Why are Gun Owners trying to do to me what they only THINK the Government is doing to them?

Listening to Randi Rhodes tell the story of her former Father-in-Law having the temerity, the presumption to bring a loaded firearm into her home really really got me thinking. How much of this Gun Debate is really about people with Guns soooo used to getting their way in all things?

I mean, look at the NRA. Its whole history has been built on the premise that...well...you don’t mess with them...that and keeping guns out of the hands of certain people.

Yeah, a lot of this is tied into race. If young white people were dying at the same clip young black people were dying because of gun violence, the NRA would be the most toxic Lobby in America.

Well, unfortunately it happened to a bunch of young white children in Newton,and America finally had enough. Thing of it is, the African-American community has been facing their own Newtons every day for years now. It was just a nice reminder that Black Lives never count for as much as White ones.

Now that America has finally had enough, it looks like we’re going to get at least Universal Background checks, and maybe even a closing of the Gun Show Loophole. You do those two things, and all of the sudden an Assault Weapons Ban becomes a nice thing to have, but not necessary for the protection of the nation. (That being said, I’d still like to have see the Assault Weapons Ban passed).

What has the NRA’s reaction to this otherwise mild legislative rebuke? Well, they’re shaking their fist and trying to threaten and bully us. They’re saying an Assault Weapons Ban won’t pass. Conveniently leaving out the part where it may not be necessary. Then again, given their history of selectively quoting the Second Amendment, can we be surprised?



But there it is again. When in doubt, threaten. When in doubt, demand. No negotiation. No discussion, which is what you’d expect in a Democracy. For them, it’s always my way or the Highway.



I’m glad this two-bit Terrorist, James Yeager is so concerned about my rights that he’s willing to kill people for it.. If it were up to me, we would round up all the guns. But you know what? We can’t. Why? I’ve read the Constitution. Why hasn't James Yeager?  This supposedly a document he loves. This is supposedly the simplest of the amendments...he somehow keeps misquoting:

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.

By the way, the State of Tennessee, where he resides, has gone that inch further, and suspended his license to carry a firearm. Now what’s he going to do?

I shudder to ask, which brings me to the thing that has bothered me all this time.

What are my rights as a non-gun owner?

I feel that I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...and to not have those things taken away from me by a nut with a gun.  And I have the right to these things with or without a gun.

Gun advocates, apparently disagree.

It’s a question that Randi has posed a number of times on her show, but listening to Yeager, and every other gun nut out there, you hear a couple of common refrains. They need their guns to fight off the Government, to "preserve Liberty" as they call it.

Hmmm.  Let's think about it.  Why would they feel the need to fight the Government? Well, probably to prevent them doing stuff they don’t much like.

Like say, being forced to do something, whether they wanted to or not?

Like say...buying a gun??

Why are the Gun Nuts of the world definitely trying to do to me what they only imagine the Government doing to them???

I don’t want a gun. I don’t want a gun anywhere near me. I don’t want Guns anywhere near where I live. That’s a free market choice I’ve made for myself.

But in Gun Nut land, that's the only choice I have.  It's the only choice people like Alex Jones and James Yeager want me to have.

That is the only solutions to any gun problems really being offered by the NRA and their affiliated Gun Nuts. Well, they have their guns. They need to keep their guns, and if you really want to feel safe like we do, you need to buy a gun like we did.

And there you have it.

My fellow citizens trying to dictate to me how I should live. There are my fellow citizens daring to impose their values on me whether I want them or not. This is the very thing that Gun Nuts say they’re afraid of the Government doing, yet here they are doing it to me instead.

Seriously, what’s the difference between the Gun Nuts and their Fascist state of their dreams (or is it nightmares, I get ‘em confused)??

Get it through your head, I DON’T WANT A GUN!!! And you have no right to demand that I buy one.

Yet here you are, demanding just that.

You’re willing to fight for (and apparently kill) to preserve your freedom. Mine you could give a @#$% about.

You don’t care about the Government. You don’t care about the Constitution. You sure as hell don’t care about your fellow citizens. All you do care about is holding on to the illusion of safety you get from having a gun, and damn everyone who gets in your way.

Only now you want me to get your Cancer. In fact, you insist on it. Your paranoia is more important than my safety, our liberty, or our collective sense of peace.

Well, guess what??  You’re going to lose this time, because you and your Lobby have finally gone too far.

You know what’s the worse part of this? Everything you’ve suggested, everything you say you want is the perfect solution for the true constituency of the NRA, the gun manufacturers.

No matter what the problem, what the cause, the solution for the NRA is always the production, distribution and sale of more guns. How else do we view their “idea” about Armed Guards in public schools? Never mind that an armed guard didn’t stop shootings in Colorado.

This is a cheap con, perpetrated by people who stand to make a lot of money off the sale of a lot of guns, and their willing sheep willing to be bought and sold by their fear, and willing to push us around in the process.

I’m glad America has finally decided to take on the NRA. It’s overdue.

"Governor, good luck...you're gonna need it..." (VIDEO)

First caught by Andrew Sullivan. As he said: "You see a man meet a machine"



Study this well, fellow Democrats. This is why Romney is going to lose the 2012 Election.

It's not even this particular position. It's his total inability to listen, to engage in a...well, human way with this man, or anyone.

All he had to say was: "Listen, my own moral/religious convictions preclude me from supporting the idea of anything but a man and a woman getting married, but...you're right, the spouses of Gay Soldiers deserve all the familial and visitation and health care rights provided to straight couples, and I think Federal Law can fix that."

It would still be bullshit, because if Mittens hasn't noticed, the rest of the country has moved on. The guy still might not vote for him in the fall, but at least Mitt would keep the guy in the undecided column.

That's one thing Mitt is ultimately good at...you can't stay "undecided" around him for long, particularly when you look him in the eye.

Where I wish the execution of an innocent man was more important that an argument about Presidential Powers...

This is an national tragedy but idiots like Michael Moore (who apparently said sometime today that this was all on Obama) are making it worse by not understanding something called the Constitution.  It doesn't exist by convenience. It says:

"...he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

Ummm, Mike?

But it turns out that not even the Governor of Georgia has the power to stop the execution (this is where David Roberts and Zerlina Maxwell come in, because they put this piece from the Atlanta Journal Constitution out on the twitter.)

NOTE: David from what I can tell sent it out first, but Zerlina helped by tracking down a proper link, so, thanks to one and all!

Q. Can the president grant clemency or stop the execution in any way.

A. No. While President Obama has said he thinks the death penalty does little to deter crime, he has no legal authority to get involved, officially, with a state execution. When the death penalty is imposed for a state crime like murder, it is a state issue.

Q. Can the governor stop the execution?

A. No. Georgia's Constitution gives that authority only to the state Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Q. Can the Chatham County district attorney ask the judge who signed the death warrant to withdraw it?

A. Mike Mears, a professor at John Marshall Law School and who has challenged the death penalty for decades, said probably not. "I don't think there is a legal mechanism to ask a judge for a do over," he said.

Q. Can the courts stop it?

A. Though his attorneys he can fill appeals, the only viable option is the Georgia Supreme Court and that is a questionable one. His lawyers would have to file in the Superior Court in Butts County, where the prison is located, and then, if necessary, the Georgia Supreme Court and then directly to the US Supreme Court. Federal law limits appeals in that court system and Davis has exhausted those.

Q. Can the Pardons and Paroles Board change its mind?

A. If additional evidence is provided the board could step in but the board has already twice rejected Davis' requests for clemency. This morning they said they would not reconsider additional requests.

The 14th Amendment Option...and why it's probably NOT an option.

Steve Benen first posted this from Prof. Lawrence Tribe, writing in the New York Times.  By way of background, Tribe is a Liberal Law Professor from Harvard who's described Barack Obama as "the best Law Student he's ever had."  So I think we can count him as a Obama Supporter.

His piece goes on to explain his former Student's thinking when he says that the so-called 14th Amendment Option everyone's been talking up simply won't work:

Proponents of a constitutional deus ex machina have offered a more modest interpretation of the public debt clause, under which only actual default (as opposed to any action that merely increases the risk of default) is impermissible. This interpretation makes more sense. But advocates of the constitutional solution err in their next step: arguing that, because default would be unconstitutional, President Obama may violate the statutory debt ceiling to prevent it.

The Constitution grants only Congress — not the president — the power “to borrow money on the credit of the United States.” Nothing in the 14th Amendment or in any other constitutional provision suggests that the president may usurp legislative power to prevent a violation of the Constitution. Moreover, it is well established that the president’s power drops to what Justice Robert H. Jackson called its “lowest ebb” when exercised against the express will of Congress.

Worse, the argument that the president may do whatever is necessary to avoid default has no logical stopping point. In theory, Congress could pay debts not only by borrowing more money, but also by exercising its powers to impose taxes, to coin money or to sell federal property. If the president could usurp the congressional power to borrow, what would stop him from taking over all these other powers, as well?

So the arguments for ignoring the debt ceiling are unpersuasive. But even if they were persuasive, they would not resolve the crisis. Once the debt ceiling is breached, a legal cloud would hang over any newly issued bonds, because of the risk that the government might refuse to honor those debts as legitimate. This risk, in turn, would result in a steep increase in interest rates because investors would lose confidence — a fiscal disaster that would cost the nation tens of billions of dollars.

Although an authoritative judicial declaration authorizing borrowing above the debt ceiling might alleviate investors’ fears, obtaining such a declaration is no easy task. Only someone who has suffered a “particularized” harm — not one shared with the public at large — is entitled to sue. It would be difficult to conjure up a plaintiff who has suffered such specific harm from an issuance of debt beyond the ceiling. And even if such a plaintiff could be found, increased interest rates would have already inflicted terrible damage by the time the Supreme Court ruled on the matter.

Hey, Teabaggers! You do know that your stance against the Debt Ceiling may go against...the Founding Fathers, right?

From Ryan Grim:

Growing increasingly pessimistic about the prospects for a deal that would raise the debt ceiling, Democratic senators are revisiting a solution to the crisis that rests on a simple proposition: The debt ceiling itself is unconstitutional.

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law... shall not be questioned," reads the 14th Amendment.

"This is an issue that's been raised in some private debate between senators as to whether in fact we can default, or whether that provision of the Constitution can be held up as preventing default," Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), an attorney, told The Huffington Post Tuesday. "I don't think, as of a couple weeks ago, when this was first raised, it was seen as a pressing option. But I'll tell you that it's going to get a pretty strong second look as a way of saying, 'Is there some way to save us from ourselves?'"

By declaring the debt ceiling unconstitutional, the White House could continue to meet its financial obligations, leaving Tea Party-backed Republicans in the difficult position of arguing against the plain wording of the Constitution. Bipartisan negotiators are debating the size of the cuts, now in the trillions, that will come along with raising the debt ceiling.

HA!!!

We love the Constitution, just hate them Amendments (VIDEO)

This was a fantastic (and funny) segment with Yale Law Professor Akhil Amar, who made point about the 14th Amendment I had not considered.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Citizenship Down - Akhil Amar
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes 2010 Election Fox News

It's the Amendment that protects the other Amendments.

By the way, here's the text of the 14th Amendment; which, for the record, was adopted by Congress on July 9, 1868.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Another view from Harold Meyerson (of the Washington Post):

By proposing to revoke the citizenship of the estimated 4 million U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants -- and, presumably, the children's children and so on down the line -- Republicans are calling for more than the creation of a permanent noncitizen caste. They are endeavoring to solve what is probably their most crippling long-term political dilemma: the racial diversification of the electorate. Not to put too fine a point on it, they are trying to preserve their political prospects as a white folks' party in an increasingly multicolored land.

Absent a constitutional change -- to a lesser degree, even with it -- those prospects look mighty bleak. The demographic base of the Republican Party, as Ruy Teixeira demonstrates in a paper released by the Center for American Progress this summer, is shrinking as a share of the nation and the electorate. As the nation grows more racially and religiously diverse, Teixeira shows, its percentage of white Christians will decline to just 35 percent of the population by 2040.

The group that's growing fastest, of course, is Latinos. "Their numbers will triple to 133 million by 2050 from 47 million today," Teixeira writes, "while the number of non-Hispanic whites will remain essentially flat." Moreover, Latinos increasingly trend Democratic -- in a Gallup poll this year, 53 percent self-identified as Democrats; just 21 percent called themselves Republican.

To be sure, the wretched state of the economy could drive some otherwise Democratic-inclined Latino voters to the GOP this November. But Republicans are doing their damnedest to keep this from happening. Their embrace of Arizona's Suspicious-Looking-Latinos law and their enthusiasm for stripping Latino children of their citizenship will only hasten Latinos' flight.

Sentient Republican strategists such as Karl Rove have long understood that unless their party could win more Latino votes, it would eventually go the way of the Whigs. That's the main reason George W. Bush tried to persuade congressional Republicans to support immigration reform. But most lawmakers, reflecting the nativism of the Republican base, would have none of it.

By pushing for repeal of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, the GOP appears to have concluded: If you can't win them over -- indeed, if you're doing everything in your power to make their lives miserable -- revoke their citizenship.

And E.J. Dionne (Washington Post) from a couple of days ago:

Nothing should make Republicans prouder than their party's role in passing what are known as the Civil War or Reconstruction amendments: the 13th, ending slavery; the 14th, guaranteeing equal protection under the law and establishing national standards for citizenship; and the 15th, protecting the right to vote. In those days, Democrats were the racial demagogues.

Opponents of the 14th Amendment used racist arguments against immigrants to try to kill it, even though there were virtually no immigration restrictions back then. President Andrew Johnson played the card aggressively, as University of Baltimore law professor Garrett Epps reported in his 2006 book on the 14th Amendment, "Democracy Reborn."

"This provision comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called Gipsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks, people of color, negroes, mulattoes, and persons of African blood," Johnson declared. "Is it sound policy to make our entire colored population and all other excepted classes citizens of the United States?"

Republicans were taken aback that Gypsies were suddenly transformed into a great national peril as part of the campaign against the amendment. In his definitive book "Reconstruction," historian Eric Foner cites a bemused Republican senator who observed in 1866: "I have lived in the United States now for many a year and really I have heard more about Gypsies within the past two or three months than I have heard before in my life."

The methods of politics don't change much, even if the targets of demagoguery do.