Elections Have Consequences: UPDATED 10-16-12

780 25

With the election only about a month away, it may be instructive to contemplate the likely consequences of an extension of the Obama era, particularly regarding American’s fundamental freedom that enables the preservation of life itself: the Second Amendment.


In a July 6, 2011 PJ Media article titled The Future of Obama’s Stealth Gun Control, I catalogued Mr. Obama’s unswerving past and present support for every gun control measure imaginable. I also suggested that if reelected, Mr. Obama would attack the Second Amendment through public persuasion, legislation, the administrative state, environmentalists and similar pressure groups, the imperial courts and the international community. To date, he has used all of those methods, but to relatively little effect, unless one considers the Fast and Furious debacle, with its hundreds of victims on both sides of the border to be effective, as Mr. Obama and the Legacy media surely do not.

There remains one sure method by which Mr. Obama can essentially obliterate the Second Amendment: Supreme Court appointments. There is little doubt in a second term Mr. Obama could appoint multiple justices, and almost certainly overturn the current narrow balance for freedom in Second Amendment jurisprudence. That such a reversal would occur is unmistakable to those aware of the reasoning—such as it is—of the progressive wing of the Supreme Court.

In a December 14, 2010 PJ Media article titled On The Court: Leftist Justice vs. The Rule of Law, I wrote of a then-current interview of Justice Stephen Breyer, noting:

“Elections have consequences,” said Barack Obama upon becoming president. Among those consequences is the ability of any president to appoint justices of the Supreme Court, as well as a great many other federal judges, based on criteria rational or irrational, honorable or dishonorable, or no criteria other than flipping a coin or tossing a dart at a board festooned with the names of candidates.

On Dec. 12, the consequences of the election of Mr. Obama were illuminated in stark relief on Fox News Sunday during Chris Wallace’s interview of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, currently hawking his book Making Our Democracy Work. Wallace wisely questioned Justice Breyer on the Second Amendment. His answers and evasions were illuminating — and frightening.”

That article reflected Justice Breyer’s beliefs as expressed in his dissenting opinion in the Heller Decision, wherein a 5 to 4 majority of the Court affirmed the Second Amendment as a fundamental right applying to individuals. While many Americans understand Heller confirmed that individual right, they know little of the reasoning behind it, and particularly, the reasoning opposing it, which, considering the very real possibility of a second term for a Mr. Obama unrestrained by any need to earn voter approval, could prove a destructive lack of information.

The first dissent in the case was written by Justice Stevens and joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer. Justice Stevens begins by acknowledging the Second Amendment “…protects a right that can be enforced by individuals,” but proceeds to render that “right” utterly meaningless in application. He writes, with an Obamaesque twist of logic:

“The text of the Amendment, its history, and our decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939), provide a clear answer to that question. The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia.”

Justice Stevens further argues that the majority, in affirming the individual right to keep and bear arms, engaged in a “dramatic upheaval in the law,” invoking Justice Cardozo who wrote the

“labor of judges would be increased almost to the breaking point if every past decision could be re-opened in every case, and one could not lay one’s own course of bricks on the secure foundation of the courses laid by others who had gone before him.”

One might be misled into thinking Justice Stevens was arguing for stare decisis—respect for precedent—but this is as much a misunderstanding of his reasoning and purpose as is taking Mr. Obama’s rhetoric for the plain meaning of his words. Affirming the plain language of the Second Amendment thus becomes judicial activism. Assailing the majority’s understanding of ‘the people” as referring to individuals, he engages in truly tortured reasoning, suggesting conflict where none exists:

“The centerpiece of the Court’s textual argument is its insistence that the words ‘the people’ as used in the Second Amendment must have the same meaning, and protect the same class of individuals, as when they are used in the First and Fourth Amendments. According to the Court, in all three provisions—as well as the Constitution’s preamble, section 2 of Article I, and the Tenth Amendment—’the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified sub-set.’ Ante, at 6. But the Court itself reads the Second Amendment to protect a ’subset’ significantly narrower than the class of persons protected by the First and Fourth Amendments; when it finally drills down on the substantive meaning of the Second Amendment, the Court limits the protected class to ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens,’ ante, at 63. But the class of persons protected by the First and Fourth Amendments is not so limited; for even felons (and presumably irresponsible citizens as well) may invoke the protections of those constitutional provisions. The Court offers no way to harmonize its conflicting pronouncements.”

This is a straw man that might make even Mr. Obama blush with embarrassment, for the majority opinion makes clear that no right is absolute, which is a well-settled principle of constitutional law. Yet starting from this shaky platform, Justice Stevens argues the collective right interpretation:

“In the First Amendment, no words define the class of individuals entitled to speak, to publish, or to worship; in that Amendment it is only the right peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, that is described as a right of ‘the people.’ These rights contemplate collective action. While the right peaceably to assemble protects the individual rights of those persons participating in the assembly, its concern is with action engaged in by members of a group, rather than any single individual. Likewise, although the act of petitioning the Government is a right that can be exercised by individuals, it is primarily collective in nature. For if they are to be effective, petitions must involve groups of individuals acting in concert.”

Therefore, the previously acknowledged individual right has disappeared and the Justice’s true values are revealed:

“When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated by its drafters or is encompassed within its terms.”

Obviously unsatisfied, Justice Breyer authored his own dissent (joined by Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg), but in more down-to-earth, and scornful, terms. He too grudgingly acknowledges the Second Amendment says something or other about an individual right, but attacks it with more condescension than Justice Stevens.

“Although I adopt for present purposes the majority’s position that the Second Amendment embodies a general concern about self-defense, I shall not assume that the Amendment contains a specific untouchable right to keep guns in the house to shoot burglars. The majority, which presents evidence in favor of the former proposition, does not, because it cannot, convincingly show that the Second Amendment seeks to maintain the latter in pristine, un- regulated form.”

Even though he admits that the District of Columbia’s gun laws essentially outlawed handguns and made it all but impossible for any gun to be used for self defense, even in the home, he spends much of his dissent downplaying the need for self-defense and the utility of firearms—particularly handguns—in that pursuit. His reasoning utterly defies logic:

“I conclude that the District’s law burdens the Second Amendment’s primary objective little, or not at all.”

As he did in his Fox News Sunday interview, Justice Breyer thought requiring gun owners to travel to nearby or distant states to exercise a fundamental right was not in any way a burden. He could see no practical, moral or salutary use for handguns:

“That they are small and light makes them easy to steal… This symmetry suggests that any measure less restrictive in respect to the use of handguns for self-defense will, to that same extent, prove less effective in preventing the use of handguns for illicit purposes. If a resident has a handgun in the home that he can use for self-defense, then he has a handgun in the home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence.”

One might expect a member in good standing of the progressive wing of a court more than capable of discovering “emanations” within “penumbras” of being somewhat liberal in interpretation, but not where the fundament right of self-defense is concerned:

“...the self-defense interest in maintaining loaded handguns in the home to shoot intruders is not the primary interest, but at most a subsidiary interest, that the Second Amendment seeks to serve. The Second Amendment’s language, while speaking of a ‘Militia,’ says nothing of ’self-defense.’”

Justice Breyer’s conclusion makes clear his beliefs, and those of the Progressive wing of the Court:

“The argument about method, however, is by far the less important argument surrounding today’s decision. Far more important are the unfortunate consequences that today’s decision is likely to spawn. Not least of these, as I have said, is the fact that the decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States. I can find no sound legal basis for launch-ing the courts on so formidable and potentially dangerous a mission. In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.”

In the McDonald Case, following on June 28, 2010, Justice Stevens again dissented in much the same terms as those employed in Heller. In addition, Justice Breyer filed a second dissent, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor. This despite the fact the “wise Latina woman” claimed to support the Second Amendment during her confirmation hearing. This was an approach also taken by Elena Kagan when she said the Second Amendment was settled law during her confirmation hearing, yet there is little doubt of her true anti-gun sentiments.

A second Obama term would almost certainly provide the opportunity to tip the balance on freedom on the Supreme Court. Despite Justice Steven’s rhetorical support for the restraint of judicial activism and honoring the “settled law” ala Justice Kagan, the intent of the progressive wing of the court is clear.

They need not utterly invalidate the Second Amendment. Their dissents in Heller and McDonald make clear they would likely pay lip service to a nebulous individual right, yet legislate it–from the bench–utterly out of existence, rendering it a fundamental right nebulously floating in the legal ether without any application in the real world of individual Americans.

It is ultimately the Second Amendment that secures all rights. The bloody path of history makes this clear. Despite his frequent historical gaffes, one may be certain that Mr. Obama and his supporters have well learned this ugly, fundamental lesson of history. On November 6, the stakes—for individual freedom and the survival of western civilization—could scarcely be higher.

Those of us who write regularly know that every piece we produce might be outmoded—or in some cases, confirmed—even as we post them. As it turns out, confirmation has arrived.

UPDATE, 10-16-12, 2000, CST: Joel Gehrke, writing in The Washington Examiner reported on a October 15th speech by retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and its Legal Action Project. Despite the Heller and McDonald decisions, Mr. Stevens sees no obstacles to gun bans.

“[Miller] was generally understood to limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to the uses of arms that were related to military activities. The Court did not overrule Miller [in Heller]. Instead it ‘read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns . . . Thus, the Second Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations permitting the ownership or the use of the sorts of the automatic weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado, or Arizona in recent years.”

Mr. Stevens is quite incorrect regarding the types of weapons involved. The weapons used at Virginia Tech and in Arizona were common semi-automatic handguns, and the weapons used in Colorado—long gun and handgun–were also unremarkable semiautomatics. There were no “automatic weapons” used in those, or in any other mass shooting in memory. Does Mr. Stevens really know so little about the technology involved in the exercise of a fundamental right, or is he, like gun banners everywhere, conflating actual automatic weapons with common semiautomatic handguns and rifles? He also misstates Miller—a very limited decision that did not in any way define Second Amendment law—which suggests strongly that of all weapons, actual military weapons may be given the greatest Second Amendment protection.

Mr. Stevens was critical of Congress:

“The fact that Congress doesn’t address it, I find mind-boggling, to tell you the truth.”

This is hardly surprising. The Progressive wing of the Court has never been shy about usurping the legislative powers of Congress. There is every reason to believe that if given the chance, they would legislate from the bench to correct what they see as legislative deficiencies. He also indicated his preferences regarding allowing citizens to actually carry weapons outside their homes:

“There’s a very powerful argument for saying it does not extend to disagreeing with local communities about decisions about which public places they should not be permitted to be carried [in].”

In other words, if DC or Chicago wish to disarm citizens who dare to venture from their homes, the Supreme Court should, at the least, allow them to limit their Second Amendment rights. Mr. Stevens also demonstrated a rather odd idea of the effectiveness of cell phones when compared with firearms in the home:

“Maybe you have some kind of constitutional right to have a cell phone with a pre-dialed 911 in the number at your bedside and that might provide you with a little better protection than a gun which you’re not used to using.”

One might assert that Mr. Stevens is retired and therefore can have no real effect on the current court. This is so, however, Steven’s writings, and the concurrence of the current progressive members of the court in his opinions touching on firearms freedom provide a very clear window into the future of Second Amendment decisions if the majority of the court is shifted by Obama appointments toward judicial activism rather than a faithful application of original intent and the Constitution.

The ability of Americans to protect the lives of those they love and themselves continues to hang on the 5 to 4 majority of Heller and McDonald.

Mike’s home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.

So... what do you think? Please leave me a comment or give me a


  • mrj.1965: I think you paranoid, ...Obama has done absolultely NOTHING pertaingimng to gun control other than ALLOWING the carrying of weapong in national parks, ...I just dont think we need right wing fanatics teling us obama is gonna take our guns away, ..I dont fear it one bit, .. personally, i think the NRA has went wayyy to far , to the point where the gun laws are nopw PROTECTING the criminals, ....oh and fast and furious ?....tell me, .. when someone on food stamps walks in and buys 5 colt ar s, and walks out of the store and the curent law says he cant be followed or questioned as to the "starw purchase" he just made, ....you think thats right ?, ...****, .. THATS how criminals get guns, .. Im for law abiding citizens being as protected as they want, but come on, , we have legislated ourselves into a corner and now the criminals can get guns as easy as anyone else, ...as far as Obama, .. he has more to do than worry about gun control, and to think theres some "hidden " agenda is just some more **** you and rightie fanatics put out there to sell print, .. blah blah blah, ...
  • ladytech777: Personally I think the solution is to strengthen the Libertarian Party
    to the extent it can become a major player in our political system.
    Maybe then we could actually address some of the real problems in this country!Gun Control is not one of them!!!
  • MikeMcDaniel: Dear mrj.1965:
    Thanks for taking the time to comment. If you would merely take the link provided in the article, you will find that Mr. Obama is the most stridently anti-gun president in history. He and Mr. Holder have expressed their desires for gun control measures–such as an "assault weapon" ban, and you are aware, are you not, of Mr. Obama’s promise to Sarah Brady that he is working on gun control "under the radar"? I suggest that Fast and Furious was an integral part of that under the radar effort. He has not overtly pushed for gun control as yet because he has had bigger fish to fry. In a second term, that could easily change.
    It is hardly unreasonable to suggest that a president who has ignored the law and constitution and usurped the power of the other co-equal branches would go further–on gun control and other issues–if he had no need to appear to be accountable to voters.
    As you sort of noted, criminals can indeed get firearms with relative ease, but that has nothing to do with the law or any gun control measure implemented or suggested. Criminals break the law–every law.
    Regarding the intentions of four of the nine justices of the Supreme Court, you did read the article? If you wish, read Heller and McDonald. There can be no other conclusion than that I provided: If in the majority, they would likely not abolish the Second Amendment, but would interpret it in such as way as to make it useless to individuals. This too is far from unreasonable.
    I’ll trust GVB readers to understand the issues and interpret plain language, but thanks again.
  • kcbuck: I didn’t vote for the SOB last time and sure as hell won’t this time around. Hell, now the American rednecks are even starting to shoot at his campaign offices or at least one of them in the news this morning.
  • mrj.1965: kc , why yougotta call the President a SOB ?, what kind of respect is that even for the office ? as much stupid **** as Bush done, I never lowered myself to the levelm of hating him. thats what our political system has came to, .. no compromise, .. all or nothing, ...does anybody think that will work ? and kc? who else BUT the american rednecks would even THINK of doing some stupid **** like firing a weapon into cmpaign headquatrters ?,, how do we know it wasnt you kc ? i would say you **** sure fit the profile, .. THIS is what gives gun owners a bad name, .. when stupid **** people do stupid **** ****, .. and mr mc daniel, you didnt answer my question earlier in post, .. how do you feel about someone on food stamps walking into a gun , buying 5 ar s , then walking out and disappearing into the crowd, only to arrive home later minus the ar s , with cash in his pocket ?....they call these purchases "straw purchases", mr mc daniel, .. and the NRA had pushed the law makers so far right that the ATF cant even investigate these purchases, .. THIS was part of the fast and furious scandel, that, by the way started under the BUSH administration.... I guess my question to you is, .. do you think we should have ANY gun laws ?mor should we just go back to the wild west where it was everyman for himself and the fastest gun won ? (or the sneakiest back shooting scumbag , actually)
  • Goatroper: Mr. mrj.1965, your knowledge of current gun law and of the Fast and Furious debacle appears to be at about the level of literacy displayed in your posts, if that’s possible.
    Fast and Furious was based on an idea tried in a different program under the Bush Administration; that earlier effort was abandoned when it was found that there was no good way to trace guns once they crossed the border into Mexico. In the later operation — wholly owned, if not admittedly so, by the Obama Administration — no attempt was made to trace the guns that were allowed to walk across the border. Straw purchases are illegal, and ATF agents and gun dealers (over the objections of many of both groups) were ordered by ATF superiors to allow those known straw purchasers to continue their operations.
    When a government agency, almost certainly on orders from officials much higher up the chain of command, can so flagrantly flout existing laws, what legitimacy does that government have to enforce those same laws against its citizens?
    The NRA, by the way, had nothing whatsoever to do with this illegal government activity. If you want to say it did, please give supporting facts.
  • kcbuck: Well said Mr. Goattroper and I rest my case. I have no respect what-so-ever for Obama and his 157 days experience prior to the presidency. He like Carter have wrecked this country during their administrations. Throwing money at the problem is never the answer as you have to fix the root cause of the problem before things get better, period.... If their simple minds can’t understand that principle what does it say about all those gullible people that voted for him in the first place?
    That’s my story and I’m sticking to it,
  • mrj.1965: typical response, goatroper, attack my intelligence, criticize my grammar....typical rove-like response, ...ifeffectual to anyone with iq above 100, ...because i dont take time to correct spelling, use proper grammar, and end my sentences with a period, u try to discredit the idea behind the words, .. first, I never said NRA had a single thing to do with illegal gov activity,, hmm where did THAT come from ? (typical nra response..feign attack, over respond), ..the agents were ordered to NOT follow up on straw purchases specificlly because of gun law interpetation by these superiors, ...protecting our so called 2 nd amendment rights, ...you want that law changed goat ? write your congressman/nra-teat-baby and tell them gun laws CAN go to far when they start protecting criminals...all gun laws are NOT bad, goat, ..we should be able to tell the difference with good sense, ..but anytime someone mentions ANY kind of gun restriction, the NRA and gun fanatics rise up and shout " they coming for our guns !!!", .. ****, .. they will never come for our guns, they re just too **** many of them bud, ..i think on a conservative count theres at least 75 guns in my cul de sac, with only 7 houses, ....lol, ...now, how will they ever come for our guns ? thats a pipe dream, ...theres folks out walking around with thier AR off safety with a ***** just waiting on STHTF, ...lol, they WANT it, ...luckily for us thier numbers are small and they usually kill themselves out...quit being so paranoid, bros, .. and njoy your firearms, ..we re gonna be just fine, ..and btw, .. Obama will be gone in 4 years, so dont fret to hard, okay ?enjoy ur healthcare, enjoy ur wife and daughters and moms and aunts being more fairly treated in the work place, ..enjoy the fact that GM is still putting cars out and that millions of people are still at work in the auto industry, ..enjoy the low interest student loans and pell grants to try to bring our national intelligence back up to where it used to be, ..enjoy your preventative care and prescription help if your a senior, and get ready to enjoy the middle class tax cuts continueing while the top 1 per cent’s expire and they start paying a little more of thier fair share, and enjoy the 716 billion that president obama took back from the insurance companies and pharmacueticals for overpyment and put back into the healthcare for seniors, ..not the "theft" ryan now says it was, when he himself proposed the EXACT SAME CUTS .....lol, how weak the repubs look when they have to try to use bs atempts like that, ...as bad as the whole "you didnt build it" fiasco, ..lol, . come on guys, ...did YOU think he was talking about the businesses, ? or the roads and bridges used to transport thier goods ?.. cos if you truly thought he was talking about the small businesses, that the president is unaware of that aspect of business, ..then you need to rethink your own powers of perception, ..I am slightly tickled when I see someone call the president dumb, or stupid, or try to demean his intelligence in any way, .. it really shows great ignorance and stupidity when someone talks **** like that about a person who not only graduated from Harvard, but was editor of the law review, .. and went on to teach constitutional law, ....lol, .. when you call someone like that dumb, .. it really shows how dumb you are....
  • kcbuck: mrj1965:
    You must be an Obama boy or worst, a Democrat. To each his own as we all vote per our conscience and to that I say good for you. I respect your opinion and your right to have one. It doesn’t mean we have to agree. That’s why this country is a roll model to the world as are freedoms are of the most importance to us. Even if Osama Obama and that Clinton woman want to disarm everyone. :) My opinion.... Now play nice.
  • mrj.1965: why I gotta be a "boy", bud ? Im 47 years old, .. and got 6 kids that ive raised 3 of them by myself, .. I understand its a term used to try to demean and degrade your adversary in front of others, and its been around since slavery ended, ...but i dont mind when you call me names, it only gives me more of an insight as to who you are and where you re coming from, ...
    As for OSAMA OBAMA and that "clinton woman: wanting to disarm everyone, .. well, .. i guess time will tell , right bud ?, 4 years from now, when President obama retires, I hope you will be man enough to come back and say you were wrong when he does the same thing his second term that he done in the first as far as gun laws go, which is almost nothing. I hope you will praise our president with the same fervor that you now discount him, ....personally, I am a registered independant, who DID NOT vote for Obama last time, .. but you can bet ur **** i will be voting for him this time, .. Im not blind, I can see what he has done for the country, against overwhelming odds and the promise of the repubs to do everything they could to make him fail, he still prevailed, he still passed the best health care law this country has had ever, .. he saved GM and millions of jobs when the repubs said let em go bankrupt, .. he saved millions of peoples homes when the repubs said let the foreclosure market bottom out, ...he saved the students millions in interest on loans, ..ya ll really should put your racist blinders on and stop caring what color someone is, .. for me, its all about my familys standard of living, .. when i have seen my familys standard of living come up, my work double, .. along with income., ...making possible the owning of my house, .. plus my wife being able to go back to school for her second degree, .. you bet your sweet a$$ I ll be voting for Obama !!!
  • MikeMcDaniel: Dear mrj. 1965:
    At this blog–and this website–we deal with each other civilly. While I’m sure kcbuck can speak eloquently for himself, I’m sure he meant "Obama boy" in the same way that a female supporting Mr. Obama might be an "Obama girl."
    As to your question, I initially took it to be rhetorical and therefore did not answer, but please allow me to rectify that misunderstanding. I support the law. Those making straw purchases of weapons should be prosecuted. Whether they have food stamps or thousand dollar bills in their pockets makes no difference.
    You should know that the ATF certainly can investigate and make arrests for violations of any federal law, straw purchases included. Fast and Furious did not begin under Mr. Bush, but nine months after Mr. Obama’s inauguration, and ATF field agents were ordered to ignore straw purchases by their superiors, likely reaching into the White House, and were ordered to allow the guns to be delivered to Mexican drug cartel killers. They have testified to this, and their superiors–most of whom are still hiding and doing their best to cover their tracks–have made damning admissions of the same.
    I’ve already noted my support for the law, but just to be clear, we need laws in the area of firearms that punish illegal and dangerous behavior, not that harass and vex the law-abiding. Laws that deny the law-abiding their Second Amendment rights are quite simply unconstitutional.
    The NRA is the most powerful lobby in America not for nefarious reasons, but because its mission is the protection of a fundament freedom and because millions of Americans are members and many millions more share its respect for the constitution–all of the Bill of Rights.
    You should also know that the "old west" of the movies is nothing at all like reality. Gun fights were rare, and the idiotic idea of a gunfighter coming into town and frightening everyone is nonsense. Particularly after 1865, Civil War veterans would have dealt with such idiots in short order. In fact, murder rates and violent crime rates, per capita, were far below current rates in major American cities. Dodge City was a ladies’ tea society compared to Detroit, Chicago, DC and other supposedly civilized metropolises.
    In the meantime, we’re about the Second Amendment and firearm related issues here, and I’d appreciate it if you’d stick to those general themes. I’ve treated you respectfully. Please do the same.
  • mrj.1965: *points to title of blog "ELECTIONS" have consequences....lol..
  • kcbuck: Mrj1965:
    Exactly as Mike above said, it is a phrase, nothing more and I don’t believe I was disrespectful of you as a matter for fact I supported your right for your opinion and did not take offense to your words concerning Bush. He was kind of a dunce in his own way but a better selection than Gorr in my opinion. However, your words concerning me did not matter as your opinion is yours. I support that and will defend that. But it appears as long as everything goes your way you’re fine, but if someone disagrees with you, you attach. Who would you say the redneck is on this one? Food for thought, just think about it.... I’m a tad older than you and a Marine combat veteran to boot.
    Best Regards,
  • mrj.1965: I have been nothing if not civil, mike, ..and 4 years will pass quicker than ya think, .. I hope all involved will be able to see thru thier mistakes and admit thier failures as quick as they boast of thier successes... as for NRA, im sure it stared with best of intentions, but imho, .like all conglomerates,.., it too has been taken over, by those who care more about lining thier own pockets than protecting law abiding gun owners, ..we shouldnt have to buy our law thru the politicians, ...it shouldnt take millions upon millions of lobbying dollars to keep our gun rights, .. the peoples vote should very well be good enough, ...
  • mrj.1965: hmmm, .. looking for whom ever it was that i attacked....lol...
  • mrj.1965: also, kc, .. I find it amusing that you would add to end of your post that you are " a tad older and a marine combat veteran to boot", ... do you really think that has relevance in this discussion ?..do you think that makes you the least bit more informed or more correct on any information being exchanged ? imho, not one bit bit,i know hundreds of people older than me, and some combat veterans, that arent worth a ****, .. sad i know, but truth nonetheless, ..and before u go blastin on me about talkin down the military, .. ask yourself if every person u ever knew in the service was a saint i seriously doubt it, cos **** join the service too, ...... .. i ve been taught to respect my elders and appreciate the service of the military, .. but not to blindly follow along, ..good luck, gentlemen, . have a great sunday, good shooting and may all ur shots be bullseyes !!!
  • kcbuck: mrj1965:
    You should quit the discussion before you blow a gasket. I’m an adult and will not lower myself below my personal standards in a conversation with you.... I see where this is going.
  • mrj.1965: i thought i did ...lol..
  • Goatroper: Replying to mrj1965:
    I don’t believe I said anything about your intelligence. Nothing more to say on that. I’ve seen and have used stream-of-consciousness writing; that said, if it’s not reviewed and corrected and smoothed out before it’s published, it may not make the sense to others you intended.
    I’m not going to try to decipher some of what you said in your response to me — you’ve made it quite clear you want to talk, not discuss. This statement, however, has no basis in fact: "the agents were ordered to NOT follow up on straw purchases specificlly because of gun law interpetation by these superiors." The ATF most certainly did NOT interpret the law in the Fast & Furious program. That agency BROKE existing law, plain and simple; its agents were ordered to act counter to their training and longstanding law enforcement approach to straw purchasers. To borrow a line, you’re entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.
    Demonization of an organization — and, by extension, of its members — without supporting facts, is a tactic of division and not part of reasoned debate. I’m not inclined to be as charitable as others have been toward you at this point. You are welcome to your own opinions, and that’s as it should be, but I do not believe you respect the opinions of others after reviewing your comments to date. I have nothing more to say to you.
  • kcbuck: Mike seems to of created a blog post that is a very hot topic during this election year as it has been with most of recent history. I think it is good to express our own opinions on this matter as long as we remain civil with each other and remember that we are suppose to be adults here and we are on an open forum for the whole world to see.... I for the most part agree with Mike’s analogy of the subject matter and hope he continues with his blog posts. Well done Mr. Mike Mac....
    A Fan,
  • ladytech777: To get back to the topic instead of the flames! Try viewing Micheal Moore’s "Capitalism- A Love Story". Both party’s have sold out the entire nation. This gov’t has become a Plutocracy instead of a democracy.The abuses of Capitalism caused this.The fight is not Republican vs Democrat-
    it is Democracy vs Capitalism! Not all socialist ideas are totalitarian.
    That is an abuse of socialism. I could go on a total rant here of the differences. View the DVD it is only $5 on amazon. The corruption of the government by Wall Street,The "social divide" was created by propaganda to get us all to buy into the the idea that "greed is good".We are fighting each other over all the wrong issues, which is exactly what both party’s want!
  • ladytech777: You are arguing the wrong point.This government has become a Plutocracy.
    Republican or Democrat makes no difference. It is all about control of the population and getting everyone to believe "greed is good". Try viewing Micheal Moore’s "Capitalism- A love Story". This is where the fight should be.The Republicans will let you keep your guns- they want your money!The Dems want to just get you to believe the myth this is a democracy. Educate yourselves, and stop the flaming and infighting.
  • mojoguzzi: Ladytech777, I couldn’t agree with you more. The US government is corrupt and clueless when it comes to sane logical legislation. That means both sides of the House. They’re almost all just greedy pigs who keep their jobs by appealing to their rich donors for propaganda funding on one side, or the growing number of lower class voters on the other. Romney’s just a rich dude who wants to buy a place in history. Obama is what he is. If there weren’t so many poor people in this country he wouldn’t be so popular.
    As for gun laws, if they ever ban individual possession rights, it’d be time to organize well-regulated militias, right?
  • mrj.1965: mojo, do you really think any politician would ever even dream of banning individual rights ? that is comical, ...we already have well regulated militias, all we would have to do is organize them, lol, ...it would be harder to take my CUL DE SAC than it was for the mexicans to take the alamo, ...and who would be appointed to enforce these gun bans on individuals ? the military ? the police ? individuals who would have to turn against thier own family to enforce the law, ....lol, that was my main point from the beginning, .. NO ONE IS COMING TO TAKE OUR GUNS AWAY !!!...lol, ..and anyone who tells me they are(NRA PREZ) is insulting my intelligence, .. its a joke, .. a scare tactic to keep them dues comin in, ...he takes his cut then funnels the rest to corrupt politicians, ...lol..."HEY BOB, OBAMA S COMIN TO TAKE OUR GUNS AWAY !!! YOU KNOW HOW I KNOW ?, COS HIS FIRST TERM HE DIDNT ".... OMG REALLY ?, I BETTER GO OUT AND BUY ME SOME MORE GUNS... AND AMMO TOO......LMAO...
  • mojoguzzi: mrj.1965 — I don’t disagree with you. Our govt does suck though, no matter which way you slice it. Top and bottom taken care of, middle class gets lip service.
    Obama’s buddy Rahm Emmanuel wanted stricter gun control in Chicago but knew it wouldn’t fly. He came up with a Democrat’s perfect "compromise" on gun control: add a $65 fee to gun sales.

Add Your Own Comment:

By clicking 'Submit' you agree to the Site Terms
By entering this site you declare you are 18 or older, you read and agreed to its Terms, Rules & Privacy and you understand that your use of the site's content is made at your own risk and responsibility.
Copyright © 2006 - 2016 Gun Values Board