“I, Barack Hussein Obama, will, to the best of my ability, defile, degrade and destroy the Constitution of the United States.”

From

Obama Considers Action on Gun Control, Biden Says

By Jared A Favole | Updated January 9, 2013, 3:23 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama is considering executive action to prevent gun violence, Vice President Joe Biden said Wednesday, suggesting that gun laws in the U.S. will change even if Congress doesn’t act.

“The president is going to act,” Mr. Biden said while surrounded by Attorney General Eric Holder and gun-safety advocates and victims of gun violence. “I want to make clear that we’re not going to get caught up in the notion that, unless we can do everything, we’re going to do nothing.”

Mr. Biden’s comments come several weeks before he is set to provide Mr. Obama with a range of ideas about how to prevent gun violence. The White House hasn’t settled on what steps Mr. Obama is going to take but it has said the president wants to ban assault weapons and close a loophole in the law that allows people to buy weapons at gun shows without a background check.

Any changes will likely cause a backlash from gun owners and gun-rights advocates. Some gun-rights advocates have said they are open to changing gun laws but powerful gun groups such as the National Rifle Association have opposed them.

More at the link.

Your Editor notes that Barack Hussein Obama took an oath as President of the United States that he “will to the best of (his) Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” In eleven days from now, he will take that oath again.

Allow me to quote from part of the Constitution President Obama has sworn to preserve, protect and defend:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yet, according to Vice President Biden, President Obama will seek ways to not defend the Constitution of the United States, but will seek legislation to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and if he is unable to persuade the Congress to pass such infringements into law, he will issue executive orders to do so himself.

So, President Obama and Vice President Biden don’t particularly like the provision of the Constitution which states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? The Constitution provides, in Article V:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.

If the President or the Vice President do not believe that the Second Amendment is a good and wise thing, they have every right to propose a constitutional amendment to either alter or completely repeal it. I proposed, two years ago tomorrow, one such Amendment:

  • Section 1: The Second Amendment to this Constitution is hereby repealed.
  • Section 2: (a) Private ownership of operable firearms is hereby prohibited. The Congress may allow individual, registered collectors to own and possess registered antique firearms, if they are in a permanently disabled condition.
  • (b): Neither the government of the United States nor any of the governing subdivisions therein are required to pay compensation for firearms confiscated and destroyed under the provisions of Section 2 (a).
  • Section 3: The manufacture, possession, purchase or sale of operable firearms of any type is prohibited within the United States, save for those registered companies manufacturing firearms for the Armed Forces of the United States, or authorized federal, state and local law enforcement agencies certified by the Department of Justice.
  • Section 4: The Congress shall have the power to enforce this amendment through the passage of appropriate legislation.

The Amendment I have proposed, or something along similar lines, would be an open, above-board and honest way for the President and the Democrats to do what they believe ought to be done. Yet, for some odd reason, none of the actually serious Democrats have made an actually serious proposal for so amending the Constitution.1 Of course, that odd reason is perfectly obvious and completely clear: they know that such a proposed amendment would never pass the Congress, nor if by some miracle it ever did pass the Congress, would never be ratified by the states. Thus, being unable to achieve their goals honestly, dishonesty is the path that they choose.

With the oath he has taken, and the oath he plans to take again, it is President Obama’s sworn duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States, as our Constitution is written. But, once again, he shall honor his duty in the breach.
________________________________
Related articles:

________________________________

  1. The use of the adjective “serious” excludes the possibility of discussions over beer from that statement.

117 Comments

  1. No one’s taking away all the guns. But now I get it…now I see what’s happening. So this is what it is: their paranoid fear of a ‘possible’ dystopic future prevents us from addressing our actual dystopic present.

    Paranoia, eh? I wonder what thousands of Japanese-Americans who were interned would say about that …

  2. Eric says:

    Saturday, 12 January 2013 at 17:32

    The reference is to the philosopher Richard Rorty, who started off as a Platonist, (at least in his academic career. Though you could say he started as a Trotskyite as a youth) became an analytic philosopher, then eventually abandoned the whole idea of the philosophical project as potential mirror of reality, in favor of a relativistic and progressivistic “pragmatism”.

    I had heard the name only because it was mentioned in the book Public Intellectuals by Richard Posner. This book is a worthwhile read since he demolishes the “Arguments” of such left wing frauds as Chomsky and Paul Erhlich. Unfortunately, I gave it away, so I can’t read what he said about Rorty and other such examples of human dog shit.

    You seem to know a lot about modern philosophy, certainly a lot more than me. All the same, my general sense is that about 90% of it is little more than garbage, pseudo-in tellectual mental masturbation.

    Is this impression of mine largely correct?”

    Re my knowledge.

    I know something about ancient and medieval and then recent modern philosophy, especially analytic and philosophy of language, up to the developments of the 1960′s.

    I studied less deeply, and probably take less seriously early modern and post enlightenment philosophy of the Kantian or Cartesian sort.

    Early empiricist philosophy, I’ve worked through in a survey course fashion with subsequent follow-up. The only reason I can see in spending time on Hume, is to understand his manner of thinking and thus his errors. Pretty much the same with Hobbes’ reductionism. For another example, as admirable as Locke is in some respects, his epistemology is clearly deficiently conceived.

    Russell, Ayer, and Wittgenstein were the subject of some concentrated study.

    As to whether philosophy is merely an obnoxious and absurd exercise in self-gratification.

    It depends on what you mean by philosophy. If reduced to its core, philosophy can be seen as no more than the careful and systematic analysis of concepts and propositions which sometimes are incorporated into supposedly coherent worldviews and sometimes even further used as justifications for recommending or compelling particular life-ways.

    Now everyone looks for definitions and clarifications almost as a matter of course. Or at least most thinking people do.

    But engaging in these activities in an ad hoc way is not philosophy. Philosophy as a practice assumes a number of prerequisites are mastered, such as knowledge of the rules of valid inference and sound reasoning, a commitment to a rigorous critical thinking stance, and the possession of a working knowledge of past thinking on the most general aspect of human existence and reality.

    Still, there are those, like Rorty who believe that the predicates of this project are untenable, and that a representational theory of truth is impossible and irrelevant to the actual project of creating working narratives among entities that have no objectively shared nature.

    It’s pretty obvious that Perry whether consciously or not has bought this view hook line and sinker; which is all the more amusing when you consider that it has left him, a self-proclaimed scientist, unable to state just what it is that constitutes the subject matter of his “scientific” operations.

    No, philosophy as a whole is not a waste, because philosophy is not “one”. As such it’s no more a waste than the constant and careful reconsideration of certain narratives pitched about our most fundamental assumptions would be … especially when you are being pitched and then asked for a sacrificial commitment in the name of such an assumption.

    As long as we have some faith that reason can substitute for violence or compulsion or conditioning (as the leftists do not for the most part anymore) then there will be a place for the systematic and skilled review of concepts.

    To take an example some would find outrageous, the question as to: ‘Why not just kill annoying lefties who refuse to back-off and never slake their thirst for access to your life?’

    Either the answer to that has a base in transcendental and objective reason, and is rooted in the way things ought to be, or it’s merely a matter of pragmatics and calculated effect. And that itself drags us into a consideration of whether philosophy is real or has a justification. You can’t avoid it.

  3. Mr Editor, thank you for your attention, but my objection wasn’t limited to quotation marks. I object to fraudulent statements in any form attributed to me, whether by quotation marks or colons or in any other form. It’s wrong, and you know it as well as he does.

    The despicable turd put his words in my mouth in an attempt to mock me and to deflect attention away from his ignorance of the rights and duties listed in the Declaration of Independence, a document on which he has compiled a record of considerable ignorance.

    Previously, I urged you to take down his comment and instruct him that fraudulent quotes are forbidden. You chose merely to delete his quotation marks as if that alone constituted my objection, which is every bit as insulting a response as it is woefully inadequate.

  4. Mr Editor, thank you for your attention, but my objection wasn’t limited to quotation marks. I object to fraudulent statements in any form attributed to me, whether by quotation marks or colons or in any other form. It’s wrong, and you know it as well as he does.

    You are indeed an idiot.

    The “Shorter [whoever]” (with or without quotes) is an established Internet meme – it serves to comment on a long and usually turgid piece of prose by reducing it to a single pithy comment, usually highlighting the unsavoury core of a cloud of obfuscation.

    In this particular case, you stroking a stiffy over the thought of shooting people to remove a democratically elected government with a term limit.

  5. Mr Editor, thank you for your attention, but my objection wasn’t limited to quotation marks. I object to fraudulent statements in any form attributed to me, whether by quotation marks or colons or in any other form. It’s wrong, and you know it as well as he does.

    Uh-huh.

    Like I said, it’s an Internet meme, and you are an idiot.

  6. Mr Editor, the despicible turd continues to attempt to deflect attention away from his ignorance, and from his fraudulent quotation, and to pretend the issue is one of Internet memes.

    His dissembling is as transparent as it would be embarrassing to anyone with even marginal integrity. Yet he persists in wallowing in the public shame of his deceptions while he continues to pollute your blog with lies and to call me (and you) a name apply suited to him.

    I’ve twice asked you to take down his comment and to instruct him that fraudulent quotes are forbidden here. I won’t ask again.

    Good bye.

  7. Speaking of idiots …

    What sort of moron goes dredging back through the files of a defunct blog to a conversation from about 4 years ago, just to “Prove” a completely minor point?

    Or, to put it another way – Don’t you have anything better to do?

  8. Mr Editor, the despicible turd continues to attempt to deflect attention away from his ignorance, and from his fraudulent quotation, and to pretend the issue is one of Internet memes.

    You are indeed an idiot. Anyone with an ounce of familiarity with the Internet would know it was not a quotation – as shown by Dana also using the concept.

    And why is it that oh-so-tough wingnuts who scream insult after insult at others whine like the pathetic pussies they are when they think they have been insulted? You spend all your time writing screeds insulting Perry – and you collapse into a mewling friggin’ infant when someone points at the rotten core behind your words.

    Pathetic.

  9. ropelight says:
    Sunday, 13 January 2013 at 19:26

    … the … turd continues to attempt to deflect attention away from his ignorance, and from his fraudulent quotation, and to pretend the issue is one of Internet memes. “

    Regarding Phoenician in a Time of Romans, the admitted Internet Troll and flamer from New Zealand:

    Ropelight is correct.

    The only way to deal with trolls is to stop pretending you somehow don’t recognize that, (to resurrect a phrase I used a couple years ago) their main intent is not to engage in clarifying discussion, but to instead wage social war against you by shitting in your swimming pool. Or, jumping into it themselves, which amounts to the same thing.

    That is after all, the primary tactic of modern liberalism is it not? To scream that disinterest in their mucky neurosis is murder; that the keeping of their flailing, self-indulgent, and entropic dysfunction at arm’s length, is tantamount to some form of genocide? To get you in short, to concede, to your life-degrading and soul endangering cost, peer status and fellowship to them in all their deliberately obnoxious circus-geek nihilism.

    I can see few sound reasons to permanently tolerate behavior here too much beyond that which you would tolerate in your own house … or at least yard. Nor, for regularly allowing the kinds of dissimulating disruption tactics that are exemplified by a grunted-out link and insult, with no accompanying argument. A link which often as not, as you have personally noted, contradicts the very proposition which the troll insinuates it affirms.

    Given their demonstrably deficient powers of reason, and the embarrassments that have accrued to them when they have tried to engage in it, The New Zealand Neurotic’s and Perry’s motives for evading argument in favor of disruption and subversion are obvious.

    The Editor’s reasons for regularly tolerating it, are much less so.

  10. DNW said: “The Editor’s reasons for regularly tolerating it, are much less so.”

    I’m getting to that point myself. The Editor had a “Should Perry be Banned” post and twice on that post I stated I didn’t think so. But TFSJ will end up being a tirade of insults if this continues and may go the way of CSPT. Frankly, I don’t really give a rat’s ass what Pho says about me. Hell, I shot better men than he in Nam. But I fail to understand why he finds it required to call the Editor a weasel in every comment. What does that immature, childish nonsense accomplish? Or is that his way of “poking him with a sharp stick” (his words)? You see, I’ve met the Editor and so doing really respect the guy even if (for some reason) I wouldn’t agree with him. It just seems to me that if one has no respect for the person he wouldn’t interact with him.

  11. I’m getting to that point myself. The Editor had a “Should Perry be Banned” post and twice on that post I stated I didn’t think so. But TFSJ will end up being a tirade of insults if this continues and may go the way of CSPT.

    Uh-huh. Do you remember when Dana requested politeness – and me and Perry both went with it, using only facts and no insults?

    That didn’t work for two reasons – (i) you wingnuts were unable to restrain yourselves from resorting to insults when outargued using only facts and (ii) Dana was too much of a coward to actually apply the ban on commentators on the right.

    If you had any sense, you’d realise that the problem isn’t us – it’s yourselves. Sure, you can ban anyone who disagrees with you – and you’d be just another circlejerk of right-wing derp. A bunch of morons spouting platitudes at each other with no interest in the real world. There are dozens of places like that already.

    Frankly, I don’t really give a rat’s ass what Pho says about me. Hell, I shot better men than he in Nam.

    What a coincidence – people in Nam have shat better creatures than you.

  12. PiatoR is right, again!

    You people look in the mirror and see an angel. But look at someone who opposes your ideology and reveals your falsehoods, and you see a devil who must be dismissed.

    Have the courage of your convictions, instead of sinking to barrages of ad hominems. Can you folks do that?

    With all my severe ideological disagreements with our Editor, I think he at least recognizes these ad hominems, even while finding it difficult at times to react evenhandedly to them, This is why he does not ban people, otherwise, in fairness, he would be banning a few of you folks as well. Instead of banning, he usually engages.

    You folks might try to follow his model, which would then enhance the quality of his blog from the Right and Left alike!

  13. If you had any sense, you’d realise that the problem isn’t us – it’s yourselves. Sure, you can ban anyone who disagrees with you

    And if lying alone were bannable, that comment would have gotten your ass tossed out of here in about two seconds.

    No one has ever been banned for merely “Disagreeing” with someone. Perry has been banned twice for specifically threatening another person’s job multiple times – indeed, Dana was quite fair in issuing warnings first before the ban – and also for accusing another of engaging in felony tax evasion. Perry is now on his last chance, one more offense and he’s gone for good, which is probably the only explanation for why he has been behaving himself lately.

    So quit whining that you poor little left wingers are getting unfair treatment. Indeed, any blogmaster who allowed a guest (and that’s what we all are here, guests) to call him a weasel and attack his integrity on a regular basis and didn’t kick his sorry ass off for good has, IMHO, the patience and forebearance of an angel. Indeed, you might try showing Dana a little gratitude some time, if you could find it in your heart to do so, which I doubt.

  14. You people look in the mirror and see an angel. But look at someone who opposes your ideology and reveals your falsehoods, and you see a devil who must be dismissed.

    Gee, Perry! Who here has called their opponents traitors, racists, terrorists, unpatriotic, and gobs more ugly slanders? Never mind the threats to people’s jobs and accusations of criminal activity.

    So quit pretending you’re clean when you’re up to your ears in your own filth.

  15. So quit whining that you poor little left wingers are getting unfair treatment.

    Heh heh heh – derp, I’m not whining.

    The fact that you cretins were unable to restrain yourselves when Dana asked you to, and the fact that Dana was unwilling to bring himself to apply an objective standard isn’t anything to whine about – it serves to validate our low opinion of you wingnuts.

  16. it serves to validate our low opinion of you wingnuts.

    Right. Says the one who has used epithets since day one, and the other moonbat who is a regular has resorted to actual threats several times. So, forgive us if we give your spewings less than zero credence.

  17. Have the courage of your convictions, instead of sinking to barrages of ad hominems. Can you folks do that?

    With all my severe ideological disagreements with our Editor, I think he at least recognizes these ad hominems, even while finding it difficult at times to react evenhandedly to them, This is why he does not ban people, otherwise, in fairness, he would be banning a few of you folks as well. Instead of banning, he usually engages.

    Did you write that with a straight face, Perry? Seriously? For real?? Because all I know is that it gave me a good, needed chuckle. That’s about all you’re good for anymore, bro.

Comments are closed.