From 
Obama Unveils Gun-Control Push
By Jared A Favole | Updated January 16, 2013, 12:32 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama on Wednesday began his push for the most sweeping changes to gun laws in nearly two decades, including banning the sale of certain semiautomatic rifles and high-capacity ammunition magazines and requiring background checks for all gun buyers.
The president—rolling out his plan at a White House event flanked by children who wrote him in the aftermath of the shooting spree last month at a Connecticut elementary school—will push for a mix of 23 steps that he can take using executive powers as well as bigger moves that need congressional approval. A senior administration official said all the actions and proposals will cost about $500 million.
Banning certain types of weapons and high-capacity magazines, among other steps, will face a battle in Congress. Gun groups such as the National Rifle Association have said they will adamantly oppose many changes to gun laws.
The president said that he respects the country’s “strong tradition of gun ownership” but that the recent spate of mass shootings required action. “We can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible law breaking few from inflicting harm on a massive level,” he said.
More at the link.
But the President has simply lied to us: you cannot “respect the Second Amendment” and concomitantly infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which is exactly what this President wishes to do.
Fortunately, the most intrusive of the President’s proposals require congressional approval, and that he will not get. From the JOURNAL:
| Some of President Obama’s Proposals (Items in red require Congressional approval.) |
| • Requiring background checks for all gun buyers |
| • Ban certain semiautomatic rifles |
| • Require a 10-round limit on ammunition magazines |
| • Prohibit manufacturing, importation, possession and sale of armor-piercing bullets |
| • New gun trafficking laws with serious penalties |
| • Provide incentives for police departments to hire officers for schools and mental-health counselors [Something the NRA would likely support as it has called for armed guards in every school] |
| • Require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations |
| • Direct the Center for Disease Control to conduct research into the causes and prevention of gun violence |
| • Asking Congress to provide $10 million for the CDC to conduct research on gun violence |
| • Launch a national responsible gun ownership program |
| • Nominating B. Todd Jones to be permanent director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives [needs Senate confirmation; he is currently acting director] |
Here is the list of the President’s Executive Orders.
Your Editor does not disagree with all of the President’s executive orders on the subject, though #16, “Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes,” is specifically prohibited by the wholly misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and if any physician should ask me such a question, not only will I refuse to answer, but I shall file a complaint that he has violated the law under the PP&ACA. The President cannot just “executive order” away a provision of the law.1
I also have a problem with #4: “Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.” The Administration should not have the legal authority to create such a list, but only enforce laws which prohibit firearms possession by those people who are legally barred from such, primarily convicted felons, and those persons legally adjudicated to be mentally incompetent.
Of the items requiring congressional approval, the only one I would support is the last one listed in red, new laws concerning gun trafficking, as long as such laws are limited solely to people supplying guns to those who may not legally possess them. I have no problem with locking up people who provide weapons to convicted felons, and I am perfectly willing to see people who do that locked up for the rest of their miserable lives. However, as a supporter of federalism, I believe such laws at the federal level can be legitimately applied only to those who engage in interstate traffic.
- Senate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c, states that the government may not use physicians to collect “any information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.” ↩
How about the poseur occupant of 1600 PA Ave., Washington, Disease 20001 clean-up the mess left by Fast & Furious, the Benghazi Massacre, and the overspending first before he goes off on another dictatorial power grab.
Thing is, we don’t need more gun control. What we need is lunatic control. There’s been maybe a half dozen of these mass shootings in the past decade, and what they all had in common was the shooters were all batshit crazy.
Charles Krauthammer had it right. What we could use is some top psychiatric talent putting their brains together to figure out why a tiny set of the population seems to regularly go off on these rampages. There must be SOME method to their madness, the key is to figure out what. And then what to do about it.
Do that, and we won’t need any “Assault weapon” bans, or any of this other garbage that only penalizes the law abiding while doing nothing to deter or control the crazies.
Eric wrote:
The killer in the Virginia Tech shootings had been diagnosed with mental problems, but privacy laws simply do not allow physicians and psychiatrists to just report that to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. He might have been crazy, but he hadn’t been caught violating the law until his shooting rampage.
The problem is obvious, and simple: Americans have privacy rights, and sometimes those privacy rights result in problems, but I would rather face the problems than surrender the rights.
Remember in the late 1980s, when AIDS first became well-known, and homosexual activists were fighting tooth and nail against any legal provisions which would have required a diagnosis of AIDS to be reported to health departments and other government officials? They were concerned that they couldn’t get, or would lose, jobs, that they’d be discriminated against, and other stuff.
Now, with ObaminableCare and its requirement that all health care records be computerized, so that physicians and hospitals could obtain a patient’s records from previous health care providers, which is supposedly a good thing, some very bad things can happen. I noted, last March, that the requirement that such records include a body mass index calculation could only be to make those records searchable, and that people with the “wrong” BMI could be subject to all sorts of discrimination problems. People with other socially unacceptable health care problems, such as smokers, will also have problems.
Well, count on it: the gun grabbers will also insist that those records should be searchable for any mental health diagnoses, before people will be allowed to have firearms. It’s for the children, doncha know?
The law prohibits the CDC to engage in research of this type. This also would require congressional action.
In at least half a dozen of these “Signings” they are nothing more than headlines. They are executive orders to order the executive (the president) to remind someone of laws that are on the books or initiate a study. These are not executive orders of any order.
I’m not talking about violating anyone’s privacy. But I am saying there should be a way to research these psychos (the ones that don’t kill themselves first) and try to figure out what makes these guys tick. Maybe then we could prevent some of these mass shootings.
Like I said, the problem is lunatics, not guns. There must be (rough estimate) maybe 150,000,000 legal gun owners in this country. Of that figure, 99.99999% never murder anyone. Why should they suffer on account of a tiny handful that do, especially when that handful, being crazy to begin with, are not likely to be deterred by a law against guns, since obviously they are not deterred by laws against murder?
I’m still trying to wrap my head around the justification for permanently (for all intents and purposes) depriving someone of the right of self defense because they threw snowballs at a police car.
Took a Nerf gun to school.
Told a cop to piss off.
etc, etc.
I’ve never seen a satisfactory explanation for it. If we think someone is such a danger to society that they can’t have a firearm, then why the heck have we let them out of prison?
Our editor says:
Easy for you to say, Mr Editor. Were it one of your daughters shot dead, is it possible that your views on this issue might change?
Our editor continues:
I feel the need to make several comments (see emboldened) in the utterly crass statement written here by our editor, who should know that we have about 30k deaths by firearm per year, by far the highest amongst the developed nations. There is a question in my mind who the really mentally ill folks are, regarding the polarization on this humane issue involving the protection of the lives of our citizens.
Are we going to continue to allow the fears of many Righties who then seek to dictate gun safety policy in our nation? And by the way, these gun lover extremists are in the minority, yet are trying via the truly despicable NRA to dictate our gun policies.
We can certainly debate the gun safety provisions now placed on the table by Obama/Biden, but the ultimate test will be the outcome of the votes in Congress, assuming that there will be no filibustering in the Senate and that the bill(s) will get to the floor for an up or down vote in both Congressional bodies, as per the way our system is designed to work, unless you happen to be a Rightie.
The polls are mostly against the minority view on this issue. How about letting the American people decide, Righties?
“Wagonwheel says:
Thursday, 17 January 2013 at 16:22
If your front door were knocked in during a power failure and your daughter were raped and beaten to death in front of you by half a dozen a recidivists would it change yours?
Geez … let’s let someone else do some of the talking. I’ve been over these FBI and Justice Department figures so many times for so many years that I just can’t stand talking to even one more emotionalist ignoramus.
DNW exudes:
Would that be you knocking in my front door, DNW?
There is not one provision being put forward to prevent folks from owning guns.
Is DNW the moniker for that despicable excuse for a human being named Wayne LaPierre?
And if one of your daughters were killed in a car crash, would you demand banning all automobiles?
Moron.
Perry engages in “Argument” by slander and character assassination:
Sorry, but our fundamental RIGHTS are not determined by polls. Further, DNW is right. All you gun grabbers have is rabid emotionalism, not facts, reason, or logic.
The polls are also in favor of putting armed guards in schools, something you moonbats laughed at.
So, someone who stands up for constitutional rights is a “despicable excuse for a human being?” Funny how you could never see fit to refer to Hamas or Hizbollah as such. And I bet LaPIerre never threatened someone for a mere political disagreement, for that matter.
Perry is a vicious piece of moral filth and a slandering liar. All he cares about is spreading his self-serving ideology and to hell with goodness and human decency. He seethes with hatred toward anyone who disagrees with him, witness his treatment of Koolo ang Hoagie.
God forbid garbage like him ever attain political power in this country. Hello, concentration camps!
I then reframe and redirect Perry’s own question to him.
And as a result Perry, the man who claimed that the 2nd Amendment was intended to apply to the technology of single shot, muzzle loading, black-powder charged, smooth-bore (primarily) muskets, goes emotional.
Maybe Perry had in mind that he would allow .32 caliber revolvers and 6 rounds of ammunition to elderly male homeowners in case several intruders attempted a house breaking at once.
WW asked:
And this is why we don’t allow the families of victims to set the punishments for criminals: they are too emotionally engaged to be expected to act rationally.
It really is amazing the rights of free Americans you would sacrifice to achieve some goal. We already know that you would throw the First Amendment on the scrapheap, and you don’t believe that the Second Amendment means what it says it means. Now, you would, and in fact, you have, by supporting the abominable health care act, throw away people’s rights to privacy.
DNW wrote:
But, but, but, while several intruders breaking into ones house is a terrible thing, trying to save one’s television set from being stolen really isn’t worth murdering those several, doubtlessly unemployed due to reasons of discrimination and certainly not their fault young men. Better to let them have the TV and the stereo and even steal your wallet and credit cards than to kill them.
Here we go again with our Editor’s misunderstanding of our Constitution, that it’s applications (SCOTUS rulings over time) in reality have to do with the context in which its meanings are interpreted, ultimately by the SCOTUS. Otherwise, we would not need the SCOTUS to rule on First and Second Amendment cases, thus demonstrating the error re your claim of absolutist language therein. Thus, Mr Editor, historical SCOTUS rulings put the lie to your claims of absolutist language. Why then do your persist with your falsehoods on this matter?
So says our resident plagiarist-in-chief:
The Editor channeling a liberal troll says:
Friday, 18 January 2013 at 11:33
DNW wrote:
Or, if you are a liberal male like Dukakis, say, allow them to rape and torture-murder your wife and daughters and every other family member in the dwelling rather than apply fatal force. As the run of the mill lefty thinks to itself: ‘If a pop-gun won’t scare predators away, what’s the point of resisting further? Kumbaya … oh Kumbaya … we’re all just dead meat anyway la la la la…’
Hube opines:
Constitutional rights are ultimately interpreted by the SCOTUS, not by Wayne LaPierre, a representative foremost of the gun industry.
Regarding Hezbollah and Hamas, let us be fair and complete by including Israel in that dynamic.
And on political disagreements, that was not the issue. The issue, clearly stated at the time, had to do with repeated conduct unbecoming of a teacher of our children, thus requiring action (by a former teacher), the lack of which could lead to a continuation with dire consequences in the classroom to our children. The perception of a threat is just that, a perception, in the mind of the alleged guilty party, which may then cause some thought on the issue resulting in a change in behavior. Given similar circumstances, I would do the same again, therefore have no regrets whatsoever.
Post in moderation (11:59)
There is no intent to take guns away from gun-owners, so your post is unwarranted and ridiculous hyperbole, albeit typical of DNW.
Wagonwheel says:
Friday, 18 January 2013 at 12:31
Taken as a categorical statement of intent, imagined to be sound across the class of those who do wish to control law abiding and mentally competent adults’ access to firearms, that is clearly false.
There are many liberals, and mostly liberals, on record as desiring and intending eventually to see all privately held firearms registered in a Federal data base, all private hand gun possession banned, most firearms of other kinds disallowed, and all remaining firearms not in the possession of the military or police forces, kept locked up in licensed shooting clubs. This is not news nor in dispute. Those of us who have been engaging “gun banners” for years, have seen it all.
I was invited to comment on this blog, or its precursor, by Art Downs, after having for some years prior participated with him in in-depth discussions and disputes with lefties over the historical, Constitutional, statutory, criminal justice, and philosophical predicates of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms dispute.
You either don’t know what you are talking about, or you are lying.
In any event, your admitted adherence to the principle that political governance is in-principle and properly limitless, boundless, self-justifying, and ultimately totalizing, means that nothing you say regarding what is or is not intended, can be taken to represent anything more than rhetoric.
Christ, your ability to rationalize and offer up self-serving bullshit literally knows no bounds!
The truth is, you’re a hate monger, Perry. And you hatred for Koolo was so extreme that you (repeatedly) threatened to destroy his career over a mere Internet dispute. Your phony “Concern” for his students is just a filthy lie to cover up your own hate filled motives.
“Constitutional rights are ultimately interpreted by the SCOTUS, not by Wayne LaPierre, a representative foremost of the gun industry.”
Actually, the government is the formost representative of the gun industry. And our Constitutional Rights are just a reflection of our God Given Rights. If you believe SCOTUS can “interpret” our rights then you must believe if SCOTUS says……anything it must be correct. Therefore if SCOTUS says slavery is okay then it must be okay, right?
“There is no intent to take guns away from gun-owners, so your post is unwarranted and ridiculous hyperbole, albeit typical of DNW.”
Then show me the word “criminal” in any proposed Presidential Executive Order other than regarding after-the-fact investigation. The intent is to take away guns from gun owners….it’s already illegal for criminals to have guns is it not? So from whom will guns be taken?
I have decided from what I’ve seen on this blog that liberals, leftists and Democrats should not be allowed to own firearms. They are too emotional and too unstable to be allowed this right. If mental illness precludes one from owning arms liberals take the cake as emotional wrecks. Also they should not be allowed to hire people who own firearms as it wolud be hypocracy for them to do so. It would be a good idea if they posted a sign “Gun Free House” in front of their homes to show their solidarity with Obama. I’ll pay for the signs. Can’t get any fairer than that. Where should I mail your sign, Wagonwheel?
Wagonwheel, you’ll be happy to know that as a legal firearms owner I picked up four new weapons yesterday. My buddy Roy and I went to the local gun store a couple weeks ago when all the shit hit the fan and I ordered a new S&W .45 Long Slide, a Sig 9mm, a 30.30 long rifle and a Reuger Mini 14 with a collapsable stock. I also picked up 500 rounds of assorted ammunition. That means I now own 35 weapons. I must be a radical gun nut intent on mayhem. The good news is I enhanced the economy by over $3200.
BTW, after fireing off 50 rounds from each of the pistols we went to the Club (hands on face, agast expression) and had a few drinks. I brought the guns in to show the guys. After all, it never hurts to have other people’s finger prints on a weapon, right? I think I’ll be carrying the Sig for a while. Very light, very accurate and it holds 16 rounds (17 if you carry cocked and locked which I do). Roy picked up his new, and beautiful, Colt .357mag. with in stainless with a 81/2″ ribbed barrel.
Hoagie, the only gun I own right now is a Remington Model 700 bolt action rifle in .375 Holland & Holland Mag.
Not much good for home defense, unless your home is being charged by a Cape Buffalo, rhino, or elephant!
Now you must finally feel like a real MAN, right Hoagie? And you even managed to pass the background check, I presume.
With 35 weapons, you are now able to defend yourself from an attack from the tyrannical Feds, right Hoagie?
And btw, why would anyone want to own a Reuger Mini 14, which is a semi-automatic weapon of mass destruction, were it ever to get into the wrong hands, unless it were to collect these weapons to build up the gun collection.
I would hope that your collection is safely stored in your home.
Frankly, Hoagie, I’m not impressed. But I’m not a gun collector either.
WW wrote:
The only errors were past courts (think Miller v United States in 1939, in which the Court held that the Second Amendment protected only weapons for use by the militia) which are, fortunately being somewhat remedied by the actual text of the Constitution in the two recent gun control rulings, which held that the Second Amendment is, as the Framers intended, a guarantee of individual liberty.
Of course, whether they intended it or not, a guarantee of individual liberty is what they actually wrote and passed.
The sad fact is that the Supreme Court has too often been compliant with social views and has strayed from what the Constitution actually says. As for our need for it — though President Jefferson was appalled by the ruling in Marbury v Madison, in which the Court first asserted the right of judicial review) — it is needed because too often legislatures have blithely ignored the Constitution to pass what they wished, the Constitution be damned.
WW wrote:
Why, one wonders, ought Hoagie’s constitution rights be subject to whether you think he really needs the firearms he has chosen to purchase?
That is the whole purpose of having a Bill of Rights, of having the Constitution secure for the people the natural rights that free men have, to prevent the oppression of the individual by limiting the authority of the mob.
Hoagie writes:
Apparently, according to your view, one is an emotional wreck if one wishes to act to attempt to prevent the Columbines, the Auroras, and the Sandy Hook’s from happening. One is an emotional wreck to shed tears over the most recent slaughter of children at Sandy Hook.
The emotional wrecks are those who just have to have an arsenal of weapons in order to fight the Feds when they decide to take our possessions and take over out country. Instead of emotional wrecks, however, I call these people lunatics.
Are you a lunatic, Hoagie?
From THE WALL STREET JOURNAL:
[snip]
So, what do we have? The murder rate has dropped since the so-called “assault weapons ban” expired, which implies that the ban didn’t prevent murders. Rifles of all types were used in only a very small fraction of murders, which means that, even if you foolishly believe that gun control reduces murder, you’re going after the wrong guns!
Except, of course, that the “assault weapons ban” is just the foot in the door, isn’t it? Most homicides by firearms are committed with the use of handguns, so, if you could get the assault weapons ban passed, you’ll go after handguns next.
Our Editor just wrote:
Hoagie has made no such a statement that he needs to defend himself against the “mobs”.
But you exaggerate again, Mr Editor. The proposals against gun violence are meant to be as certain as possible to prevent these weapons from getting into the hands of irresponsible people.
If you want to minimize the occurrence of mobs, you should be more concerned about promoting the idea of a decent salary for a good days hard work, with such as minimum wage standards. Moreover, progressive taxation is necessary during recessionary hard times to produce the appropriate stimulus for much needed job creation. But you are not for, you are against. You are a reactionary who has no problem with the wealth of our nation moving to the top, who you falsely claim are the most productive, to hell with the working middle and working poor. That’s on you, Mr Editor! Do I have this right?
WW (inadvertently) proves Hoagie’s point:
Two adult men, both citizens of this country, and both military veterans, and both have very different ideas about what constitutes lunacy, though Hoagie’s was meant sarcastically.
Yet WW would infringe upon our Constitutional rights based upon his opinion of whether a person really needs to have firearms, based on his opinion of what is reasonable or not.
That is what the Bill of Rights was designed to prevent! We can go down the whole list, and find many instances in which our rights, as listed, are just in the way. Should O J Simpson really have been spared a second trial, just because the first jury inexplicably acquitted him? After all, Ernesto Miranda was clearly guilty; why should we have afforded him his Fifth Amendment rights just to try to escape punishment?
Perry goes psychotic:
Is it possible for you to have a rational discussion of political differences without slandering people’s motives and assasinating their character?
Answer: If you’re a rabidly insane left winger with a proven record of lies and hate mongering activity, then no.
Dana, you are using rationality on people who have the mentality and emotional disposition of a rabid dog. Perry hates. That’s all he knows. His hate has no rhyme or reason, he only knows that there are people who, by standing for our basic rights and liberties, are getting in the way of their Big Government schemes, and therefore must be squashed like insects.
Why do you think you can “Reason” with these people? It’s never worked before!
“Now you must finally feel like a real MAN, right Hoagie? And you even managed to pass the background check, I presume.”
Wow! Is that what you think? Owning a gun makes one a real MAN? Character makes one a real MAN. Owning a gun makes one a FREE man. And why would I NOT pass a backround check? I detect sarcasm in the word “managed”. Do you think there was a doubt I would pass? If so, why?
“With 35 weapons, you are now able to defend yourself from an attack from the tyrannical Feds, right Hoagie?”
If need be!
“And btw, why would anyone want to own a Reuger Mini 14, which is a semi-automatic weapon of mass destruction, were it ever to get into the wrong hands, unless it were to collect these weapons to build up the gun collection.”
Because I like it. And yes, I do have a good collection of guns. Problem? Have you ever fired a Reuger Mini 14? It’s a great little carbine. Funny, I don’t see it as a “weapon of mass destruction”. I reserve that term for atom bombs, sarin and other ACTUAL weapons of mass destruction. But I guess to the emotional leftist cult a two shot derringer is a WMD. Idiots!
“I would hope that your collection is safely stored in your home.”
Nah. I leave $100,000 woth of guns on my fuckin’ lawn.
“Frankly, Hoagie, I’m not impressed. But I’m not a gun collector either.”
Wasn’t tryin’ to impress you. But if you’d like to be impressed I could take you to my buddy Walt’s place. He’s got over 150 guns ranging from an old .50 cal Wembley from the Boer War to a Thompson sub-machine gun. And yes, I fired it. But I fired one in Nam too.
I assume that entire screed was supposed to mean that since you don’t collect guns or see any value to them nobody else should be able to have them. Frankly, people with views like yours is the reason people like me should have guns.
BTW Wagonwheel, if you would ever be in trouble who would you call, a cop (a man with a gun) or a community organizer or perhaps a ballet dancer?
And Eric, you really need to upgrade. That thing’s a cannon. May I suggest a Reuger Mini 14? Then WW can get all emotional over you too.
“Weapon of mass destruction”….what a douche.
” The proposals against gun violence are meant to be as certain as possible to prevent these weapons from getting into the hands of irresponsible people.”
You mean there are currently no laws forbidding guns to “irresponsible people”? For shame! BTW, who gets to define “irresponsible people”? You?
So you know WW, there’s no such thing as “gun violence”, it’s people violence. Just like there’s no such thing as a hammer building a house, a carpenter does. Don’t blame the tool….tool! The reality is it is people who cause crime and violence, not guns. If you were serious about gun violence you’d be for executing anyone who uses a gun to commit a crime. Are you for that?
He’s not. But you clearly are.
Hey Perry. If I saw you and your elderly wife being beaten to a pulp by mob in a street filled with milling trouble-seekers … a not unheard of occurrence … and all I had was a cell phone and an autoloading carbine, of an evil assault weapon type appearance, would I have any moral obligation to intervene in any way?
If so which way?
What if I didn’t have a cell phone with me or the battery was dead or there were civil disturbances going on (say due to a sports championship loss or celebration) which would delay police response time for many minutes?
The “Feds” are usually not tyrannizing Americans unless your sort amoralist nihilist gets into office. But of course since no government action is viewed by you as in-principle illegitimate, tyranny is simply in the eye of the beholder.
If the elected chief executive so decreed, and the Supreme Court validated it as being “technically” within his powers under a new interpretation of the commerce clause, under your own terms you would have no legal or philosophically objective grounds to upon which to rely for recourse if you and your wife and daughter were commanded to be taken out into the street and flayed alive before an audience of liberal ghouls.
That’s where your pathetic version of “rights” and morals takes you.
Well, enjoy the ride Pappy.
Your eventual arrival will be even more thrilling.
Our editor continues the debate over the 2nd Amendment:
Mr Editor, this goes back again to interpretations of our Constitution: You take the strictly absolutist position according to the specific language used; I take the position that absolutes do not exist except in an individual’s mind. One person’s absolute cannot be forced upon another. We need arbitration, which is exactly the role of our SCOTUS.
On gun regulation, over time we have had the SCOTUS render various rulings based upon the 2nd Amendment, for example, the 1994 ruling banning assault weapons. That, sir, is evidence against your claim to an absolutist interpretation of the wording of the 2nd Amendment. There are lots of examples of regulations on guns, thus refuting your absolutist view.
Those who originally framed our Constitution are not the Gods you perceive them to have been. I believed they realized this, thus they included the process by which our Constitution could be amended. Thus, that which you interpret as absolutist language, is in reality not absolutist language. Instead, one might characterize the language as being very stern. I’m good with that!
Are you trying to establish a new standard to be used to interpret the Constitution, Mr Editor, one more strictly absolutist than the Framers intended, more strictly applied than ever before in our history? The behavior of the various SCOTUSs over time, in and of itself, proves that yes, this is exactly what you are trying to do, to do something that has not been done over time since the Constitution was ratified then amended. Thus, you are trying to do that which has not yet been done, Mr Editor, not to mention that there is no such a thing as an absolute! By now, you should know that.
DNW asks:
These are both poorly conceived, poorly expressed, and actually silly hypotheticals, therefore unworthy of a serious response.
The response may even depend on how long it has been since one has had a good meal, or a shot of whisky.
“…..not to mention that there is no such a thing as an absolute!”
Perhaps you mean there is absolutely no such thing as an absolute. But then, that’s an absolute statement, isn’t it?
Ya got me there, Hoagie!
My daughter owns 7 or 8 or 10 guns herself (the number keeps climbing), and the 15 and 20 round magazines that go with her upgraded pistols. Her household has rifles, shotguns, pistols of all manner of caliber/gauge. But I doubt she feels all that much like a man.
But Perry’s response to all violence where criminals use guns is nitwittery at its most dangerous.
Perry had a problem with a small rat eating through the wires in his house. It caused a minor house fire. And Perry found the perfect solution. He had his 3 cats de-clawed in order to stop the rat from biting wires!