The great gun control fizzle

Politico ^ | Thursday, April 4, 2013 | Rich Lowery

[45semi]

Its not over by a long shot. Merely the 1st 'out-in-the-open' battle in whats going to be a long war.
There will be more mass shootings,
(If nothing else, the govt. will insure there are...)
and since the L.I.V. voters are now the majority, the tides turned against law-abiding gun owners.

Its now completely obvious, the goverment doesnt want citizens to be able to arm themselves against 'authority' thats quickly turning into tyranny.
If all the facts are presented, its almost impossible to come to any other conclusion.

[Enterprise]

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.

[tomkat]

U.S. Agrees To U.N. Global Gun Control

(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3004257/posts)

[Jack Hammer]

“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.

[RedMDer]

Click

[Travis McGee]

[Owl558]

“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”.

[ex-snook]

Obama aimed at the wrong target intentionally or not. He targeted gun possession instead of gun use.

[TigersEye]

They smell blood in the water.

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.

[DeWalt]

It does because of incorporation.

[nascarnation]

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.

[DeWalt]

There will be a false flag. I’m afraid Matt Brackens book will be prophetic.

[TigersEye]

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.

[TigersEye]

There will be a false flag. I’m afraid Matt Brackens book will be prophetic.

If so then that is what will be.

[Enterprise]

A real legal scholar can do better than I can. An example would be the 5th Amendment. No State can abridge, modify, or cancel the 5th Amendment rights of its citizens. The Supreme Courts of all States, and the Supreme Court of the United States are all in agreement on this. Equally, no State can abridge, modify, or cancel the 2nd Amendment rights of its citizens. Yet, State Courts, and Federal judges get fuzzy logic here. There should be no misunderstanding.

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!

[nascarnation]

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.”

[Owl558]

“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.

[DeWalt]

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.

[DeWalt]

I typed that to fast.

[TigersEye]

The economy is kind of complicated and its effects aren't equally seen by all so it's easier to spin than a lot of issues. I have an uncomfortable feeling that things will happen that will be real hard to spin or coverup though. Those suspicions are tied into my views on the consequences of 0bamaCare.

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.