Former maverick continues to pander to wingnut base after tragedy
Erstwhile straight-talker talks himself up his own ass.
John "Mr Sensitivity" McCain opened his twathole and said the shooting rampage at Virginia Tech -- where the gunman, in the middle of the worst shooting rampage in American history, kept stopping to reload -- does not change his view that the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to carry a weapon.
McCain to families of the victims: "I feel your pain, but come on, suck it up! This is America!"
*****
April 17, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Hmm...yes...I was totally appalled that the Preznit (through his Snow replacement) said incrediably shortly after the shootings that he supported the right to bear arms.
Couldn't ya wait a day, until the parents had been notified their kids were dead?
And -- like McCain in Baghdad -- "W" will always (even when he's no longer prez) have secret service guards around to step between him any gunman to greatly reduce the chance of serious injury, so it's easy for him to pander to the gun nuts from his sanctuary (next we'll hear from Dick-head Cheney -- cowering from his bunker -- about how 'God,guts,& guns made America great'). They and the NRA won't be happy until this place IS another 'Mad-Max' wasteland where the 'winner' is the guy who gets the drop on somebody first and prevails due to superior firepower.
More abuse of the Constitution that doesn't get called! The second amendment of the US Constitution states that IN A WELL REGULATED MILITIA the People's right to bear arms shall not be infringes. Why does the right wing always ignore those first 5 words?
At the time of the drafting of the Constitution the "well regulated militia" was a a local phenomenon that took the place of the standing army, presumably to repel any attempted takeover by the British. We now have National Guard troops and a standing army. These entities are now our "well regulated militia". Therefore there is NO Constitutional guarantee for any regular joe or josephine to carry a gun.
Extra Credit: Find a Supreme Court decision that supports the Republican interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Hint: If they took the case they would have to make a plain interpretation of the Constitution and establish a precedent.
Um Julian, I think you are incorrect in your assumption that Thomas Jefferson was of the opinion that Government was always going to be benign, and take good care of us, and respect the fact the Constitution is a piece of paper that limits government interference in our lives. "Watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants" wasn't something he expected the Tyrant's "standing army" to perform, now was it?
I think a close read of the discussion by our Forefathers when this amendment was being debated would be a better source of understanding exactly why it was put in.
The "well-regulated militia" you correctly state at that time was recently a band of organized guerrilla fighters, "Terrorists" would be the Crown's terminology. These type men are hardly going to be found in our National Guard or Standing Army in the event we need to dispose a government gone bad. Fight themselves, what?
Think I exaggerate? Think Iraq resistance.
I won't hold my breath waiting for our National Guard to come back from Iraq and dispose the unelected CINC.
Would you?
Hint: George Washington called a large standing army "the greatest threat to liberty."
Who do you think he wanted armed?
I say "regular (white, male landowning) joe's" (Sorry josephines, we are talking 1700's here).
Farang,
My argument is that it's irrelevant whether or not Jefferson or Washington favored a large standing army. The "well-regulated militia" referred to in the Constitution is no longer a reality in 21st century USA. Whether or not having a standing army in their stead is a good idea is not pertinent. My point is that there is no longer a connection between the civilian population and weapon-ownership in the Constitution. That does not say that gun ownership is illegal, only that it's not guaranteed in the Constitution. Therefore, according to the 10th amendment the power to regulate weapons are reserved to the States.
Post a Comment