Is anybody still awake at the White House?
Here's another opinion piece that's, on the whole, pretty good, but I believe still misses a point.
I just don't see this as a "blunder."
I see it as a deliberate and premeditated act of sabotage.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
They're Awake
Here's another opinion piece that's, on the whole, pretty good, but I believe still misses a point.
I just don't see this as a "blunder."
I see it as a deliberate and premeditated act of sabotage.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree that your suspicion that the Bush Administration has sabotaged our liberty is reasonable and warranted.
I agree that this is a fairly good editorial, given it's source.
I strongly disagree with this:
The key word in Judge Silberman's opinion is "ban." His opinion readily concedes that regulating guns and banning them are not the same. He explicitly notes that felons may be barred from owning guns without implicating the Second Amendment and points out that weapons of a strictly military nature are not encompassed by the right to bear arms. Nothing in Judge Silberman's opinion precludes reasonable restrictions on weaponry.
It's impossible to paste over millions of years of human nature with a judicial fiat. If I need a military weapon, it is my human right to keep and bear a military weapon.
And I will do so. I know where they sleep.
Beat me to it Gaviota. What exactly, really, is a strictly military weapon anyhow?
If we, as individuals, were to arm ourselves with, say, Ruger Mark 2 Pistols, and engage an opposition force, would they not be considered a "military Weapon" by "Nature?"
Could'nt any weapon for that matter not be so labeled?
A needless fudge, indeed!!
Here's the note that I sent to my representatives at the prompting of GOA:
Dear Representative:
Please join with Rep. Virgil Good in signing a letter to the White House urging the President to withdraw the Solicitor General's very ill-advised brief in the D.C. gun ban case, D.C. v. Heller.
Gun Owners of America will be keeping me posted about the members of the House who have joined with Representative Goode.
The brief is a direct attack on the constitutional principles upon which this country was founded. The brief plays an Orwellian/Marxist game whereby it affirms that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution protects an individual right to the own guns, but it then renders that assertion null and void by claiming that the aforementioned right may be regulated away for a "reasonable" purpose.
Of course, the real meaning of a "reasonable" purpose is not reasonable at all. It is used solely as a tool to deceptively take power from one disfavored group and put it in the hands of a more favored group, and it is hidden under a false, sanctimonious concern for protecting the rights of others. If anyone ever wanted to see the true meaning of "divisiveness" in action, there is nothing more divisive than wrongfully stealing rights from one group and transferring them to another group.
This whole betrayal reminds me of a similar betrayal found in George Orwell's book, "Animal Farm." After the animals had overthrown the old order and were seeking to consolidate power, they made seven commandments in order to curry favor with the animals, and the sixth commandment read as follows, "No animal shall kill any other animal." After the consolidation of power was complete and the ruling hierarchy was firmly entrenched and corrupt, the sixth commandment was changed in a very subtle way to read, "No animal shall kill any other animal WITHOUT CAUSE." Of course, the real reason for the change in the commandment was to provide the rulers with the seeming right to kill those who disagreed with the rulers' constant violations of the seven commandments. This subtle change in meaning sounds shockingly similar to the brief's claim that the constitution protects our rights, unless any of those rights are decreed to be unreasonable (or "WITHOUT CAUSE").
This brief appears to be a blatant betrayal of the Constitution and our Republic. In the words of George Bush himself, "You are either with us or against us."
Thank you very much.
Post a Comment