“You hear some of these quotes: ‘I need a gun to protect myself from the government.’ ‘We can’t do background checks because the government is going to come take my guns away,’ Obama said. “Well, the government is us. These officials are elected by you. They are elected by you. I am elected by you. I am constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders put in place. It’s a government of and by and for the people.”As a lawprof, I read that to mean that he is not constrained. He's juggling a few ideas, but what he's getting at is: The Founders put into place a system that would be populated by elected officials, who are to act for the sake of the people and as the people want. If what the people want our government to do is control guns, then it is within the power of government to do it.
That's the constitutional argument he has in mind. It's an idea of constitutional government as a political system, within which rights are only another manifestation of what the people want. And, in the ultimate scary twist on the idea of rights: Government is not to be regarded as in need of limits, because the government is us. Anything we — the government — want to do is never tyranny, but freedom.
পোস্টগুলি
২৪৯টি মন্তব্য:
249 এর 1 – থেকে 200 আরও নতুন» সবচেয়ে নতুন»Gun owners are us also. Under the Constitution, the restraints are placed foremost on us the elected officials not us the gun owners.
Double plus good!
Lets get 51% support and repeal the 13th Amendment! Who wouldn't want a slave to do the dishes and clean your car?
I am constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders put in place.
Somebody, anybody provide an example of when President Obama has been constrained by, or even concerned about, Constitutional limits to governmental power.
The Constitution expresses limits on the power of government. Obama is saying that the government can do anything it wants because we elected the 535 members of Congress and the President/Vice President (which make up a miniscule fraction of the government as a whole). In short, he's saying there are no limits on government. That is the rhetoric of a dictator.
With all due respect he's just full of shit and he knows that most Americans either put his politics above the Constitution or don't have any clue what's going on other than they think he's cool.
Yet Obama received his law education at one of the tippy-top elite law schools in the nation. He taught constitutional law at another top law school.
If this is his understanding of the American system, what in the hell are our top legal minds and institutions teaching?
Why is this not a terrible scandal?
And those constraints on government were called the Bill of Rights because none of those stupid old dead white guys could figure out that mobs were just perfect right?
Under that argument, why have limits to our leadership at all? Why not just have an elected King with absolute power? After all, he was still elected, so anything he does from that point on must be the "will of the people" or whatever.
Somebody, anybody provide an example of when President Obama has been constrained by, or even concerned about, Constitutional limits to governmental power.
I hope you packed a lunch because it is going to be a long wait.
Next, we'll hear him talk about Rule of Law as if he thinks that is real, too.
‘We can’t do background checks because the government is going to come take my guns away,’ Obama said
Uh, nobody, anywhere, ever, said this.
What a pathetic piece of shit this man is.
Putting the Nisei in the camps was popular.
Looks like we got the president we deserve.
Which is why the electoral college is genius.
He opens his mouth and Uncle Saul (or is it Chairman Mao?) always comes out.
Translation:
I am constrained by this system of checks and balances those WHITE MEN put in place to frustrate me, personally, from achieving my goals of turning this into a People's Paradise with Me as your All-Knowing, All-Wonderful Messiah For Life.
A collectivist vision of government. The people who are afraid the government will take their guns away are not the people who elected Obama. Then there is the problem that politicians do everything they possibly can do avoid being responsible to the people who elected them.
Why is it scary now, Constitutional Law Professor?
We knew what he was. He told you what he was.
The dead document you teach wasn't as important to you as your feelings.
I agree with your analysis, Ann Althouse. It would be of a piece with the government is the only thing we're all a part of slogan. It IS somewhat scary phrased in such "reasonable" terms.
This would help explain a lot of the choices Barry's been making.
In his mind, the reelection was confirmation of his vision. Time to go full transformational.
Sorry , Barak, but the Bill of Rights precede your powers under the constitution.
So. Like, bite me.
The President made a comment last week about the poor grades he got in Physics. Who would take a bet that he never even took Physics? (I'm thinking he might pronounce it "Pissics" if it came up on his teleprompter.)
Since we can't see the transcripts, how do we know his law school grades are anything to write home about?
One of the reasons we have a 1st and 2nd Amendment is federalism. In fact, a lot of the Framers didn't think we needed a Bill of Rights, because the Constitution clearly did not give the federal government a police power.
And yet Obama wants a police power.
Crime and murder is not a federal issue. It's never been a federal issue. We do not have a national police force. If Obama wants to run around and give speeches about guns and people getting shot, he ought to run for mayor. Or maybe governor.
The socialist tendency to centralize more and more power in a smaller and smaller number of people is easily the scariest thing about the left.
Good news is that this an utterly unconvincing argument, and thus likely to do absolutely nothing to change anyone's minds.
‘We can’t do background checks because the government is going to come take my guns away,’ Obama said
We already do background checks! Sheesh. What people are talking about is registration which has historically led to guns being yanked many times. Even by 'elected' leaders.
You hear some of these quotes: ‘I need a gun to protect myself from the government.’ ‘We can’t do background checks because the government is going to come take my guns away,’ Obama said
Has this blathering idiot ever bothered to read the Federalist Papers or any writings of the men who founded America?
It appears not.
PS: In 2011, 0.026% of murders in America were committed by rifles, including the dreaded AR-15.
This pathetic, unable to shoot a basketball, dope smoking, intellectualy incurious, race hustling jerk, is an embarrassment.
OTOH, 48 or 49 states have some form of concealed carry.
Obviously the people want it.
It's a half-assed argument that doesn't address, even in abstract terms, abuses of power once the office-holder gets elected. It also doesn't address non-compliance to the very constraints he mentions. The Senate is supposed to have a budget by x date every fiscal year. The Executive is supposed to do the same.
So merely mentioning that this is a big collectivist effort doesn't explain anything. I suppose abuses of power by office holders are our fault.
Another variation on a theme by Verdi.
There are times when Obama says things that make me believe that really is an idiot.
He must know that the people who are afraid that the government is going to take their guns away didn't vote for him or Schumer.
He's a 14th amendment lawyer. Why does he think black people need special constitutional prtoctions -- after all, we the people elected the government. Dont they trust their fellow Americans?
And then there's the issue that politicians will go to great lengths not be held accountable to the people who elected them.
"The average man, whatever his errors otherwise, at least sees clearly that government is something lying outside him and outside the generality of his fellow-men – that it is a separate, independent and often hostile power, only partly under his control, and capable of doing him great harm. In his romantic moments, he may think of it as a benevolent father or even as a sort of jinn or god, but he never thinks of it as part of himself." -- H.L. Mencken
Obama, in many ways, is an idiot. We will see much proof of that in the many books that will be written by insiders after Obama leaves office.
I see that Obama has never heard of principal/agent conflict. . . .
It truly is an amazing trick for the left to make it seem as if Republicans are the ones who want to restrict freedoms.
It would also be interesting to see who is the party of the rich. Ann Coulter has had some comments on this recently, and I think these things have changed.
Think corporate welfare, and you think of Republicans. But all this forced spending by Democrats is real corporate welfare. So long as they can convince the theft and forced spending is for good reasons, like Obamaphones, people smile about it.
Meanwhile, the productivity gains and even the dual income worker's value is being sucked up by government, as government derives so much of it's operating capital from regressive taxes and regulations.
That's the constitutional argument he has in mind. It's an idea of constitutional government as a political system, within which rights are only another manifestation of what the people want. And, in the ultimate scary twist on the idea of rights: Government is not to be regarded as in need of limits, because the government is us. Anything we — the government — want to do is never tyranny, but freedom.
Thus the bill of rights.
Let's give the floor to James Madison:
I believe that the great mass of the people who opposed [the Constitution], disliked it because it did not contain effectual provision against encroachments on particular rights, and those safeguards which they have been long accustomed to have interposed between them and the magistrate who exercised the sovereign power: nor ought we to consider them safe, while a great number of our fellow citizens think these securities necessary.
Gahrie said...
Somebody, anybody provide an example of when President Obama has been constrained by, or even concerned about, Constitutional limits to governmental power.
During the run-up to the last election he showed some concern about limiting governmental power regarding drone strikes. Of course, that was only for the case where he lost the election. But at least it was something.
Ann's take on this is right on the money. But Obama is but the inevitable result of a long-term trend in centralization of government power since Lincoln--of whom Gore Vidal labeled our first fascist president. Confirming this trend, I remember watching a conference on Judicial Courts Administration on C-Span over a decade ago in which a female justice from the 6th Circuit commenting on clogged federal courts, opined: "The main problem is that there is not a single side-walk zoning dispute in the smallest township in the land that cannot be gotten into Federal Court if only the lawyers involved are both creative and energetic enough."
I do not see democrats doing ONE damn thing to prevent criminals and felons from obtaining guns. The democrats are obsessed with chipping away at the second amendment -- one crisis at a time.
Law abiding citizens hardest hit.
Some brave CO police and law enforcement officials are speaking out.
I'm not sure that Ann has captured the fact that the Dear Leader was making his typical sales pitch. His pitch was, "Look, you can trust me and my pinko pals, because we are constrained by the fact that you can toss us out if we abuse this power we want you to give us".
".......oh, and I promise to call y'all in the morning after we bone you in your rosy plump rumps".
Hitler pretty much made the same pitch. It's odd how goofy we are as a society when we so quickly forget how tyrants acquired, then abused AND kept their powers through elections. I'm sure that as long as Jimma is around to certify the results, none of us has a single thing about which to worry our little shaggy sheep heads.
Baaaaaa
- Krumhorn
Professor Althouse: To be blunt, as well as cruelly neutral, why are you and your colleagues so stupid?
You are a tenured law professor at one of the other top law schools. You voted for Obama in 2008. You came within a hair of voting for him again in 2012.
You and your elite legal colleagues, more than any other single group, groomed and empowered this dangerous, full-of-himself, fool to become president.
Do you have anything to say for yourself and your class?
I really do not get it.
If the government was staffed by perfect people, then I wouldn't need a gun. Unfortunately, I need a gun to protect myself from the criminal cartels armed by the government.
I also need a gun to protect myself from other minority interests who do not respect individual dignity or human life, and who intend to commit acts of involuntary exploitation, including redistributive and retributive change.
I think Obama's problem is that he lives in an ivory tower, or in a golf house, where there is room for his ego and little more. So far, his ego has demonstrated an extraordinary ignorance of reality, and contempt for the real challenges faced by people, here in America and around the world.
Oh, well. Another day, another "affordable" care act, which fails to address progressive inflation and limited supply.
Another day, another regime change.
Another day, another trillion dollars devaluing capital and labor.
Anyway, if he possessed any integrity, before he treated symptoms, he would at least make an effort to identify causes, and stop projecting his own failures.
That's called a democracy, not a constitutional representative republic. Huge difference. The bill of rights means something. The constitution means something. Not to this half-black ass clown obviously because he thinks it restrains him from doing what he really wants to do. Yet, he sees the constitution as a series of negative rights and the idea that he even expresses that the constitution restrains him implies that he wishes to be unrestrained.
The Left wants guns controlled in no small part because they know Mao was right: political power does grow out the barrel of a gun.
Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws...
Woodrow Wilson
(N)o doubt a great deal of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere vague sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle…”
Woodrow Wilson
Here is the New York Times urging Obama to be like Woodrow Wilson.
Like Obama, Wilson was a former law professor who had no respect for the Constitution. As President, in his second term he would pass the Alien and Sedition Acts, making it a crime to criticize the government.
Jonah Goldberg's book is a real eye-opener about our own past, and what the progressive movement is all about. Read it, you'll be amazed.
Mao's statement is so true that even liberals understand it. Of course I was taught that the precipating event of our Revolution was when the British sent an armed column of soldiers to seize the People's arms.
Like Obama, Wilson was a former law professor who had no respect for the Constitution
This came up in 'the great influenza' about the 1918 flu epidemic but nobody really talks about it much.
This is horrible, just think what great things Obama could do is he wasn't constained. He should just declare martial law and take over. It'd be for the best.
Gee, Barry, what "constraint" did you and your AG exercise when you and he were accessories to the murder of Brian Terry ? I'm sure that he'd be interested in your definition of constraint.
Maybe when you and your progressive ilk are finished dancing gleefully on the Sandy Hook dead. All the while ignoring you and your progressive friends roles in their slaughter. They and many other victims in similar circumstances. Circumstances dictated by progressive "restraint".
Geez, what an ignorant ,clueless shit you are.
I love it that Obama thinks those words would be conciliatory to people who mistrust the government
Obama could use "physics," being full of shit and all.
Did he feel constrained by the Constitution when he made NLRB recess appointments while the Senate was out taking a piss?
“Well, the government is us. These officials are elected by you. They are elected by you. I am elected by you. I am constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders put in place. It’s a government of and by and for the people.”
Um, yeah:
No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.
--The Federalist No. 47
The man is an imbecile.
The Constitution is too damn long. They could have just said "Whatever most of you want to do is fine."
"The President made a comment last week about the poor grades he got in Physics."
Has anyone ever seen Obama and Freder at the same time?
"The man is an imbecile."
That and, as one saying aptly goes: "Educated beyond his Intelligence."
Unfortunately for us..
I am not one of those who gain an influence by cajoling the unthinking mass (tho' I pity their delusions), and ringing in their ears the gracious sound of their absolute Sovereignty...
Saint Croix:
That's actually how they think, isn't it. They really hold people in low esteem. I cannot relate to mortal gods or mere mortals who submit to their imperfect tyranny.
“You hear some of these quotes: ‘I need a gun to protect myself from the government.’
Yeah, dummy, I've heard these quotes too.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Maybe he can take time out of his busy golf schedule and visit Monticello and learn all about Thomas Jefferson?
Virginia is right across the river from where he works, after all...
People are blinded by tech.
Man has not changed.
I always laugh when someone defends something this government does/government policy like Obamacare by stating "we don't know what's going to happen."
History does, it's usually been tried and failed, sometimes spectacularly.
Did he just say that because he's elected, that gives him dictatorial powers for 4 years?
Jay wrote:
The man is an imbecile.
The fine old word 'popinjay' is more apt.
And Santayana was right about the people who do not study history.
I am constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders put in place.
And thank God for that! Can you imagine what he do WITHOUT constraints?!
He earlier said that the Constitution just gets in the way of what he wants to do, but now I can't find a pointer to his exact words so I could quote them.
I tried Google, Yahoo, Bing, and DuckDuckGo.
"Fascinating."
Every time I consider pulling the voting lever for some politician, I always close my eyes and imagine what that person would be like if my vote granted unchallengeable and absolute power.
Not many fare well. I think W. comes out ok. Daniel Patrick Moynihan looks good. I would trust Leiberman. Two libs. Paul Ryan would be ok with absolute power, as much as any one would. I certainly don't trust myself with it since I would move quickly to clear out the faculty lounges of the colleges of arts and sciences and get them jobs at Walmart where they belong.
But Obummer would be merciless and brutal. There would be reeducation camps and death squads. Millions would die. He would make Pol Pot look like Mother Teresa.
And this ass clown wants info about my Beretta and is complaining because I don't trust him with it?
No. Our founders were miraculously blessed with wisdom and cold-eyed insight into the reality of mankind. They knew precisely what they were doing, even as they compromised on the three-fifths of a person thing. They did not let the best become the enemy of good enough for the time being. They knew we would get it right sooner or later, but not that day.
We'll survive the libruls because I believe in my soul that all of the 60s looselugnut libruls and their progeny like Ann will ultimately either die off or show some signs of intellectual honesty, as Ann usually does, and realize that all those baby boomer hookah-inspired dreams may be noble, but entirely unrealistic if the solution is yet more government.
I can't find a pointer to his exact words so I could quote them.
Gloria Estefan--The Words Get In The Way.
BTW, Obama-the-congenital-liar claims he took a college physics course?
Riiighhhttt...ANYBODY that believes that probably served as a slack-jawed drawing model for some of Larson's Far-Side cartoons..
I'd just LOVE to see him work out with differential equations--just for starters..
"If the President does it, it's not illegal." #obamaislikenixon
The Constitution was designed exactly to protect we the people from they the political class.
Look, Obama and his ilk don't believe in the values and principles on which America was founded.
Why he or others like him are not asked "Why don't you believe in America" is almost criminal.
"Popinjay"
THAT's the word I was searching for!
Let's make a Photoshop joke with material provided. Find it or nick screen grab from a video.
The joke can be expressed as a single frame jpg or animated gif.
I would like the joke to be about cops as backdrop. Show the stage people moving a large photograph backdrop of cops into position. That could be a single frame. The joke is right there. It needn't be animated. Okay that's done. Is it lunch time yet?
The teleprompters can be props too. And so can the Obama. A robot on a trolly pulled into position by rope. Its head already back and forth like a windshield wiper as it is positioned so not to waste precious frames. All the elements set for a proper community organizing doink doink doink. Then removed, doink doink doink blank space repeat.
If you do this in GIMP then when you save it as gif file, at that point you tell it how many seconds or fractions thereof for all the frames.
If you do this in Photoshop then you must specify on the timeline how many seconds or fractions thereof for each individual frame. And that is the biggest drag of the whole thing if the animation has a lot of frames. Try to limit the frames. For file size reduction porpoises.
So now get to it and amuse me.
I continue to be troubled by Mr O and the Progressives referring to the Constitution and Bill of Rights as having been inflicted upon us by "The Founders". In my reading of history, I keep stumbling over a little word -- Ratification.
Obama obviously is deliberately misinterpreting the word 'constrained', in order that it should NOT carry any vestiges of 'Congress shall make no law...'.
Perhaps he thinks that the Bill of Rights is merely a minor list in the ruling class's game of Trivial Constraints.
Jim Morrison was wrong. We've got the guns AND the numbers. Besides, if you've got the guns, you don't need the numbers.
This is classic progressive and socialist political theory.
Because a socialist government is acting on behalf of the people, it is per se democratic.
This is the anti-thesis of classical liberalism as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution which acknowledge that government is distinct from the people and can be removed by the people when it infringes on individual liberties.
This is classic progressive and socialist political theory.
Because a socialist government is acting on behalf of the people, it is per se democratic.
This is the anti-thesis of classical liberalism as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution which acknowledge that government is distinct from the people and can be removed by the people when it infringes on individual liberties.
He revealed more than he intended when he made that remark about being constrained by limits imposed by the Constitution. He is on record as opposing the "negative rights" as written in the Constitution, and he and his administration have shown open contempt for the doctrine of Separation of Powers as written in the Constitution.
How could you not have "popinjay" on the tip of your tongue?
Many liberals today wear a mask, a frighteningly successful one, that fools people into thinking modern liberalism stands for freedom. The mask hides the wearers desire for greater individual dependency on a large powerful govt. The mask shows the world a person who believes in personal liberty, and hides his hatred of anyone who actually believes in the idea that personal responsibility and personal liberty need to go hand in hand.
Liberals cleverly use sexual license as the bait to lure people into accepting their big govt. model-- you can screw all you want, and the govt. will pay for your birth control, abortions and fatherless babies. You can even screw up your life through indulgence and indolence, and the govt. will send you a dependency check every month. Everything else will be regulated and taxed to a level that will make economic freedom exist only for the politically connected.
The mask has also been successfully allowing modern liberals to hide their hatreds and bigotry, and sometimes even their dependency agenda, from themselves, so that they can call themselves the decent people and actually believe it.
If he doesn't need a Constitution, then he doesn't need the Judiciary.
And he doesn't need Congress.
All he really needs is Homeland Security, TSA and a fleet of well armed Drones flying overhead. And the Fourth Estate to keep the public distracted.
@Chip Ahoy/
MUCHO/MUY mea culpas--Considering the visage of Obama before my eyes everyday 'tis an unpardonable sin..
thankfully, the constitution also limits this turkey to two terms.
And he wants Pelosi back in as Speaker.
While correlation is not causation, things started going to pot in 2007 when she took the gavel.
Our founders put checks and balances, both for branches of government and through the federal system to provide a structure for governence and to protect liberty. The last line of defense in the right of the People to rebel against an unjust government -- which is preserved by the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Like the second coming of Christ, the founders probably expected that rebellion to happen more frequently than it has (Jefferson certainly did). It may never be needed -- hopefully, that right never will. But just because it hasn't been needed doesn't mean we should cede that right to a 51% majority.
Just to be clear: Obama says he's "constrained" by a thing, Althouse decides he really said that he's "NOT constrained" by that thing, and the Two Minutes' Hate commences based on what Althouse imagined. Is that right?
If an alleyway has 16 thugs and one woman in the alley, its okay to rape her if the majority want to. After all, they are the majority force in that alleyway. Likewise, if a predominantly White town wants to implement Jim Crow laws, its fine, because the the people in the town want it. they elected the officials. They are the government.
Therefore if the majority want it, is not tyranny right?
Wonder why that doesn't seem to include Gay-Marriage bans - which keep getting voted for and Liberals keep trying to overturn them because its against an individual's rights.
If Liberals didn't have double standards, they would have no standards at all.
thankfully, the constitution also limits this turkey to two terms.
I wager that a trial balloon will be floated in regard to Obama seeking a third term. It will be suggested. You watch.
That sucking sound you hear!?!....yeah.....That's the increasing price of firearms, and ammunition.
Let me get this straight:
Ms Althouse sees that this logic of trusting the federal govt to do whatever it wants because it is constrained by the Constitution as an attempt to bypass said constraints I regard to the 2nd Amendment.
This administration's perilous SecState promised the Administration would "get" the person responsible for exercising his free speech in a video. Sure enough, the justice Dept's actions resulted in him being put in jail for an extremely contrived parole violation charge.
President Obama also re-interpreted the 1st amendment when he stated citizens have freedom of *worship*, under the 1st Amendment, not Freedom of Exercise of Religion, as normally understood, as part of his claim that Catholics and other religious objectors must pay for contraception (and abortion?) services in their employer-provided health care insurance.
But we are supposed to trust this same administration will not use a court-imposed legalization of SSM to attack and undermine religious and/or conservative institutions just because there are strong 1st amendment protections constraining Obama from doing so?
Why is there such a big blind spot for the implications of progressive social engineering with SSM?
...I've asked Glen pn Reynolds this, but he's never yet addressed it: for someone who likes to cite the Gods of the Copybook Headings so much, why,does he ignore what it says about sexuality?
Just to be clear: Obama says he's "constrained" by a thing, Althouse decides he really said that he's "NOT constrained" by that thing, and the Two Minutes' Hate commences based on what Althouse imagined. Is that right?
Althouse, Jay, and Methadras just got a shout out on Twitter.
Constrained?
Barack is serving up warmed over Rousseau - The General Will - whether he knows it or not. It always leads to the guillotine or its modern equivalents. But then, Barack's mentor Bill Ayers was open about having to kill 25 million recalcitrants before true socialism could bloom.
"Just to be clear: Obama says he's "constrained" by a thing, Althouse decides he really said that he's "NOT constrained" by that thing, and the Two Minutes' Hate commences based on what Althouse imagined. Is that right?"
It's fair under my interpretation which you can think about and decide whether to be persuaded.
I could be much more verbose on the subject, but there is clear trickery in his words and it is a lawyer's trickery. There is constraint, but the constraint is no constraint, because we are constrained to do whatever we want and therefore we are entirely free. Government is the people, and it wants what they want, and everything is therefore already taken care of -- Constitution automatically followed.
I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together...
Get it?
More than any other modern president, Obama is the direct product of our elite law schools.
And this is what we get -- a dangerous President who lacks the understanding of the Constitution possessed by a bright high school student.
Or maybe in his leftist arrogance, he just plain doesn't care.
I would bet that 90% of the law professors at the top law schools voted for him twice.
What is one to conclude other than that the Constitution, checks and balances, the American republic -- all of that -- mean little or nothing to the top law professors? Just word games which may need to be massaged a bit to get the liberal agenda over, because deep down they know that they know best.
"but there is clear trickery in his words and it is a lawyer's trickery."
Ann, you know poor fatty can't undertand even community college trickery, not to mention lawyer's trickery.
Bitchtits the Uneducated still has trouble with the "I've got your nose" educational level trickery.
Just to be clear: Obama says he's "constrained" by a thing, Althouse decides he really said that he's "NOT constrained" by that thing, and the Two Minutes' Hate commences based on what Althouse imagined. Is that right?
I believe this is what's known on the internets as a "beclowning."
"'We can’t do background checks because the government is going to come take my guns away,’ Obama said
Uh, nobody, anywhere, ever, said this."
OK. I'll say it. We can't do background checks because the government is going to take my guns away. The only way background checks on private transfers can work is if the government keeps persistent records on the transfers.
Otherwise, you can say, "yeah, sure, I did the transfer and check (record disposal period + 1) days ago!"
If there is no "record disposal period" it's an effective gun registry.
And gun registries are necessary prequisites to gun confiscations.
(Oh, and fasteddie9318, just to be clear? You're the one beclowning yourself. Perhaps you should re-read what the Professor wrote.)
"That's the constitutional argument he has in mind. It's an idea of constitutional government as a political system, within which rights are only another manifestation of what the people want. And, in the ultimate scary twist on the idea of rights: Government is not to be regarded as in need of limits, because the government is us. Anything we — the government — want to do is never tyranny, but freedom."
Yeah, I agree with the professor's critique: That does sound like the sort of solipsistic sophistry a liberal would come up with. At risk of pseudo-Godwinning things, I'd like to point out that many megalomaniacal absolute leaders - from Pol Pot on back through most of the 20th Century - also believed that their mandates were from the populace and therefore validated their actions. Merely claiming popular will does not fully justify a certain course; it must be intrinsically logical and correct as well, not to mention moral and ethical.
The whole notion of accepting limited government exists to curb that precise abuse. Even if you throw out the admittedly outlying data points of totalitarian megalomaniacs, you still see ill result from what's arguably good intent. The fact remains that government is a tool who's use has consequences, and that's the ultimate dividing line between the statists who call themselves "liberal" (but are anything but) and the rest of the folks who recognize the need to limit government.
Obama got that interpretation from Alexander Hamilton:
"A Government is in its nature sovereign, and includes by force of the term, a right to employ all the means requisite, and fairly applicable to the attainment of the ends of such power; and which are not precluded by restrictions & exceptions specified in the constitution; or not immoral, or not contrary to the essential ends of a political society” (Cunningham 55).
can't undertand even community college trickery, not to mention lawyer's trickery.
Well please explain it to us then, lawyer*
*LOL
It's actually just the person's thumb, not really your nose fatboy.
Happy to help you understand though.
Cloudbuster - we already do background checks.
If Obama meant Private sales he should have said so.
I'd also add that he of course would never provide the proper context framing the issue.
Australia first had everyone re-register their firearms getting everyone to declare what they had. There was a massive penalty for not complying. Then they had a mandated gun turn-in program. The penalty for not turning in what you just said you had was on the order of the price of a house. Of course all law-abising people turned in what they said they had.
Here, we'd just use the existing laws in place for asset seizure/asset forfeiture. Teachers asked kids whether or not there were guns still in the home and some of the wee ones spilled the beans. Now, when motorcycle gang members are caught with a gun, they get a A$150 fine. Go figure.
Perhaps if you had custody of your daughter, she could have explained it.
Assuming she inherited most her her intellect from her mother rather than you, who at least showed intelligence enough to leave you of course.
Perhaps there will be a college educated Mahal someday after all. Recessive genes can be surprising things.
garage goes to ballgames hoping to get hit by a ball and collect lifetime disability. Some speculate he has the rent-seeker gene. As do all Lefties.
If Obama meant Private sales he should have said so.
How many of these private 'sales' happen within families?
Good luck getting anybody to put that down on paper.
"Professor Althouse: To be blunt, as well as cruelly neutral, why are you and your colleagues so stupid?"
For the same reason smart people believe a lot of stupid things. They assume the people they admire are as smart/competent as they regard themselves to be. And when reality disappoints, they rationalize around it. Smart people are unusually susceptible to cults of personality.
Saint Croix said: "I wager that a trial balloon will be floated in regard to Obama seeking a third term."
I have no doubt.
Obama's comments are channeling Barney Frank" "Government is the name we give to things we do together."
Government is the name we give to things we do together under threat of civil or criminal penalties.
Get it?
Coo coo kachoo. I am the egg man woo I am the walrus. No. I don't get it, 'asplain it to me.
The role of an elected official is not to do what "the people want." What the people "want" is frequently childish and selfish and the people know that.
The role of an elected official is to define truthfully during campaigns his philosophy of government and what he plans to do when elected.
In the event of the unanticipated, his job is to respond in accordance with his previously stated philosophy, the Constitution and the law.
It is less about what the people want than about what they would do if they actually bore the responsibility for the action.
Democrats, who are only concerned about winning elections clearly lack these distinctions, maybe Republicans who are dumb as rocks do too.
That is a scary thought: malleable rights based on who won the last election. It is kind of like Executive Orders.
I don't think he's dumb at all, but I think he knows that a lot of people that form his base really believe this pap.
I've had discussions with liberals that shed light on how prevalent is the belief that "the government is just us."
Shockingly ignorant. No way do I think that Obama believes this. It's just that when he's the government "us" in question, he's going to play to the ignorant.
How many of these private 'sales' happen within families?
Good question. I doubt there is any reliable data to actually know this.
But to listen to silly Barry and his ilk, "universal background checks" are the answer when you break into your mom's gun cabinent, murder her, and then go shoot up a school.
Isn't that swell?
This is the Marxist argument that Obama is making. I had an argument with a supporter of Hugo Chavez who argued that Hugo could not be a tyrant because the people of Venezuela voted for him. Apparently he was blissfully ignorant of the concepts of mob rule, ethics, human rights, personal property etc... as is Obama. This is why so many people were willing to believe Obama must be a foreigner... because he has no understanding whatsoever of the underpinnings of western civilization as a whole and the US in particular.
He hasn't a clue that what he espouses could as easily be used to justify the reimposition of slavery as it could national healthcare or the disarmament of the people. He has absolutely no conception of what constitutes a right that is independent of what the majority, or an elite minority decides.
And make no mistake, Obama and the other leftists who obtain power put in place justices who believe the same as they do. That is why the courts, and our government as a whole, no longer have any real legitimacy.
When Obama makes the argument he made then it is an admission that his only authority is based upon force and what he is willing and able to get away with rather than what he is authorized and allowed to do by the Constitution. Whether he is lamenting these constraints, or signalling his willingness to skirt them, it still makes him unfit to to be a citizen in a free country, let alone the leader of one.
He has the ethics and soul of a dictator. The only thing keeping him in check are our traditions and the vestiges of our laws.
This is the Marxist argument that Obama is making. I had an argument with a supporter of Hugo Chavez who argued that Hugo could not be a tyrant because the people of Venezuela voted for him. Apparently he was blissfully ignorant of the concepts of mob rule, ethics, human rights, personal property etc... as is Obama. This is why so many people were willing to believe Obama must be a foreigner... because he has no understanding whatsoever of the underpinnings of western civilization as a whole and the US in particular.
He hasn't a clue that what he espouses could as easily be used to justify the reimposition of slavery as it could national healthcare or the disarmament of the people. He has absolutely no conception of what constitutes a right that is independent of what the majority, or an elite minority decides.
And make no mistake, Obama and the other leftists who obtain power put in place justices who believe the same as they do. That is why the courts, and our government as a whole, no longer have any real legitimacy.
When Obama makes the argument he made then it is an admission that his only authority is based upon force and what he is willing and able to get away with rather than what he is authorized and allowed to do by the Constitution. Whether he is lamenting these constraints, or signalling his willingness to skirt them, it still makes him unfit to to be a citizen in a free country, let alone the leader of one.
He has the ethics and soul of a dictator. The only thing keeping him in check are our traditions and the vestiges of our laws.
I doubt there is any reliable data to actually know this.
Yes because nobody talks about it. Just thinking about people I know, guns pass around families like crazy. Inheritance, your brother just popping by because he doesn't particularly want a 22 handgun and thinks you do, etc..etc...
You will never track that and if you try people will hide everything they have that didn't go through a background check.
@Jay
"Cloudbuster - we already do background checks.
If Obama meant Private sales he should have said so."
1. The current legislation pending in the senate is for universal background checks -- meaning including those on private transfers. The legislation does not require the destruction of the records, as is currently required:
2. Federal law requires all government records of commercial background checks to be destroyed within a certain period (90 days?) of the check. The FFL holder is required to keep a copy of the form on file, but at least it's a paper record, and not directly in government hands. At least those vastly-distributed low-tech records would at least inconvenience a gun confiscation plan.
My point remains.
Listen, the International Lefties want Obama to hold up his end of the table. UN member nations worry about sending troops to the US with all those damn guns around here. Something must be done.
Maybe they told him that he would never be President of The New World Order if he doesn't come through. What's he to do?
How pathetic does your life have to be to pretend you're a lawyer, and stalk people around on the internet asking them personal questions?
Like I, or anyone else would ever share anything with a fucking lowlife degenerate creep.
Oh shock, guess who just said this?
I just came from Denver, where the issue of gun violence is something that has haunted families for way too long, and it is possible for us to create common-sense gun safety measures that respect the traditions of gun ownership in this country and hunters and sportsmen, but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon -- by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.
If you think Obama is smart, you're dumb.
Period.
Jay said...
You hear some of these quotes: ‘I need a gun to protect myself from the government.’ ‘We can’t do background checks because the government is going to come take my guns away,’ Obama said
Has this blathering idiot ever bothered to read the Federalist Papers or any writings of the men who founded America?
Those were written by DEAD WHITE AMERICAN MALES. If Choom reads anything, he wouldn't read anything by people like that.
AJ Lynch said...
Obama, in many ways, is an idiot. We will see much proof of that in the many books that will be written by insiders after Obama leaves office.
We already have.
Saint Croix said...
Here is the New York Times urging Obama to be like Woodrow Wilson.
Woody Wilson was an Unreconstructed Confederate who thought "Birth Of A Nation" was the true history of the Civil War.
Pettifogger said...
Obama's comments are channeling Barney Frank" "Government is the name we give to things we do together."
When you consider some of the things Slobbering Barney has done in a group, it gives new meaning to the words "government service".
When they were putting together a limited gov't Constitution (I know, haha), Zero is exactly the guy they had in mind.
"-- by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.
If you think Obama is smart, you're dumb."
Only if you think he believes what he's saying.
In most cases, I find stupid is a more likely explanation than evil for why people do the things they do.
In his case, I'm going with evil.
I'd also add I'm suprised he didn't say this:
Some say our country was founded on the idea that murderin' children is ok. I reject that argument, I want every child to be safe, legal, and rare...
--This is the Marxist argument that Obama is making. I had an argument with a supporter of Hugo Chavez who argued that Hugo could not be a tyrant because the people of Venezuela voted for him.--
97% voted for Saddam, too!
There is it, fatty goes directly for the Inga persecution technique, claiming "stalking."
You pudgey piece of shit, let me make something very clear to you. This site is run by a private citizen, one Ann Althouse. On it, are several postings a day, usually between 8 and 12.
Everyone who comments here, has equal access and opportunity to post, unless Althouse deems them unfit and bans them, as is her right since this site is hers. Responding to the stupid shit someone says this semi public forum is not "stalking."
You don't like it when people reference the pathetic facts of your life and quote things you posted in said semi public forum? Tough shit fatboy. The only reason you are crying like the stuck pig you are is that the truth hurts. Don't read it if you can't handle it.
Neither I, nor any other commenter here is making you come and spout your leftist propoganda here. If you don't want the pathetic failings of your life mocked, then perhaps you shouldn't share them in public.
The people of NY or IL want different things than the people of GA or ND.
Only if you think he believes what he's saying.
Fair point.
I don't think he's coherent enough to think about it one way or another.
He's just walking around spouting nonsense at every turn.
Given his public statements demonstrating his utter stupidity, I have a hard time believing he's an evil genius. Though it is quite clear he doesn't want what is best for America.
Couple of thoughts (not entirely either on or off topic):
1. From Rush Limbaugh: "A Right is something that doesn't cost anybody any money." (As to a Right of religious choice, or a "Right" to housing.)
2. Currently listening to audio-bood "James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights." (An OK book, but about 20% deadwood. Narrator's tone is more suited to a radio sports announcer.)
But the thought occurred to me that if (as Madison is said to believe) Sovereignty lies with the People, and the People grant certain Powers to the Government, then the Bill of Rights is misnamed.
Shoulda been called the "Bill of Explicit Restrictions," a list of Powers explicitly do not granted to Government. "Congress shall make no law ...."
Excellent critism Ann. Obama's argument is the way to inject "positive" rights into the Constitution.
Here's a little ditty about garage mahal. A communist kid growing up in the Heartland. garage is gonna be a union thug. And take a whizz in the backseat of Annie's car.
The President is shameless.
The document approved by the Constitutional Convention had to be ratified by "we the people," not the Founders, in order to become law.
The Executive is constrained, in every sense, by the people, not the Founders.
"How pathetic does your life have to be to pretend you're a lawyer, and stalk people around on the internet asking them personal questions?
Like I, or anyone else would ever share anything with a fucking lowlife degenerate creep."
Obama's stalking people on the Internet now?
Dumbest thread ever.
Althouse,
I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together...
Get it?
I think so.
You are The Walrus.
He complains a lot about our system of government.
OK. I'll say it. We can't do background checks because the government is going to take my guns away. The only way background checks on private transfers can work is if the government keeps persistent records on the transfers.
I wonder how many here are aware that the Federal and State governments have been, for DECADES, keeping persistent records (including serial numbers) of firearms transferred by licensed firearms dealers?
You people are breathtaking in your delusions.
The President basically says "Hey, you don't need to worry about the government taking your guns because the government doesn't have the power to take your guns", and you see that as proof that the government is gonna take your guns.
Sheesh. By the way, where were all you patriots when GWBush was busy shredding the Constitution?
GWBush was busy shredding the Constitution?
That was just Lefty projection, ahead of their plans to really do it. Just like always.
"You people are breathtaking in your delusions."
Obviously since Obama said it, we must be delusional.
"If you like your insurance plan, you can keep it."
"How pathetic does your life have to be to pretend you're a lawyer, and stalk people around on the internet asking them personal questions?
Like I, or anyone else would ever share anything with a fucking lowlife degenerate creep."
4/4/13, 1:13 PM
Garage and others here, this person PMJ displays sociopathic pathology. His vileness and stalker like behavior has ratcheted up over the past few months. He claims to be a lawyer, this is very obviously false. He would understand the legal ramifications to his law license, were he truly an attorney, and would NOT be so incredibly stupid to risk losing it, by posting personal information about commenters here.
Obama: "I am constrained... by a system that our Founders put in place."
Thank God. And I do mean that literally. And figuratively and any -ly you can come up with.
Thank you God.
(And Morris, Adams, Jefferson, Paine and Madison and the whole dead white male cast of characters who understood how crooked we are unconstrained.)
MAybe someone mentioned this above, but I am in the mood to beat a dead horse.
Why did Althouse think this guy was better than a placeholder like McCain?
The handwriting was all over the walls. All. Over. The. Walls.
Something to do with the company one keeps.
And where is the Khalidi going away party tape the LA Times is sitting on? And why have they been sitting on it? (And who knows if they are sitting on it? Why not just destroy it?)
@mariner
"I wonder how many here are aware that the Federal and State governments have been, for DECADES, keeping persistent records (including serial numbers) of firearms transferred by licensed firearms dealers?"
As far as I know, current law is that the government copies of the checks are supposed to be destroyed after a short period (not that I'd be surprised if I found out they were failing to destroy them). The only copies of the transfer forms are held by the FFL holder (the seller). However, if a seller goes out of business, the BATFE confiscates all the records. Fortunately, those are quickly out of date, because private transfers without checks *are* legal. Let's keep them that way.
I've heard BATFE is pretty cavalier about barging into gunstores and finding reasons to examine their records, but at least for the time being, the records are so distributed, low tech and full of gaps (due to private transfers), that they have limited usefulness. The last thing we want is for them to get efficient.
Things that you post on Althouse or any other websites are publically available information. As usual, you have absolutely zero fucking clue what you are talking about.
Take your whiny victimhood pleas and completely toothless threats and shove them up your ass.
Keep it up PMJ, I'm sure it will look quite impressive when the time comes.
Here is how the right wing reacts when Obama says he can only serve two terms.
Obama viciously planning to retire from office at the end of his term, citing Constititional constraints. What is his real agenda?
Stalking Law expansion in Violence Against Women Law, recently passed and signed
Jefferson mirrored Obama in his musings on the Constitution. Jefferson had a great fear that future generations would be imprisoned, held hostage to the wishes of long dead American leaders if the manual for operating America could not be readily amended and revised by future generations.
And Jeffersons fears have been somewhat borne out by the near impossibility in the last 50 years of Amending the Constitution in face of opposition by any organized special interest group. And a new faction of "Reverers" that worship the immutable Constitution as a perfect instrument and it's Holy Founders inc. Jefferson when they like what he said...as divine instruments of Gods words set to paper.
While the Constitution should stand as a bulwark against megalomaniac wannabe dictators like Obama, Bloomberg, and Right to Life Fundies...
We now live in an ossified society where the will of the people is blocked by a New Sanhedrin of Lawyers. Where any changes to things like Lifetime Judges, ability of a President to do line item vetos...are thought to be impossible for the People to vote on and change.
We once had a nation that could control our borders, build nuclear reactors, dispense swift and sure justice, and build a Pentagon or an Empire State Building in under a year.
No more.
Dumbest thread ever
Tied with everyone you've ever commented on. Try laying off for awhile and see how smart they get. On the other hand just don't even bother reading them lest you become tempted.
Cedarford
Let's see some evidence that Obama is a wanna be dictator. While you're at it why not give me some proof of the kooky left wing argument that Bush wanted to also be a dictator too.
It amounts to the same thing. There is little difference I can find between the conspiratorial minds of the far left or far right. All kooks.
About 18 months ago Obama explained how he was contrained by the law:
"This notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is not true," Obama told Hispanic journalists at an "Open for Questions" White House roundtable. "The fact of the matter is there are laws on the books I have to enforce. And there is a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and comprehensive immigration reform passed by perpetuating the notion that somehow by myself I can just go and do these things."
Last June Obama acted unilaterally by executive order to support the DREAM act.
I thought Republicans would do something about this usurpation. Wrong-o! I was.
So one could take Obama's announcement of constraint as simply prolog to some act of usurpation coming soon to a nation near you.
"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas.
(Governing Magazine 7/98)
-- From Paul Begala's "Is Our Children Learning?"
"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked.
-- CNN.com, December 18, 2000
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " [Bush] said.
-- Business Week, July 30, 2001
You pathetic old woman, do you even read what you post?
First of all, this is an article discussing how the ACLU is already seeing constitutional flaws in the legislation.
Second, as I have pointed out to you many times, posting on a forum that is open to the public is in no way connected with the "stalking" activities regulated even under this overbroad possibly unconstitutional bill. Nobody is emailing you, nobody is sending a tweet to your account, nobody is targeting you.
You CHOOSE to come to this site, you CHOOSE to read postings. And using the information you post and a simple google search
Go ahead and search any of my postings, you will not find a single one where there is even a hint of threatening of "death or serious bodily injury." I can pull some examples of you threatening violence however, if you haven't deleted them already.
As to "substantial emotional distress" good fucking luck trying to argue that this was caused by you choosing to go to a third party website and then being upset about what you read.
You will also notice the "reasonable person" standard at use in the law, which doesn't cover hysterical perpetually aggrieved old crones.
Attempting to diagnose people who post things you disagree with with mental/medical disorders and making nonsensical legal threats are hallmarks of the left.
I'm sick of it.
Go fuck yourself.
For full context, you can read his speech here and a similar one here.
There are reasonable arguments to be made for and against the latest gun control proposals. These speeches would have been a good opportunity to lay out those arguments and persuade the voters of the rightness of Obama's side.
That persuasion would necessarily begin with an honest revelation of exactly what his proposals are and how they would be carried out.
You won't find that in either of those rather long speeches, just more straw men, vague and misleading references to the new laws, appeals to emotion and demonization of his opponents.
There is no leadership in the man. He continues to be what he is. A dishonest politician with a smooth presentation who has no interest in anything other than the continuation of his power. What a shame.
The President basically says "Hey, you don't need to worry about the government taking your guns because the government doesn't have the power to take your guns", and you see that as proof that the government is gonna take your guns.
No, what he actually said was " I'd like to take your guns, but unfortunately the Supreme Court won't let me."
garage is ok with this since Obama is his kind of dictator.
Overpaid said...
The President basically says "Hey, you don't need to worry about the government taking your guns because the government doesn't have the power to take your guns", and you see that as proof that the government is gonna take your guns
Hey stupid shit:
You think Senator Feinstein's AWB in unconstitutional then, right?
Because it takes away more than 100 firearms.
Old, paranoid assertions like Althouse's make me tired. Even Scalia is reasonable on this: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
Overpaid said...
Sheesh. By the way, where were all you patriots when GWBush was busy shredding the Constitution?
That's funny. You big libertarian, you.
Bush joked.
Of course the resident bozo believes this is some sort of evidence Bush wants to be a dictator.
All the lefties here just don't get the idea that the Constitution (and particularly the Bill of Rights) is first and foremost designed to protect the rights of the Citizenry from the Government.
Obama's formulation doesn't mention rights at all, and explicitly says that because the government is elected it is in fact a proxy for the will of the people.
PMJ, I read it. It's the law of the land, it hasn't been to any court challenging its constitutionality. And until and if it does, IT'S LAW.
What kind of an ignorant "lawyer" are you? It you YOU, PMJ that comes across as being quite unreasonable and employs extremely personal information to attack a commenter for their political views, plus you hone in on two commenters continuously.
Overpaid said...
You people are breathtaking in your delusions.
The President basically says "Hey, you don't need to worry about the government taking your guns because the government doesn't have the power to take your guns", and you see that as proof that the government is gonna take your guns.
Sheesh. By the way, where were all you patriots when GWBush was busy shredding the Constitution?
4/4/13, 1:54 PM
And where are you now with Obama's daily shredding?
Of course the resident bozo believes this is some sort of evidence Bush wants to be a dictator.
If Obama had said that three times you'd be wetting your pants like you wet them every time Obama says *anything*.
Gahrie said...
The President basically says "Hey, you don't need to worry about the government taking your guns because the government doesn't have the power to take your guns", and you see that as proof that the government is gonna take your guns.
No, what he actually said was " I'd like to take your guns, but unfortunately the Supreme Court won't let me."
4/4/13, 2:58 PM
If he had said that, it would have been simply annoying.
What he said, however, was much worse. He said, in effect, "I'd like to take away your guns, but unfortunately I can't get enough votes to pull it off."
The direct quote: “Well, the government is us. These officials are elected by you. They are elected by you. I am elected by you. I am constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders put in place. It’s a government of and by and for the people.”
He is saying that under the "system our Founders put in place," the law can be changed if you'd just elect the right people.
He does not recognize the primacy of Constitutional rights in the first place.
Hence the problem.
The Hugo Chavez in Barry is just bursting to get out. Damn that pesky Constitution!
You stupid bint.
I never said it wasn't the law of the land, I said the article that you chose to demonstrate it wasn't supportive of it.
I am more than confident that nothing I have done is anywhere near illegal, under this law or any other.
The law doesn't say it is illegal to "employs extremely personal information to attack a commenter for their political views, plus you hone in on two commenters continuously."
You don't like having things thrown in your face? Don't write them on the internet on public forums.
Commenting on political views is kind of the point of the Althouse blog, and If I choose to hone in on the two most blatant idiots among the posters, well that is my right. You don't like that? Tough shit, you have zero authority, get that through your thick skull and to your pea sized brain. It's Ann's blog, if she doesn't like it she can ban me.
Phx and Ritmo certainly draw their share of comments from me as well, in addition to the multitudes of comments Althouse herself and the articles she links to.
Your attempts at intimidation and threats are both pathetic and telling of the leftist mindset.
garage mahal said...
If Obama had said that three times
Uh, Bush didn't say "it" 3 times, moron.
See stupid, you asserting something doesn't make it fact.
Want to guess why you don't provide links to anything?
Coincidence!
Idiot.
PS: Bush never, ever, said that the Constitution is in his way.
Only you would post this moroning drivel without any sense of irony.
Of course you're just here to try and deflect, distract, and make an utter idiot of yourself.
So there is that.
PMJ, you are one dumbass "lawyer".
It's Ann's blog, if she doesn't like it she can ban me.
Unfortunately, I don't think that's possible on blogger. We're stuck with your never ending written vomit until that changes.
If Obama manages to replace a conservative Supreme Court judge or two, how long does the 2nd Amendment last as it is currently understood?
The liberal approach is that the 2nd does not apply to ordinary citizens but to members of a militia. Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems like it would be easy with the right court to reinterpret the 2nd and confiscate most people's guns.
Overpaid wrote: 'The President basically says "Hey, you don't need to worry about the government taking your guns because the government doesn't have the power to take your guns", and you see that as proof that the government is gonna take your guns.' 1:54
Of course Obama lies regularly, but people here are unlikely to make the extrapolation you claimed above.
On the other hand, you have taken considerably more license in your claim and in the nonsensical assertion that "Bush shredded the Constitution than is warranted.
You are confused about who here is "breathtakingly delusional."
Inga said...It you YOU, PMJ that comes across as being quite unreasonable and employs extremely personal information to attack a commenter
It's like the self awareness function simply doesn't exist.
I'm not sure if Obama's lying or just hopelessly ignorant. The latter possibility worries me more.
If Obama had said that three times you'd be wetting your pants like you wet them every time Obama says *anything*.
"If"? :)
Althouse said:
" And, in the ultimate scary twist on the idea of rights: Government is not to be regarded as in need of limits, because the government is us. Anything we — the government — want to do is never tyranny, but freedom."
Very insightful. He has the same mentality as Kirtchner or Hugo Chavez.
Unless Obama believe that rights are given by God, his reasoning is correct. Without God, rights flow from the society in which a person lives. Right and wrong are determined by the majority. There is no other standard to appeal to. For him the constitution is just an old document based on outdated ideas like God given rights.
Old Dad said...
The President is shameless.
The document approved by the Constitutional Convention had to be ratified by "we the people," not the Founders, in order to become law.
The Executive is constrained, in every sense, by the people,
================
No, Old Dad proves my point about what Jefferson said of the danger of the tyranny of long past generations binding unborn generations of Americans to their will.
Worse that "We the People" electing a Mayor and saying it is for life and only when he dies in 50 years will future generations have any say..
Because institutions and operating manuals never die on their own.
Leaving us "We the People" of the present unable to Amend or revise the Operating Manual with any success on any major issue...and forced to default all urgent or petitioned changes to the whims of unelected lawyers.
In worst case, to the whims say of a ditzy Justice-legislator who knows she is the 5th and deciding vote and dreams up a new "balancing test". Right at breakfast - replacing an earlier brainstorm she had - while munching on her 3rd bite of an English muffin with cactus pear jelly. And which the whole nation will be subjected to as soon as she trundles up the steps of SCOTUS to cast her vote.
Leaving us "We the People" of the present unable to Amend or revise the Operating Manual with any success on any major issue...
The American people have exactly the same process and ability to amend or revise the "Operating Manual" as they did when it first came into being.
Just because you don't like the amendments, or lack thereof, does not mean it is not a success.
I would argue that it is succeeding exactly as designed.
Many here have misunderstood the context that Obama said this in. Read the entire section in context.
When he says he and the gov't is 'constrained' he is speaking a fact to alleviate fears - not frustration that HE is constrained. He is saying those who think we will take away your guns are just spreading fear. We won't take your guns and beside, by the way, we can't - due to the protections of the 2nd Amendment.
He then goes on to say: "If there are any folks who are out there right now who are gun owners, and you’ve been hearing that somehow somebody is taking away your guns, get the facts. We’re not proposing a gun registration system, we’re proposing background checks for criminals."
Now, at this point someone with common sense would realize he is trying to tamper any fears of a gun seizure by the gov't. But the more conservative ones [Obama haters] out there will leave that last part out and only focus on the word 'constrain' thinking that what Obama really means is he would take your guns if it wasn't for that pesky constitution.
There is no leadership in the man. He continues to be what he is. A dishonest politician with a smooth presentation who has no interest in anything other than the continuation of his power. What a shame.
You forgot that he's half-black. In most cases, that's not a big deal. For this presidency, it's the deal maker. Had he had two lily-white parents, we would be talking about President Hillary.
he is not proposing "background checks for criminals" he is proposing background checks for people dumb enough to buy their guns from a gun shop. Criminals will not submit to the "background check" since they are likely aware of their "background."
We’re not proposing a gun registration system, we’re proposing background checks for criminals.
--We're not proposing a ban on smoking in private businesses. We're proposing making public buildings smoke-free.
--We're not proposing making same-sex marriage legal. We're proposing civil unions with the same rights as married couples.
Both cases are true until those that have said similar statements sense that they have the power to go further.
But the more conservative ones [Obama haters]
Projection. Being more conservative doesn't = hating Obama.
We’re not proposing a gun registration system, we’re proposing background checks for criminals.
We're not proposing a pedestrian registration system, we're proposing stop-and-frisk for criminals.
Shoulda been called the "Bill of Explicit Restrictions," a list of Powers explicitly do not granted to Government. "Congress shall make no law ...."
Back in 1781 that was what the BILL of Rights was considered to be.
We've dumbed down since then. the Bill of Rights wasn't even covered in my daughters government class.
Scott M
Is there any political position you can think of that doesn't include a slippery slope element? Most ALL do if you think they do. But that doesn't make it so. Therefore your argument is specious.
We're stuck with your never ending written vomit until that changes.
Pot meet kettle
In any case at least he's not still participating it a thread he called the dumbest ever.
So, Matt, Barry's assuming anyone who wants to buy a gun is a criminal? And we're checking to see if they're not?
Boy, imagine the uproar if we checked if people were illegals.
Oh, wait......
Therefore your argument is specious.
You're missing the point.
The misleading statement in question is actually "We’re not proposing a gun registration system, we’re proposing background checks for criminals".
Unfortunately, Matt, the dems already took gun rights away to freed blacks over 100 years ago.
Unfortately, Matt, we can actually read what is proposed in the bills.
How come the language of the bills don't match what's coming out of Barry's mouth?
You did hear what was proposed in Washington State, didn't you?
It was a how did that get in there? OF COURSE we don't mean that.
In any case at least he's not still participating it a thread he called the dumbest ever.
True, It's too bad Kim Jong Un can't nuke this thread.
We’re not proposing a gun registration system
The ACLU noted today that while the proposed bill doesn't explicitly create such a registry, it leaves the door open for the executive branch to create one by fiat. The law contains no specifics about what information will be required in the check and places no limits on how long the government can retain the information submitted with the check. In both cases the executive branch will write those rules.
Thus, if the department of justice wants to say "the background check must include a list of weapons being purchased and by whom" and opt to retain that information forever -- poof, instant registry for all firearm transfers and purchases.
It was a how did that get in there? OF COURSE we don't mean that.
That was absolutely one of the worse de-sheeping of a wolf that we've had a while, true. It's just more evidence that this is one of those battles where you give an inch, they want a lightyear.
True, It's too bad Kim Jong Un can't nuke this thread
Well you are free to ignore it
And so anyone who wants to buy a gun is guilty until proven innocent.
I wonder what else will be captured in this info?
Late child supports? Alimony?
IRS liens?
Unless Obama believe that rights are given by God, his reasoning is correct. Without God, rights flow from the society in which a person lives. Right and wrong are determined by the majority. There is no other standard to appeal to. For him the constitution is just an old document based on outdated ideas like God given rights.
Not the majority, but whichever self-selected group holds power.
This was the idea Orwell addressed in Nineteen Eighty-Four. O
This is what you get when you put somebody in charge who got by with no real grades, but mainly affirmative action. The low-qualification people like Napolean, Hitler, and many more who are simply political BS artists have shown us every time that it was a mistake to put them in office. Unfortunately, several generations of Americans have been brainwashed into thinking that dumbness is actually smart, when done by a minority. So here we are. You didn't complain early enough.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন