeyed mindlessly, but I think we would be wise to listen to people like her when making policy decisions (and hope that she is put in the position of making those decisions herself) – as opposed to people like you.
Bron,
And you clearly don’t understand the concept of a social contract. You’ve again made up a definition to suit your needs. What you advocate is precisely a path to anarchy.
As to what you and anon think of me personally? The “Gene Cares What You Think” Ride has minimum age, height, intelligence and rationality requirements. Sadly, neither of you meet the requirements to get on board.
Slarti:
do you hear yourself? You just stated that one person has the right to tell a bunch of other people what to do just because they are smarter. I can find a person smarter than Warren and now her view needs to be subordinated to the superior intellect.
Wow another totalitarian outed.
Gene H:
you dont give up your liberty to enter into a social contract. You give the government some power to protect you from force by others and you submit yourself to an objective rule of law. You do not give up your liberty.
What Warren and others want is for us to give up our liberty by forcing us to behave in ways that suit her vision and not our own personal vision. She and people like her do not believe in objective law.
You keep saying I am advocating anarchy, I am not a Libertarian, you are either doing it because you are disingenuous or too stupid to understand the difference. Anon thinks the latter, I believe it is the former.
Gene,
Sadly rationality is an apparently an extreme position in America these days…