Thursday, August 11, 2016

Abolishing the 2nd Amendment



   "Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. But the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."
     By now, Donald Trump's dog whistle to the gun-nuts in the Republican Party has been picked over like a turkey carcass on Dec. 1. There's really only one thing to add.
     That one thing is: Donald Trump's crazier comments mask those remarks that are merely delusional.
     So while the political sphere vibrated with horror over Trump's smirking, coy appeal to violence, and his unshakable fans—any other kind have fled by now—explain that no, he meant 2nd amendment voters, acting as a coalition, something important is overlooked.
     Sighing—a kind of reason fatigue sets in—I want to wrench our bug-eyed gaze from the end of Trump's quote, back to the beginning. "Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment."
     What's that based on? Like many Democrats, Hillary has floated some vague ideas about stricter background checks, a bit of fine-tuning and deck chair arranging that ignores the greater problem with guns in America. Judging from Barack Obama's eight years of inaction, no rational person expects anything more. The 2nd Amendment isn't being abolished; just the opposite, it is eroding the others, draining meaning from all that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" nonsense.
    A separate issue is the difficulty of changing any aspect of the Constitutional: two-thirds of the House and Senate must approve, then have three-quarters of the states ratify the change. Well nigh impossible in a nation that cannot get rid of the penny. 
    That's clear to those who aren't in the grip of fear. But Republicans, remember, are fear junkies, and if reality won't get them high, they cook something up. They start out scared, and then conjure up new terrors to justify their fear. The Democrats have to be continually plotting to take away guns; otherwise why would they need to keep buying more? I don't know if the whole things a conspiracy of the gun industry, or just a mass psychosis that plays to their economic interest. Probably both. Either way, the result's the same.
    So sad. Were I looking for a genuine reason to be terrified, I couldn't find anything more ominous than a GOP presidential candidate who's a cat's paw of Vladimir Putin, who can't figure out what NATO's for, or why we can't use nuclear weapons—after all, we got 'em! To ignore all that, to miss the truly frightening stuff, and point in horror at the lip-service gumming the Dems do on the subject of guns is a most perverse of hallucinations. 
    Then again, there's a lot of that going around. The least we can do is mention it. 

21 comments:

  1. Chicago, D.C. had super liberal super majorities and gun bans. The left won't try their confiscation antics ONLY when they know it will cost them elections. And the only reason the bans were stopped was a very close 5-4 court case. Rest assured she'll stack the Supreme Court with anti-gun Communist. Off the record if Hillary could get away with it politically she'd take every gun in this country but she knows it will cost her the election so we get this B.S. about loopholes and "assault weapons".

    These rights are precious to Americans, up there with voting and a free press and breathing and free assembly and the right to protest and privacy. This right is the red line and expect massive resistance to anyone stomping on it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one is going to take anybody's guns away, unless they are criminals or the severely mentally ill.
      And we already take away the guns criminals possess.
      Almost every single mass shooting has been done by someone who had serious mental illness & never should've been allowed to have a gun, let alone several of them.

      So go back to Drudge & Breitbart & foam at the mouth with those loons!

      Delete
    2. your last paragraph is very interesting in that all of those "rights" are under attack by Trump and the Republicans as well - voter i.d. laws, banning certain reporters & media from directly covering the campaign, removing people who disagree from events, debasing those who do not agree with you, and putting themselves in everyone's bedroom.

      Delete
    3. The problem with Chicago's gun laws were they only affected Chicago, and we can't wall off Indiana. That's why we need a national solution.

      I want to go back to the pre-Heller days when saner minds prevailed.

      The fact that we did NOTHING after 20 kindergarteners were blown to p8eces proves the debate is over. Yet fear mongers have to sell more guns somehow. So now HRC is a gun grabber--not due to any evidence, but because gun sales depend on a bogey (wo)man

      Delete
    4. The problem with Chicago's gun laws were they only affected Chicago, and we can't wall off Indiana. That's why we need a national solution.

      I want to go back to the pre-Heller days when saner minds prevailed.

      The fact that we did NOTHING after 20 kindergarteners were blown to p8eces proves the debate is over. Yet fear mongers have to sell more guns somehow. So now HRC is a gun grabber--not due to any evidence, but because gun sales depend on a bogey (wo)man

      Delete
  2. Mr. Clark St. answer the question about the two cities I cited. And I'll make it easier for you the two sources below:

    http://thefreethoughtproject.com/82-shot-15-dead-city-strictest-gun-laws-united-states/

    http://firearmtrainingstore.com/about-us/blog/d-c-gun-ban-declared-unconstitutional/

    No I have to get to work, hard work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If strict gun laws are futile or worse counter-productive, why are you so worried that we'll get more of them?

      john

      Delete
    2. It must be hard work to feed your paranoia non-stop.

      Delete
  3. James Clark, what are you smoking???

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's amazing how the right can twist the meaning of the 2nd amendment and words that any Democrat says. Rush Limbaugh and his gang push this thought too about the guns taken away paranoia. I wonder if assault weapons are what the Founding Fathers had in mind when that was written. Yes, it's all about money from the gun lobby and their stockpiling, brainwashed followers who buy more than they should. Or they assume or spread the thought that the centrists or left are completely against gun ownership. As for Donald Dum's jokes regarding that matter...it's not funny. When has the Secret Service ever had to tell a major candidate to mind their words? Yet, he calls Hillary a liar...he's got her beat by a mile.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A starting point for understanding Hillary Clinton's position is visiting her own official web page. As noted in her position or speeches, there is no mention of abolishing or modifying the Second Amendment, in any way shape or form. In the web page there is a disturbing bullet point as follows:
    "Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry's sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law."
    It seems Hillary would place civil liability for any crime committed with a gun, upon the manufacturer of the criminal's weapon of choice. For example, the manufacture(s) of the weapons used by Omar Mateen would be liable to the victims for whatever millions of dollars a jury cares to calculate. After a few years of lawsuits, voilà! no more gun manufactures. If this is not Hillary's intention her web page should be modified for clarity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Boy, that's a stretch!

      If a manufacturer of cars, baby buggies, mattresses, or anything else makes or sells its product by taking "illegal and irresponsible actions," it can be held liable in court. Apparently, manufacturers of guns cannot be held liable in the same manner.

      Delete
  6. Bernie, shouldn't you be on the Donald Trump or NRA Facebook page? And even if that interpretation were true, shouldn't they be liable?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What, visit Donald die Scheiße Kopf Trump's web page, no thanks! I just got over a migraine from yesterday, and have no intention of getting another. But if you visit and post anything of his that can pass for a cognitive thought, I'll consider you the best commenter of the day, good luck with that.
      Now the NRA has an official website, where they deplore the gun violence, and have suggestions for reducing it. In addition to the questionable policy of harsher penalties for violent gun crimes, they advocate for the federal background check program already in place called NICS. They explain how it works, telling members how to comply not evade the rules, and have suggestions for making it more effective. Perhaps if Hillary were to say she would like to work with the NRA and gun lobby in making improvements to the NICS program, it would go a long way toward alleviating gun owner's fears.

      Delete
  7. For gun nuts, any restriction of any kind of guns, their sale or use, equals "repealing the Second Amendment." There's nothing to do with those people except tune them out.

    Bitter Scribe

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don't think any manufacturer or seller should have "sweeping legal protection," as is the case with the gun industry. If liability can be proven in a court of law -- a fairly tall order -- it should be.

    Clinton has criticized Washington D.C. vs Heller, as have many legal scholars, but her advocacy of background checks and a ban on assault weapons is not inconsistent with Justice Scalia's written opinion, in which he said nothing here should impair the government's right to impose limitations on the kinds of weapons that can be sold and who may acquire them.

    Tom Evans

    ReplyDelete
  9. Politicians have almost stomped out smoking by raising costs sky high & restricting where you can use a legal product. By raising taxes on guns & bullets & restricting guns to hunting grounds, firing ranges, folks will be ready in their trailer parks when we get invaded by the British again!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sherry, with all respect, I think smoking rates dropped because people began to realize how bad it is for them.

      Politicians love taxes that only a small part of the population pays, which is why cigarette taxes became more attractive as fewer people smoked. As for use restrictions, that was just because more people complained. I remember flying when they let you smoke inside planes, and that was no fun at all.

      Bitter Scribe

      Delete
  10. Mr. Martin, #1 nobody is going to take your guns away,#2 nobody says you can't have guns if you obey the laws.#3 the red line is every bought and paid for republican taking millions from the gun lobby,I mean NRA

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mr. Martin, #1 nobody is going to take your guns away,#2 nobody says you can't have guns if you obey the laws.#3 the red line is every bought and paid for republican taking millions from the gun lobby,I mean NRA

    ReplyDelete