(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3004257/posts)
Posted on 04/04/2013 2:56:40 PM PDT by upchuck
Rarely has the political class whipped itself into a lather that has abated so quickly.
The president has certainly done his part. He has held rallies. He has used children as props. He has held events with parents of the little victims of Newtown. He has shamed the nation for its alleged forgetfulness over the terrible events of that day and urged members of Congress to “join me in finishing the job — for our communities and, most importantly, for our kids.”
The needle of public opinion is moving the wrong way. CBS News found that support for stricter guns laws dropped from 57 percent to 47 percent, and CNN from 52 percent to 43 percent.
The headline on a CNN story on the latest trend in polling was titled, Polls Suggest Congress Might Have Waited Too Long on Gun Control. It has waited all of four months.
But the assault weapons ban has been deep-sixed by Democrats in the Senate. Same with any limit on the size of magazines. The argument now is all about increasing the reach of background checks...
The gun control debate has shown the president again to be hopelessly detached as a legislative mechanic and ineffectual as a shaper of public opinion.
The president’s push for new gun laws looks, at this juncture, like a complete fizzle. He has failed to sway red-state Democrats and failed to maintain the heightened public support for new gun control laws. The most concrete effect of his advocacy has been, if the anecdotal evidence is to be believed, to stoke increased gun purchases on fears that the government wants to ban guns. He set out to lead a great crusade for gun control and ended up the best friend the gun industry ever had.
(Excerpt) Read more at dyn.politico.com ...
Totalitarian anarchy would be a good description of what is going on now. Feudalism would be the goal down the road to the totalitarian anarchists. It would mean that there were no elections, and that the common people could only possess what the totalitarian anarchists allow them to possess.
(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3004257/posts)
“The president has certainly done his part.”
Yes; he’s done his part to single-handedly abrogate the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution.
He’s done his part to concentrate more power in his own hands than that held by any other president in history.
He’s done his part to redraw the United States as some sort of latter-day, Marxist retread.
As for anything productive, he hasn’t done jack sh*t in the last four-plus years.
“The Constitution prohibits the Government from doing what some of these States have recently done.”
Doesn’t the Constitution prevent CONGRESS for doing what these States have done?
And doesn’t the 10th Amendment give States the power not specifically delegated to Congress?
I agree with you generally, but am a little confused.
Maybe a knowledgable 10th Amendment supporter can explain why the 10th Amendment doesn’t apply to the States on the issue of gun “control”.
Obama aimed at the wrong target intentionally or not. He targeted gun possession instead of gun use.
There is blood in the water. They haven't yet realized that it's their own blood and by Nov. 2014 they may have bled out if they don't do something to staunch it soon.
It does because of incorporation.
2014 midterms should be an interesting “shootout”
You will have motivated 2nd Amendment supporting voters (similar to 2010 with anti-Obamacare voters) opposed by the huge OFA financial push to capture the House for the final 2 yrs of Caliph Baraq’s rule.
There will be a false flag. I’m afraid Matt Brackens book will be prophetic.
By this time next year I expect there to be anger over 0bamaCare that will eclipse the gun control backlash. Maybe not, we will see.
If so then that is what will be.
The 10th Amendment argument sounds good to the left, but here is the sticky part. If Congress and the States cannot ignore the rights of the people under the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, then under what authority can they ignore their rights under the Second Amendment? Why is the 10th Amendment something that the States can use as an excuse to deprive people of their right to keep an bear arms? If the States, under the 10th Amendment can deprive people of their rights under one Amendment, then the States can deprive people of their rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, speedy trials, the right to an attorney, the right to privacy, and any other rights that they are presently BOUND and SWORN to UPHOLD AND DEFEND!
Both issues should be strong motivators.
I doubt we’ll get any traction on the economy, since the MSM has already decided:
“It’s the strongest recovery in US history”
or
“It would have been the strongest recovery in US history if the Republicans hadn’t cut the budget.”
“It does because of incorporation.”
Looked it up. Very interesting. Thank you, that helps my ongoing education.
OK, so now I have this question:
I just read an article stating that North Carolina was considering a bill that reserved their right to establish a religion and make religious laws. How come this doesn’t fall under incorporation?
Sounds like such a law would be flat-out unconstitutional on its face.
It will shot down and has no life. This is where politicians should be held accountability for wasting the tax payers money on frivolous crap.
I typed that to fast.
Shamnesty is likely to be a third negative for Dems, IMO, behind 0bamaCare and gun control. If the GOP can't pick up seats right and left then they are done.
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.