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 ...
That headline, although technically correct, leaves a lot to be desired.
Yes, nobama said he'd be a traitor once more and sign the piece of sh1t.
Fortunately, it won't become law without the Senate's okay and, apparently, that ain't happening.
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”
I see, I see. Seems common-sensical. The Bill-of-Rights is the Bill-of Rights no matter where you are in the Union.
So then, how can States vote to nullify/not implement obamacare since Justice Roberts ruled the law is a constitutional tax? Aren’t the States obligated to provide equal protection of the laws?
Unfortunatly, you are correct, our government enforces what they like and ignores what they dont. Precious few of our politicians even give a crap about this Constitution stuff.
“...Feudal society was just gangs of armed men holding strong points. Most realized they needed serfs to grow food for them and their horses...”
As feudalism evolved it became a very complicated patchwork of serfs, freed, and indentured farmers and tradesmen governed by guilds and the nobles. The nobles had their sphere, the clergy theirs, and people theirs. By the late medeival people generally guarded their ‘rights’ and privileges accumulated over generations. Very facinating.
Totalitarian anarchy = despotism to me. This is what tyranny looks like.
They are upset because the left's attempts to exploit the deaths of several school children didn't result in as big an infringement on liberty as they had hoped.
We here in Colorado and those in Connecticut just had a significant share of our freedoms "fizzled" away.
Not fizzling in CT, the fascists have won the day and are dancing on the graves of children murdered by a nut doomed by psychotropic drugs.
Yeah, it bothers me too.
I'm worried that Obama's Chicago, progressive machine is now firmly entrenched in Colorado.
I don't know if we'll ever have a believable election outcome again.
Kalorado is Kalifornia TWO
“It won’t matter unless the laws they passed are repealed”
That’s a possibility if the legislatures change hands, although I would not bet on either NT or CT. Being run by RATs is endemic in those states. The other possibility is that the SCOTUS will finally stop picking at the scab that is the 2A and make a definitive ruling. Since the 2A is quite specific, the states should be proscribed from many ANY gun law. The idea that you are at risk of arrest as you travel from state to state by virtue of the disconnect in the laws, is just nuts!
Well, wrong way for tyrants. Right way for the people that matter.
...which is actually far MORE dangerous than bans on cosmetic features or mag capacity. Don't be bought off.
It's safer to start with that as your default premise and only become convinced their motives are benign when there's actual proof of it. We're the ones that get the benefit of the doubt, not them.
I think the biggest problem is that courts fail to recognize two things:
Incidentally, with regard to questions of Congressional authority, a proper remedy would be to have jurors recognize that the boundaries of federal authority extend not only to what statutes Congress may legitimately pass, but the cases in which it may legitimately have them enforced. For example, if a statute claims authority under the "interstate commerce" clause, federal prosecutors should have to convince a jury that the particular actions of the defendant interfered with good-faith efforts on the part of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce without excessive intrusion on states' powers or individual rights.
With regard to the Second Amendment, there could be some legitimate gray areas (e.g. requiring that ammunition which is headstamped ".380 Auto" and tendered for commercial sale must, when fired in a certain barrel, produce pressures within a certain range). In evaluating the legitimacy of a regulation, the fundamental question should be whether those promoting it are endeavoring to increase or decrease the effectiveness of people's armament. Regulations which represent a good-faith effort to help people arm themselves more effectively (e.g. by making it easier to know what ammunition will work safely in their firearm) may be legitimate; those which represent a bad-faith effort to make arms less affordable are not.
As a juror, I do understand that, and would apply that standard when relevant. Filburn would have had nothing to fear from me. Or Raich.
Thank you for that scholarly post. I read through it at least three times, and will probably read it three times more. It was THAT GOOD!
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.