Posted on 12/15/2022 1:35:21 PM PST by Carriage Hill
The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security held a hearing Thursday on finding a solution to gun violence, and the difference of opinion between Democrats and Republicans was put on full display. Passions ran high given the sensitivity of the issues involved, as liberal lawmakers focused on weapons and conservatives on the people who use them. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-La., a former judge who handled felony cases, was in the latter group and focused on the need to instill morality in people, citing Judeo-Christian principles. He went so far as to say it is the bedrock of the nation's founding principles, and that the effectiveness of the Constitution depends on it.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The people who can control themselves ought to be able to defend themselves from the people who cannot. Hence, the Second Amendment.
The difference of opinion between Democrats and Republicans.
Communism Vs Liberty
The democrats can’t end the Constitution fast enough they loved how it worked for their hero Hitler.
Stalin taps box
The same is true of the Second Amendment. Remove all the unconstitutional restrictions on firearms ownership and carrying. It's not a coincidence that areas with the most restrictions have the most crimes perpetrated with a firearm.
The Constitution won’t work unless people are ready to defend it from those who refused to be governed by it.
That sounds good to me; where do we meet?
Without such a foundation, man has no incentive to do the right things.
Will it take a General Pinochet to do that?
If the Communists have taken over the schools as some might argue then my question becomes very operative because use of any normal legal channel ties up the rapidity and or effectiveness of the change needed in our educational system.
I’ve said for the past several years that we need kid control, not gun control.
In a Republic people have both rights and civic responsibilities. In a police state, no one has any real rights, and not much responsibility other than ratting out fellow citizens and paying taxes.
Seems like he’s getting his excuse ready for when he fails to protect the Second Amendment. Trying to get people used to failure and expect it.
Only a certain demographic has the problem.
Sir, you are wrong. Bigly.
My God-given right to self-defense, to speak my mind, and to gather in the public square isn't conditional upon the mindset and behavior of the mentally-defective class.
What about the 10 Commandments? Are they also hinging on behavior? Shall we declare them null and void because a large percentage of people divorce, are adulterous, and or have no honor for their parents?
That statement is one of the more collectivist/idiotic statements in recent memory.
He's basically saying It Takes A Village.
Great....Republicans are channeling Hillary. Next, they'll be quoting Marx.
“He’s right.”
He’s wrong.
Would you want to face a society rife with illiterate, feral idiots without a gun? Not me.
What I am sure he MEANT to say (if he’d stop and think before running his mouth) is this: “Without a change to how children are taught, we’re going to need the Second Amendment more than ever, and people will be forced to actively exercise it more than ever”
“We gotta get back to teaching there is a right or wrong or, I agree with everybody here, we’re going to have to get rid of the Second Amendment, we’re going to have to get rid of Freedom of Speech, we’re going to have to get rid of freedom of assembly,” Gohmert said. “This Constitution won’t work the way we are teaching children.” …So take away everyone’s rights because the state-run educational system is not teaching the kids right, seriously?
The constitution was intended for a moral people. We don’t have that.
No; more than one “demographic”.
Opus?
I'm so old I remember the Dims seeing who among them could be the loudest yelling #MeToo!.
Isn’t dissolving the security of American citizens and their right created by the Constitution the ability to protect themselves, done at any level, the act of insurrection?
Which means to me is that by removing the second amendment they are cutting the act of a state to protect itself from anything from violent crime which has nothing to do with the federal government to foreign attacks which the federal government would at that point not be able to form a federal force inside the state like the nation guard. So by not allowing the state to protect itself, the federal government would be creating the act. So who tries them?
wy69
Get rid of 2nd A.
Well, there go ALL weapons. You can’t have knives, either.
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.