Resorting to the democratic process

Michael Kirkland writes in The lost fight for gun control:

The National Rifle Association plans to resort to the democratic process to derail those brave enough to support restrictions on gun or ammo possession, targeting Democratic senators in newspaper ads as they run for re-election in 2014.

“Resort to the democratic process” seems like an odd choice of words. What does he think NRA usually does to those that advocate for laws that violate the Second Amendment? I’m pretty sure I would have heard about it if one or more NRA High-power Rifle teams engaged these Senators violating their oaths of office.

Kirkland labels those advocating restrictions on guns and ammo as “brave” but I’m not convinced. It would seem to me the label would be a lot more appropriate if they were taking incoming fire. Until then I think the more appropriate labels are “weasels” and “criminals“.

7 thoughts on “Resorting to the democratic process

  1. Resorting to the democratic process is the meekest, mildest, most half-hearted approach we could take, given that we’re up against an attack against liberty and against constitutionally protected rights. It’s a bit like finding an intruder in your home brandishing a knife against you, and responding by convening a meeting of neighbors to vote on whether or not the intruder should be allowed to stay in your house and eat your food.

  2. “Resorting to the Democratic Process?’ What are they supposed to do instead, issue Imperial edicts like Obama?

  3. RE: 18 USC 242 – What Cuomo did stands a good chance of being overturned in NY state courts, now that they’ve noticed, and certainly will in federal court if the NY state courts play dead on the issue. I haven’t looked at the Colorado state constitution, but given Heller and McDonald I can’t imagine the Denver laundry list would hold up in federal court.

    So, tell me again why – other than it’s the Obama/Holder justice dept that would be doing the prosecuting – 18 USC 242 can’t be brought into play? Some clever lawyer (“paging Mr. Gura….”) should be able to find a way around Holder.

    • For some reason 18 USC 242 doesn’t apply to law makers. And I believe even law enforcers can skate too if they believe they are following the law at the time.

      I push the concept anyway because, as the statists have repeatedly demonstrated, the interpretation of the law can change over time if the culture changes. If the liberals can have a “living constitution” then maybe I can help breath some ‘life” into 18 USC 241 and 242 for some future time.

  4. “RESORT TO THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS”!!!????.
    RCOB seems too restrained a response.
    I know what glee we get from your reporting of Markley’s Law violations, and there is also Godwin’s Law.
    For someone of Michael Kirkland’s position and education (a generous assumption) he would do well to remember that not all accusations of Godwin’s Law violations are in fact violations, and he would also do well to remember that Hitler held the Democratic process in contempt just as he apparently does.
    The mask is really slipping.

  5. Pingback: SayUncle » OMG they have the democratic process

Comments are closed.