He says he'll continue to vote to protect the Second Amendment. You know, like Congress has since ... when was the first Gun Control Act? And how many have there been? I guess the question is WHICH Second Amendment? If someone wants to handle guns, let them join the government's posse. (Channeling Goebbels and Goering.)
In all the excitement, I missed the fact that the Hughes ban on full-autos was an amendment to the Firearm Owners PROTECTION Act. Preserve me from that kind of "protection." Heller's on the same script as my Congresscritters. Maybe it's a form letter in the Write Your Representative department.
Yet commenters elsewhere say we shouldn't be so intolerant of and uncivil to the Bradyites because they're reasonable, intelligent people who care, just like us.
Defender, A form letter for sure. I recieve them from my congresscritters all the time. they include details from anything you may have sent them and then rolls on into some boilerplate garbage that seems to fit. I'm tempted to write some real nonsense about nothing and see what comes back.
But since he admits the Hughes Amendment has been interpreted to the detriment of second amendment rights, and he's a staunch supporter of our second amendment rights, then surely we can press him on this, right?
Defender – I beg to differ with the commenters you reference.
“… because they're reasonable, intelligent people who care, just like us.”
They are “reasonable”, by their own reckoning. Those folks would never support an “unreasonable” position. But, then neither has any tyrannical government that has ever existed. In soon to be 68 years, I can personally recall only one governmental official actually make the statement, “F**k the people!” He said this in private conversation but I still have his comment on tape. He lost his last election and has since died, so I never had occasion to let his words come back to haunt him in public.
I question the adjective, “intelligent”. Granted most have achieved some degree of education and truly believe they are intelligent. The elitists tend to cling to the mistaken notion that “education” is a word that is synonymous with “intelligence”. The last reference book in the world that a progressive would consult is a dictionary and even when confronted with logic and universally adopted definitions, the progressive will refuse to concede that his illogical, emotional reaction to a situation or circumstance might be in error.
They are people who care, but they only care about their own agenda, their own rights, their own personal lives. They don’t give an obese rodent’s rectum about the 2nd Amendment because they don’t recognize your right or your family’s right to security or self defense. Those rights are well protected by the state and the minions of the state and are infringed only by reasonable regulation and by reasonable employees of reasonable governmental agencies. Only they and their fellows are important enough to merit the luxury of self defense and in the event force is needed, there will be employees to take care of that. The elitist will never be required to dirty his hands with the blood of one of the lower orders. And, if the omnipotent state slips up and fails to save you and/or your family from the bad guys they will read about your fate in the local news, utter something that may sound remotely like, ”Oh what a shame.” and then immediately move to the next page and never remember seeing the story about you and/or yours. Only their fellow elitists will ever deserve more than a passing notice in the event of tragedy, and in short order, they too will also be forgotten.
They are not “Just like us”. Of all the folks I have met, corresponded with, or just checked in on their blog sites who are supporters of the 2nd Amendment, I have yet to find a single person who advocates forcibly requiring anyone to own, possess, or even support the ownership of, firearms. I, for one, would never attempt to force another individual to engage in the implementation of any right that person would feel uncomfortable exercising. Along the same lines, I refuse to deny any adult the right to involve himself in any activity, that doesn’t harm another person, whether I would approve or disapprove of that activity for myself. The progressives, on the other hand, have no compunctions about implementing reasonable regulations that would force their agenda upon we of the lower orders of human beings as we do not have the education and/or intelligence to understand what is good for us.
No. They are not, reasonable, they are not intelligent, they don’t care, and they are not just like us.
My reading of Heller's reply: He says that many have discussed the possibility of repealing the Hughes amendment, and that he will vote to protect the Second Amendment, which implies that he would support legislation to strike down the machinegun ban. However, Heller doesn't say he will push such a bill himself. It's interesting that he mentions the amendment was passed under questionable circumstances, however.
With regard to the YouTube video on the vote, my interpretation is that the 6:25 recorded vote is on "the motion for the committee to rise", which I believe is to close discussion on amendments. This fails, and Hughes asks for five minutes to explain the bill. Then, despite the motion failing, Rangel calls for a vote on the Hughes amendment at 8:16. Only a voice vote is recorded. In the background you can hear someone telling Hughes, "let it go, let it go, let it go, you got it!" Obviously not even Hughes realized what the hell was going on. At 8:43 someone asks for the ayes and nays, i.e. for a recorded vote, and Rangel just smiles at him and proceeds. Subsequently, there's a vote on the Volkmer substitute as amended: the voice vote fails at 9:10, but the recorded vote passes at 9:45.
A transcript of the session (unknown if it's considered official) can be found here: http://www.iwilldefendtheconstitution.com/Congressional_Transcript.pdf Based on the transcript, some footage was omitted, such as the diatribe by Weiss after the recorded vote on the motion to rise but before the vote on the Hughes amendment.
But what kind of form letter would have details of how an amendment was illegally passed? In fact is there no method of challenging the legality of the amendment, since it was illegally passed in the first place? You can not usurp a right, with a crime, and call it kosher.
As long as the crooks can get legislation on the books and keep it there for a few years, it really doesn't seem to make any difference whether it was passed according to the Constitution or existing statute.
At some point in time nine people wearing black robes will determine whether the questionable legislation is valid and will, if necessary, reinterpret the wording of the Constitution and the questionable legislation to fit the current political thought.
Case in point: the 14th Amendment which may or may not have been properly ratified, but which was definitely castrated by the SCOTUS.
He says he'll continue to vote to protect the Second Amendment. You know, like Congress has since ... when was the first Gun Control Act? And how many have there been?
ReplyDeleteI guess the question is WHICH Second Amendment? If someone wants to handle guns, let them join the government's posse. (Channeling Goebbels and Goering.)
In all the excitement, I missed the fact that the Hughes ban on full-autos was an amendment to the Firearm Owners PROTECTION Act.
Preserve me from that kind of "protection."
Heller's on the same script as my Congresscritters. Maybe it's a form letter in the Write Your Representative department.
Yet commenters elsewhere say we shouldn't be so intolerant of and uncivil to the Bradyites because they're reasonable, intelligent people who care, just like us.
Defender,
ReplyDeleteA form letter for sure. I recieve them from my congresscritters all the time. they include details from anything you may have sent them and then rolls on into some boilerplate garbage that seems to fit.
I'm tempted to write some real nonsense about nothing and see what comes back.
But since he admits the Hughes Amendment has been interpreted to the detriment of second amendment rights, and he's a staunch supporter of our second amendment rights, then surely we can press him on this, right?
ReplyDeleteRight?
Defender – I beg to differ with the commenters you reference.
ReplyDelete“… because they're reasonable, intelligent people who care, just like us.”
They are “reasonable”, by their own reckoning. Those folks would never support an “unreasonable” position. But, then neither has any tyrannical government that has ever existed. In soon to be 68 years, I can personally recall only one governmental official actually make the statement, “F**k the people!” He said this in private conversation but I still have his comment on tape. He lost his last election and has since died, so I never had occasion to let his words come back to haunt him in public.
I question the adjective, “intelligent”. Granted most have achieved some degree of education and truly believe they are intelligent. The elitists tend to cling to the mistaken notion that “education” is a word that is synonymous with “intelligence”. The last reference book in the world that a progressive would consult is a dictionary and even when confronted with logic and universally adopted definitions, the progressive will refuse to concede that his illogical, emotional reaction to a situation or circumstance might be in error.
They are people who care, but they only care about their own agenda, their own rights, their own personal lives. They don’t give an obese rodent’s rectum about the 2nd Amendment because they don’t recognize your right or your family’s right to security or self defense. Those rights are well protected by the state and the minions of the state and are infringed only by reasonable regulation and by reasonable employees of reasonable governmental agencies. Only they and their fellows are important enough to merit the luxury of self defense and in the event force is needed, there will be employees to take care of that. The elitist will never be required to dirty his hands with the blood of one of the lower orders. And, if the omnipotent state slips up and fails to save you and/or your family from the bad guys they will read about your fate in the local news, utter something that may sound remotely like, ”Oh what a shame.” and then immediately move to the next page and never remember seeing the story about you and/or yours. Only their fellow elitists will ever deserve more than a passing notice in the event of tragedy, and in short order, they too will also be forgotten.
They are not “Just like us”. Of all the folks I have met, corresponded with, or just checked in on their blog sites who are supporters of the 2nd Amendment, I have yet to find a single person who advocates forcibly requiring anyone to own, possess, or even support the ownership of, firearms. I, for one, would never attempt to force another individual to engage in the implementation of any right that person would feel uncomfortable exercising. Along the same lines, I refuse to deny any adult the right to involve himself in any activity, that doesn’t harm another person, whether I would approve or disapprove of that activity for myself. The progressives, on the other hand, have no compunctions about implementing reasonable regulations that would force their agenda upon we of the lower orders of human beings as we do not have the education and/or intelligence to understand what is good for us.
No. They are not, reasonable, they are not intelligent, they don’t care, and they are not just like us.
[W3]
My reading of Heller's reply: He says that many have discussed the possibility of repealing the Hughes amendment, and that he will vote to protect the Second Amendment, which implies that he would support legislation to strike down the machinegun ban. However, Heller doesn't say he will push such a bill himself. It's interesting that he mentions the amendment was passed under questionable circumstances, however.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to the YouTube video on the vote, my interpretation is that the 6:25 recorded vote is on "the motion for the committee to rise", which I believe is to close discussion on amendments. This fails, and Hughes asks for five minutes to explain the bill. Then, despite the motion failing, Rangel calls for a vote on the Hughes amendment at 8:16. Only a voice vote is recorded. In the background you can hear someone telling Hughes, "let it go, let it go, let it go, you got it!" Obviously not even Hughes realized what the hell was going on. At 8:43 someone asks for the ayes and nays, i.e. for a recorded vote, and Rangel just smiles at him and proceeds. Subsequently, there's a vote on the Volkmer substitute as amended: the voice vote fails at 9:10, but the recorded vote passes at 9:45.
A transcript of the session (unknown if it's considered official) can be found here:
http://www.iwilldefendtheconstitution.com/Congressional_Transcript.pdf
Based on the transcript, some footage was omitted, such as the diatribe by Weiss after the recorded vote on the motion to rise but before the vote on the Hughes amendment.
::G
But what kind of form letter would have details of how an amendment was illegally passed? In fact is there no method of challenging the legality of the amendment, since it was illegally passed in the first place? You can not usurp a right, with a crime, and call it kosher.
ReplyDeleteCordially,
Joel Stoner, Mayor
City of Macks Creek
As long as the crooks can get legislation on the books and keep it there for a few years, it really doesn't seem to make any difference whether it was passed according to the Constitution or existing statute.
ReplyDeleteAt some point in time nine people wearing black robes will determine whether the questionable legislation is valid and will, if necessary, reinterpret the wording of the Constitution and the questionable legislation to fit the current political thought.
Case in point: the 14th Amendment which may or may not have been properly ratified, but which was definitely castrated by the SCOTUS.
[W3]