Via the FPC:
One might think this sort of thing was a “brain fart” or some slip of the tongue that occurs when under the stress of an interview or public speaking event. But I’ve seen these sort of things happen in written communication. They simply do not have the mental processes to handle rational thought. This happens so frequently we have a name for it. It is called Peterson Syndrome.
Well, she might start by not making the Federal Government so large, so all-powerful, all knowing and so far reaching as to put her constituency at risk.
She thinks the Second Amendment protection isn’t for her, too? Apparently to her all the murderous things we’ve seen done by governments around the world since at least the French Revolution can’t happen here, As the Jews in Germany said before they had to find attics, ,,Das kann hier nicht passieren.” After all, they were the land of Beethoven and Schiller and Goethe.
Unfortunately they weren’t in charge at the time.
“What are we supposed to do?”
Uh, don’t buy a gun if you don’t want one? That’s called…liberty? Maybe you’ve heard of it? Well, maybe only in college, as something to be avoided.
The freedom of religion clause in the first amendment is exclusively for the religious too. Go figure. It gives nothing to the poor, alienated athesist. It doesn’t force you into religion, nor does it force you out of it. Do what you want, so long as it doesn’t violate the rights of others (and there’s no “right” to be “free” from people you hate – remember that).
I have to conclude then, Ms. Slaughter*, that your problem with the Bill of Rights is that it prohibits, rather than promotes, the initiation of force. Poor soul; you’re pissed off that you can’t fuck with people as much as you’d like.
*Slaughter; a perfect name for an authoritarian. This name correlation thing seems to occur with strangely high frequency among politicians too.
So if only the military has guns, who exactly is going to stop a military coup?
The founding fathers were against standing armies because of the history of military coups in republics going back to Rome. They wanted a citizens militia not only capable of resisting tyranny from a civil government, but capable of fighting standing armies foreign or domestic.
I’d bet she wouldn’t like this:
If only she felt the same way about the First Amendment too. But no, she can speak up as much as she wants…
What she probably MEANT to say, was that the Second Amendment is great for people who want to buy and own guns. But it doesn’t do anything for poor souls like her who DON’T want to own guns. (This is true — just as the First Amendment gives you freedom of speech, which you can use or not use, as you see fit.)
You don’t have to own guns if you don’t want. But the Second Amendment establishes your right to change your mind later… which makes all the difference in the world. Where guns are forbidden, the shoe is on the other foot, and people who don’t want to own guns anyway are happy. But they DON’T have the option of changing their minds later!
And in reality, the herd inoculation effect kicks in when a populace is known to be armed. Look at how the crime rate (as little as it was) dropped in Kennesaw, Georgia when town ordinance (ordnance?) decreed that all citizens MUST acquire a gun, unless they had a religious or other good reason not to.
So, the 2A has a positive effect on safety even for those who chose to not acknowledge or apply it.
From a different perspective, I’ve never had troops quartered in my house without compensation, and for that matter, never been arrested and questioned, or been subject to cruel or unusual punishment. Should we ignore those parts of the BOA as well.
Ordinance is correct. But Kennesaw also does not enforce the ordinance. It was mainly to show they are a gun friendly City (Town?).
1. mounted guns; artillery.
synonyms: guns, cannon, artillery, weapons, arms, ammunition; More: munitions, materiel
2. a branch of the armed forces dealing with the supply and storage of weapons, ammunition, and related equipment.
I always considered it as an Ordnance Ordinance.
Thinking about this some, I may know what was going through her mind.
Perhaps she was thinking of a positive “right” such as, “The right to feel safe”.
That “right to feel safe” was the purpose of the drug (Soma?) in Brave New World. Take the drug, feel safe, and you don’t have to worry about doing anything constructive with that feeling of unsafety or risk or fear or whatever. Sometimes I think this is the purpose of legalizing marijuana.
No, the purpose of decriminalizing marijuana would follow under Liberty. What human has the Right to tell another what they can ingest into their own body? If another has that power, how Free ore you?
Another way to express this, which tends to make the point more personal, “If the government is given the power to make a law telling you must not do this thing (recreational drugs, own guns, etc..) then it follows that it also has the power to tell you that you must do this thing. Don’t cede the government powers it shouldn’t have.”
A majority of voters elected this vacuum brained woman into office. Sad commentary on the quality of their ability to also think.
They tell you in high school that thinking is hard. As Louis L’Amour wrote once, children can learn and do practically anything, until you tell them it is “hard”.
Not quite that, but there’s a map of red and blue counties from the 2016 presidential election results. It’s pretty interesting — the country is mostly red except for parts of a narrow band of coastline and a few other small islands like Chicago.
Not to “jack” this thread, but would I be correct in thinking that all those Leftist residents of the “blue” areas vacation in the “red” areas?
Not necessarily. Many only vacation to areas where there a lot of people and social life. But what I find “interesting” is that most of them get their food, water, and energy from the “red” areas. Yet, they treat those people with contempt.
The stupid, it hurts. No really, this is weapons grade stupid. I,…. I just can’t……