Banning assault rifles obviously means that all guns will be banned eventually.
Just like how allowing gay marriage means we will have to allow people to marry penguins. And how legalizing marijuana means we have to also legalize heroin.
Just like our history! We installed a minimum wage and the next thing you know, the government is setting all salaries for every single person. We gave women the right to vote and now all children get to vote, too. We registered cars and made provisions for their safety which immediately led to all cars being banned.
Because, of course, we have no possible way of doing anything reasonable as a population and can only do the most absurd outrageous outcome at the end of the slippery slope.
See, here’s the problem.
The words “gun control” make the radical gun owners’ heads explode. Despite the fact that the vast majority of gun owners agree with things like background checks and licensing and other controls to help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane, the radicals see the mere thought of even the slightest bit of regulation as a violation of the Constitution greater than any other.
And this is despite the fact that the Constitutional amendment in question is the only one that uses the words “well regulated.”
Go figure.
The First Amendment clearly says that “Congress shall make no law” concerning freedom of speech and the press and religion and so on. Yet, there are all sorts of regulations on our speech which do not violate the Constitution at all. There are restrictions on the time, place, and manner of the speech (Can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater); there are restrictions on speech that can cause a “clear and present danger” (you can’t incite a riot and then claim as a defense that you were simply exercising your First Amendment rights); there are restrictions on obscenity, military secrets, and laws against libel and slander.
And that amendment doesn’t even carry the words “well regulated.”
So what does that mean in the 2nd amendment? Why would the founders have added those words if they were meaningless?
Some will point out that it says “well regulated militia” and therefore the law only applies to the military. Well, by that definition, only the militia can have guns.
And even so, I wouldn’t object if non-military persons had to follow the same rules as our military when it comes to guns. No one joins the army and is handed a machine gun on the first day. No, first you have to be cleared to even be in the military in the first place to make sure you’re not a felon or insane. Then there is training to go through; there are safety courses; and there are many people overseeing you at first. You know — the same kinds of restrictions many of us feel are reasonable for anyone wanting to own a gun.
I have friends who are gun owners. Not one of them would be prohibited from owning their guns with these restrictions. Yet a few of them seem to think that any restriction is equivalent to “the government taking their guns away.” No, it’s more like the government taking cars away from people who don’t know how to drive, have no license, and/or are criminals or insane.
Sounds nice and “well regulated” to me. No Constitutional problems there. (And, once more, although the radical gun owners always point out the recent Supreme Court decision that says that citizens have the right to own guns, they ignore the parts of the decision that allow for the exact kinds of regulations I’m talking about here.)
Obviously, right? I mean, come on, he’s the President. He’s the one in charge of the budget, right?
What’s that? The House of Representatives controls the budget under Article I?
Well. Um. Sure, but he’s the President. Surely he can do something.
“What more do you think I can do?” Obama asked at a Press Conference recently. “I’m the President, not a Dictator.”
In all seriousness, this is a problem for both sides and any attempt to make it look one-sided is completely partisan.
At the same time, it should be noted that when this whole thing started, Boener said he got “98% of what he wanted” in the deal. So maybe that’s why he’s not willing to compromise.
We’ll see who ultimately takes the blame for this.
Doesn’t that, you know, automatically make him unqualified to teach science?
Apparently John Freshwater thinks his firing was unfair. Just because he taught creationism in his science class. And handed out flyers denying evolution. And waved the Bible around. Oh, and then there was that time he burned a cross into a student’s arm.
His lawyers argued, incredibly, that denying him the right to teach crap was a violation of his 1st Amendment rights, completely missing the point that no one was stopping him from spewing out his ignorance on his own time. But this guy was a science teacher! Knowing science seems to be, I dunno, a qualification of this job, don’t ya think?
It’s sad that we still have to fight these ridiculous battles almost 100 years since the Scopes trial. It’s embarrassing, actually.
Really, Tea Partiers? You’re upset that the First Lady of the United States was on the Oscars? It’s not like she gave a political speech.
I wouldn’t have objected to Laura Bush appearing. Heck, even George W Bush saying a few nice things about the movies would have been OK.
But somehow whenever Michelle does anything, you guys react like the devil has appeared. “Michelle has suggested that we should eat better and exercise! She’s trying to take away our rights!!!”
Is there anything she can do publicly that you don’t disagree with? And is there any chance you might stop looking like idiots?
Addendum: After posting this, I discovered that in 2002 Laura Bush did appear on the Oscars, on a big screen, just like Michelle Obama. Hey, does everyone remember how liberals protested when that was done?
ventrellaquest.com 