ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Impeach Obama

But much more importantly, DON'T RAISE THE DEBT LIMIT!
A second Republican congressman is suggesting that impeachment should be an option as President Barack Obama takes executive action to enact gun control measures. In an interview with Florida’s “The Shark Tank,” Florida Republican Trey Radel addressed Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman’s statement that he might seek impeachment if Obama goes forward with executive action to bring about gun control measures.

“All options should be on the table,” Radel responded.

Obama announced 23 executive actions during his Wednesday press conference.
Obama should be impeached, although there is no chance that the Democratic Senate would vote to remove him from office even if he barbecued the children he was using to sell his Second Amendment violations in the Rose Garden and ate them in front of the cameras.  But more importantly, he can't continue his disarmament campaign against the American people if the government is in default.

I don't expect the House Republicans to follow through on this, of course, they'll cave a third time, just as they did before.  But if they actually intended to defend the American people against the metastasizing government in Washington, they would do so.

What part of "shall not be infringed" does the administration not understand?  It's not just "Congress shall make no law".  Unlike the First Amendment, the Second Amendment means the Executive Branch is also barred from taking any actions whatsoever that limit the people's right to bear arms.  There are no mental health exceptions; these 23 executive dictates collectively amount to straightforward unconstitutional dictatorship.

Labels: ,

134 Comments:

Anonymous Lysander Spooner January 16, 2013 6:52 PM  

Impeachment ?! Impalement would be more appropriate. Right next to Biden, The Bushes, Cheney, and The Clintons. After a fair and speedy trial, of course.

Anonymous Hood January 16, 2013 6:55 PM  

I don't expect the House Republicans to follow through on this, of course, they'll cave a third time, just as they did before.
The 23 mandates that came up to do seem to be following a pattern of centralization, in order to get doctors and psych's to begin the process of gun registration. It's a very under the radar attack. Overtly they can claim these are just simple measures, but over time they will add up to Bracken's registration, confiscation, extermination.
The expectation of the republicans failing is a good thing though, as it shortens the window of opportunity for the gun issue to be leveraged with.

Anonymous Salt January 16, 2013 6:57 PM  

At least the cops are running out of ammo.
http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/nationwide-ammo-shortages-police

Police departments nationwide are experiencing ammunition shortages, according to the online law enforcement resource, PoliceOne.com

Anonymous VD January 16, 2013 6:58 PM  

At least the cops are running out of ammo.

They're probably selling it by the caseload.

Anonymous civilServant January 16, 2013 7:01 PM  

But more importantly, he can't continue his disarmament campaign against the American people if the government is in default.

Governments in default.

Anonymous Loving Tribute to Falco January 16, 2013 7:10 PM  

Wait, I thought they were just empty words?

Anonymous Brian January 16, 2013 7:12 PM  

If a law is unconstitutional, it is therefore null and void and there is nothing that commands the citizens to follow it. Just because Obama says jump does not mean he can legally force us to ask how high.

Blogger James Dixon January 16, 2013 7:14 PM  

> If a law is unconstitutional,...

These aren't even laws. They're executive orders, only binding on the executive branch federal employees.

Blogger James Dixon January 16, 2013 7:15 PM  

> But much more importantly, DON'T RAISE THE DEBT LIMIT!

Exactly. Better to admit we're broke now and deal with it than extend the debt another 2-20 years and deal with when everyone already knows it.

Anonymous Kommandant von Tadowicz; Sanfransisklag January 16, 2013 7:15 PM  

What you are not understanding, prisoner:VD 2718, is that progressive work camps are not hindered by any outdated piece of paper - law, if you will - which supposedly built the workers' paradise from a bourgeois foundation. If you can't grasp that legalized revolutionality must give way to revolutionized legality, then there's nothing more I can do for you... other than to increase your work norm for felling trees on the Kanal. (Look at it this way: Now you can enjoy actually manufacturing the paper that make up your precious books, Herr Auteur.)

And don't make me remove your thumbs as well. Consider it a mercy I let you retain them, since it's been shown that Amerikan weapons of unbelievably deadly and infectious plague-levels of Federal Union mass destruction - in this case, Derringers - can be operated with an opposable digit. And we all know what that has lead to.

Anonymous Brian January 16, 2013 7:16 PM  

>These aren't even laws. They're executive orders, only binding on the executive branch federal employees.

Then let the federal employees be unarmed. All the easier to deal with them should the need arise.

Blogger Log January 16, 2013 7:17 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Taqiyyotomist January 16, 2013 7:28 PM  

Most of the folks involved in the events described on violentflashmobs.com understand now that the laws are pretty much nonexistent.

The site hasn't been updated in a while, and I suspect it's because the proprietor has, again, decided that there are just too many of these, lately, to catalog. Too much for one person.

John Corzine reads this thread and laughs hard for five minutes, breathes heavy for a while, giggles a bit, and then breaks out into a fresh gale of uproarious laughter. GOTO 10.

And the Obamas? Michelle said laughter is a very important part of each day for the couple.

I'll bet.

Blogger Taqiyyotomist January 16, 2013 7:30 PM  

They done did it, folks.

The Weather Underground took our nation.

And they LAUGHED!!!

Blogger Taqiyyotomist January 16, 2013 7:34 PM  

Impeach? Are there not "laws" related to and guiding the process of impeachment?

"Laws" are what now, for the Elite? That's right: nonexistent.

We must use the laws and the Constitution to get rid of this madman whose entire cabinet believes the laws and Constitution are to be destroyed at all costs.

:gets the popcorn out of Chef Mike:

Anonymous zen0 January 16, 2013 7:39 PM  

Yes, by all means, an Impeachment Circus and a Debt Limit Circus are in order, because, goodness knows, Bread is becoming scarce.

Anonymous RINO January 16, 2013 7:44 PM  

He shouldn't be impeached, he should be deported.

Anonymous Stingray January 16, 2013 7:45 PM  

There are no mental health exceptions

I'm glad you brought this up as it is something I have been wondering about lately. The Second Amendment is very clear. As said in the last thread, there is not much to misunderstand about "shall not be infringed". My question is this, what would be a constitutionally acceptable way to deal with people who are a danger to others who have guns? Or, is this question fairly irrelevant as if most/everyone did have guns with them at all times they would be far less likely to use it on others?

Anonymous zen0 January 16, 2013 7:54 PM  

@ Stingray

My question is this, what would be a constitutionally acceptable way to deal with people who are a danger to others who have guns?

If they pull a gun, you shoot them. Of course, you can't do it if you are disarmed.

Anonymous Godfrey January 16, 2013 8:02 PM  

There has always been a class struggle between the small wealthy ruling minority on the top and the large exploited majority on the bottom. The problem is the bottom is divided.

It’s not that the “liberal” or "leftist" at the next desk is a bad guy. He simply doesn’t know any better. He doesn’t understand human nature as it relates to power. He’s ignorant of history and the past. Instead he’s focused the unattainable fantasy of a utopian future. This is what the elites sell to the more gullible among us to divide and rule us. And this is what we have to overcome.

Blogger Taqiyyotomist January 16, 2013 8:05 PM  

Stingray

"My question is this, what would be a constitutionally acceptable way to deal with people who are a danger to others who have guns? Or, is this question fairly irrelevant as if most/everyone did have guns with them at all times they would be far less likely to use it on others?"

What zen0 said. Armed society = polite society.

Works every time.

Although it is impossible to identify the people who might snap and go shooty-shooty at any given time, it is quite possible to allow people their God-given right to defend themselves, and their communities -- and their property, and their loved ones, and their students -- against such people.

Blogger Random January 16, 2013 8:05 PM  

"...even if he barbecued the children he was using to sell his Second Amendment violations in the Rose Garden and ate them in front of the cameras."

I really must stop sipping while reading your posts...damn keyboards are $10 a pop.

Anonymous DonReynolds January 16, 2013 8:14 PM  

Salt..."Police departments nationwide are experiencing ammunition shortages, according to the online law enforcement resource, PoliceOne.com"

The police do not have any channels for ammo, other than those open to the public. When there is no ammo on the shelves, there is none for the cops either.

I tend to suspect that when Homeland Security bought almost a billion and a half rounds of ammunition on the open market, it would create a prolonged shortage....particularly since the bulk of these purchases was for pistol ammo. There are no new factories to make this ammunition but producing it will take a long time with the existing factories. My kid brother has a tool and die shop in a small town and even he was approached lately to help make components for ammunition. He refused, but they must be getting desperate, since his shop never made any.

Blogger Taqiyyotomist January 16, 2013 8:18 PM  

In the '50's and '60's, juniors and seniors went to school with their rifles and shotguns, and stowed them in their lockers for marksmanship classes. Carried them through the halls to show the principal what a fine weapon they had.

There weren't as many crazy people shooting up schools back then.

This isn't about stopping violence. This isn't about kids.

This is about what Mao was about, x10.

Great Leap Forward. II. 4g Boogaloo.

Anonymous Signe January 16, 2013 8:22 PM  

Does this qualify as a shot across the bow, perhaps?

Anonymous Outlaw X January 16, 2013 8:34 PM  

My inside sources contacted me:

Confirmed reliable sources are now reporting that VP Biden has been hospitalized for haveing an erection lasting over 4 hours after Obamas press conference on gun control.

Anonymous DonReynolds January 16, 2013 8:38 PM  

Stingray...."My question is this, what would be a constitutionally acceptable way to deal with people who are a danger to others who have guns?"

Wrong question but a favorite one for those who want an excuse to remove gun rights from citizens. There have always been crazy people in this country. For much of this country's history, same as in the UK, they cannot be charged with a crime because they are insane. So to protect the public from the insane, they were often incarcerated in jails or asylums or homes for the insane. It was not enough to be crazy, they had to be disruptive and a danger to themselves or others. If they could not be trusted with firearms, they could not be trusted with kitchen knives, or firewood axes, wooden clubs, stones, chains, glass, fire or ropes. They had to be restrained at times, and there had to be some effective supervision.

When you stop locking up the nut cases and protecting the public from them, then you get the situation we have today....where they roam the steets as homeless, steal what they can, victimize those who get in their way, including their own family members. Many of them can get their meds for free, but if they do not take the meds and if they are not monitored, then the bad behaviors can return pretty quickly.

The question is not about guns in a free society. It is a question too about knives, and hammers, and matches, and the vulnerability of children and the elderly. Guns are actually too expensive for them to buy, unless they can steal one (and the bullets), they are much more likely to resort to non-firearm weapons. Of course, such weapons kill and maim just as easily and are more difficult to stop.

We do need a way to remove dangerous people from among us but I am reluctant to allow a government body to make broad decisions about veterans, hunters, homophobes, religious fanatics, racists, or the video gamers. The opportunity for abuse of our second amendment rights is simply too easy. Especially when such government bodies are captured by those who hate firearms anyway.

Anonymous Credo in Unum Deum January 16, 2013 8:46 PM  

No, don't impeach him. It is too late. Why keep up appearances? We're out of gas. We can all see the finish line, and we as a nation are done.

Our Constitution today has the same kind of power, authority, and teeth, that that Ancient Roman Constitution had when Caesar was conquering Gaul.

Give it a few more decades, and our soldiers will be more loyal to their generals than to the Constitution.

I recommend everyone keep their heads low, mind their own business, and bide their time: Store up food, water, guns and ammo and magazines (while you can get all of them...), homeschool your kids, worship the Lord, and follow His teachings as best you can, and be prepared to ride out the coming storm.

OpenID alphamission January 16, 2013 8:48 PM  

"These 23 executive dictates collectively amount to straightforward unconstitutional dictatorship." Yes it does, and this is just another sad step towards the New World Order. Once they take away our guns, its half over. By the way, i like you posting Vox Popoli on Alpha Game.

Anonymous Boris January 16, 2013 8:52 PM  

Hmmmm...even Scalia would say that the government has a right to regulate guns. And given that even the assault weapons ban of 1994 was never really challenged and regs on automatic weapons aren't challenged, the clamoring for impeachment makes zero sense--or about as much sense as the normal mutterings from the fringe right.

It is entertaining though. Tell me more about the coming revolution...

Anonymous Porky? January 16, 2013 9:07 PM  



And he would be wrong.

Anonymous Porky? January 16, 2013 9:08 PM  

Hmmmm...even Scalia would say that the government has a right to regulate guns.

And he would be wrong.

Anonymous Outlaw X January 16, 2013 9:16 PM  

"Tell me more about the coming revolution..."

It will suck, and I am glad I won't be around to see it. Now go play with your anti-intellectual, non committed, never understanding, while living a lie, brainwashing.

Have a good day Boris.

Anonymous Microphone Jones January 16, 2013 9:22 PM  

Those 23 executive orders don't look like anything of substance. This honestly looks like fluffy nice things to appease the anti gun morons. Most of it is just reminding government workers to do the jobs they're already supposed to do. For example:

Review safety standards? they're just reviewing safety standards
Releasing letters to clarify things
Launch a dialogue

Im honestly surprised the anti gun idiots aren't saying "That's it?"

Anonymous FrankBrady January 16, 2013 9:38 PM  

We are about out of time. Is it not clear that what little remains of American freedom is under attack by a relentless and vicious enemy who respects no rules?

Conservatives lose against the Left because they are always on the defensive, giving ground one step at a time. They are now in the nearly completed process of losing permanently. Unless and until the enemy (and I mean the entire apparatus of socialist and neoconservative politicians, jurists, bureaucrats, “journalists”, entertainers, and educators) pays a real and painful price for his aggression, there is no reason for him to stop. Why would he? There is no downside.

Many years ago in graduate school I had the opportunity to watch as the Students for a Democratic Society built and manipulated a mass movement against the Vietnam War. The SDS employed “Direct Action”, a broad spectrum of activities ranging from letter writing and pamphlet distribution through picketing, demonstrations, and building all the way up the scale to acts of criminal violence (rioting, shooting, bombing and arson). Although few in number, they were very effective. Mimicking standard military tactics, they would target a weak but highly visible target (a person, place, or organization selected for its symbolic value) and then overwhelm it with concentrated force.

The SDS understood that the mass public is apolitical—although under the right circumstances it can be mobilized using a blizzard of propaganda that plays upon public ignorance (as were the soccer moms and urban metrosexuals following the Sandy Hook tragedy).

The point is this. Unless people who support freedom take the offensive, freedom will be lost for generations. It may be too late already. However, time and the economy’s trajectory is not on the side of the socialists. A tsunami of financial and economic disasters is rolling toward our shores. It is barely possible that the judicious application of Direct Action might yet turn the tide.

Anonymous FrankBrady January 16, 2013 9:41 PM  

Sorry, I omitted a word in my last post. That should have been "building occupation" in the middle of the third paragraph, not "building".

Anonymous Anonymous January 16, 2013 9:45 PM  

Out of curiousity, what would be the likely result of a state issuing an arrest warrant for the president?

Presumably, a state wide warrant couldnt be served outside the state itself, so it couldnt be implemented unless the president actually travelled there, but wouldnt that send an interesting message to the government? And could the president and his "handlers" be arrested if they tried travelling through the state? Would the protective detail be required to arrest him if he enters a state where a warrant has been issued, being federal law enforcement officers?

So many interesting possibilities :)

Blogger Doom January 16, 2013 9:48 PM  

Forget about impeachment, or using the courts, or stopping a debt limit increase. From the reaction I am seeing, America has just surrendered, officially.

If you do something, get out. Leave. Flee. If my health allowed it I would be. If you think you want to stick around a while, go ahead. But start getting your assets out, to wherever is as safe as possible, even at a minor loss to try to keep it untraceable. Make a plan on how to get out and don't plan on airplanes, commercial ships, or standard lanes of traffic. Understand the borders may be closed to you.

Anonymous Godfrey January 16, 2013 9:57 PM  

We have to ally with the real "left". Those few that believe in "power to the people". A true "leftist" would be trying to arm the people, not disarm them. Hopefully there's a few of them left.

Anonymous zen0 January 16, 2013 9:58 PM  

@ Frank Brady

The point is this. Unless people who support freedom take the offensive, freedom will be lost for generations.

That was a great post, Frank. I saw that stuff too. But I must take mild exception to the above recommendation, because, as the NFL keeps telling us, "DEFENSE wins Championships."

Anonymous Godfrey January 16, 2013 10:01 PM  

Even if O-BOMB-A was impeached, the establishment would replace him with another stooge. O-BOMB-A is a creation. He's a prop, a front man. He simply reads a teleprompter. There is no there... there. He's Bush in blackface.

Anonymous zen0 January 16, 2013 10:03 PM  

Godfrey January 16, 2013 9:57 PM

We have to ally with the real "left". Those few that believe in "power to the people". A true "leftist" would be trying to arm the people, not disarm them. Hopefully there's a few of them left.


Godfrey! For goodness sakes, man! Pull yourself together!
"Power to the People" meant them and them alone. When they control government, the government (them) have the arms, and the People (not them) don't. Those are the people they want to arm, not you.

Anonymous Ridip January 16, 2013 10:05 PM  

Damn Outlaw, for half a sec there, I thought you were channeling Bane.

Anonymous FrankBrady January 16, 2013 10:06 PM  

@zen0

That was a great post, Frank. I saw that stuff too. But I must take mild exception to the above recommendation, because, as the NFL keeps telling us, "DEFENSE wins Championships."

Very good, but it hits what is still a sore spot for me. I live in Kansas City, you know, the town that USED TO HAVE an NFL team? A couple of disastrous coaches ago, the Chiefs employed Herm Edwards to be the team's head coach for reasons that were never apparent. Come to think of it, I've never understood why ESPN would employ him to talk about football on the air (maybe they never saw one of his actual game tapes?), but I digress. On more than one occasion, Herm Edwards was heard to tell reporters, "My biggest problem is trying to convince these guys (the team) that they don't always have to score more points than the other team." I am NOT making that up--and it explains a lot about those dismal years.

Anonymous Godfrey January 16, 2013 10:09 PM  

Zeno, I admit the possibility I’m panicking and grasping at straws, but there has to be some principled anti-establishment “leftist” types with whom we can find common cause.

Blogger Survival Gardener, AKA David the Good January 16, 2013 10:17 PM  

There's Kucinich. I actually like him.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 16, 2013 10:19 PM  

I really don't see what good shoving a peach up his ass will do. I'm sure Michelle has done worse.

But the debt limit, well now you're talkin! I'm sure they would just keep using Bernakebucks, since this crowd doesn't give two peach pits about the law, especially when it comes to budget matters (lesse, the Senate hasn't passed a budget since Obama was elected, Obama isn't going to meet the legal deadline for submitting a budget, he just signed an executive order ignoring congressional spending limitations... yeah, not much respect there). But forcing them to go overtly rogue on the debt would clarify things for some of the less observant.

The basic problem we have is that our government has become fundamentally lawless but a fair portion of the population hasn't quite accepted that fact yet. In some ways I don't blame them, it's an ugly truth to admit, that the wonderful world you grew up in was either a dream or else a reality that sailed from the Grey Havens some time ago.

But whatever comes next will be better if we wake them up sooner rather than later.

Anonymous zen0 January 16, 2013 10:20 PM  

@ Frank Brady

I am NOT making that up--and it explains a lot about those dismal years.

I understand. And I would just like to point out, one only plays PREVENT Defense when they are ahead, not like the Republicans.

There are Blitzes, Sacks, Interceptions, Illegal blocks and Hits On Defenseless Receivers. They got none of that.

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 10:20 PM  

What part of "shall not be infringed" does the administration not understand? It's not just "Congress shall make no law". Unlike the First Amendment, the Second Amendment means the Executive Branch is also barred from taking any actions whatsoever that limit the people's right to bear arms. There are no mental health exceptions; these 23 executive dictates collectively amount to straightforward unconstitutional dictatorship.

Yes, yes, this is your view. However, that's not reality. The reality is that 5 Congresses, from 1968 through 2007, all have voted to pass laws that contradict your assertions on mental health. Seperately, the Supreme Court has held repeatedly and with vigor that you are entirely wrong, the 2nd amendment is not absolute, that there are many such exceptions, that Congress can in fact regulate gun ownership in this manner, and that the the Executive does have the authority to enforce said regulations.

That wacky, leftist, marxist, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote:

2.
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to castdoubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.


http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf, page 2.

So on the one hand, we have the personal opinion and intrepretation of one Vox Day, and on the other, the Supreme Court, history, the writers intent, precedent, the will of Congress, and vast public support.

It is one thing to be a bemused spectator and project the collapse of American society and governmeny by some future date, it's another to try to press your hand on the scales in favor of anarchy. Impeachment over these orders, and the claim of unconstitutionality is simply an invitation of anarchy - the guarnatee that Congress will for all future times simply impeach the President if the other party is in power.

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 10:24 PM  

end to suspect that when Homeland Security bought almost a billion and a half rounds of ammunition on the open market, it would create a prolonged shortage
If you look at the GSA RFP, it's for a 4, 5 or 10 year contract. Billions into ten years is still a lot, but not exactly undoable. Especially since you can run up your production during your slow season...

Anonymous paradox January 16, 2013 10:31 PM  

Outlaw X,

Just curious, if my memory is correct are you not a Catholic? What happens if the Pope tells Catholics to turn your firearms in?

Anonymous zen0 January 16, 2013 10:31 PM  

@ dh

Impeachment over these orders, and the claim of unconstitutionality is simply an invitation of anarchy - the guarnatee that Congress will for all future times simply impeach the President if the other party is in power.

As usual, your paranoid sensitivities fail the reality test.

When Clinton was hounded in an impeachment process, did government cease and anarchy prevail. No! There was more government.

Its kind of funny, because I don't even think you realize you are doing it, unlike Tad. Tad is more self aware than you.

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 10:33 PM  

Presumably, a state wide warrant couldnt be served outside the state itself, so it couldnt be implemented unless the president actually travelled there, but wouldnt that send an interesting message to the government? And could the president and his "handlers" be arrested if they tried travelling through the state? Would the protective detail be required to arrest him if he enters a state where a warrant has been issued, being federal law enforcement officers?

For a bunch of people supposedly experts on the Constitution, not many have actual read it apparently:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Follow this up by reading: Mabury v. Madison, Ableman v. Booth, and Cooper v. Allen.

Short version: a bunch of leftist loons tried this with Pres. Bush, and failed miserably.

Anonymous Dr. Idle Spectator, Johns Hopkins Neuropsychology January 16, 2013 10:34 PM  

What part of "shall not be infringed" does the administration not understand? It's not just "Congress shall make no law". Unlike the First Amendment, the Second Amendment means the Executive Branch is also barred from taking any actions whatsoever that limit the people's right to bear arms. There are no mental health exceptions; these 23 executive dictates collectively amount to straightforward unconstitutional dictatorship.

This stood out to me too. This mental health angle is extremely dangerous. Who decides who is sane or insane? Fit or unfit for guns? They did this exact thing in the Soviet Union; politicizing mental health coupled with the Gulag system. I can see it being used as a weapon again.

Look at what they have done with ADD and ADHD in the schools and Ritalin.

Anonymous realmatt January 16, 2013 10:35 PM  

They're probably selling it by the caseload.

To Mexican cartels.

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 10:37 PM  


When Clinton was hounded in an impeachment process, did government cease and anarchy prevail. No! There was more government.

Its kind of funny, because I don't even think you realize you are doing it, unlike Tad. Tad is more self aware than you.


Well, first off, that impeachment did do huge damage the country. For 15 years every Republican has been been set of "getting" the Clintons. When Pres. Clinton was re-elected, it was Mrs. Clinton. The only thing that broke that strangehold was Pres. Obama. It was especially fun when at first it looked like Sen. Obama was going to handily lose the 2008 nomination that all the anti-Clinton Republicans heaped praise on Obama.

Secondly, the difference with Clinton is that he clearly broke the law. On tape. And everyone knew it.

Pres. Obama just won-election, handily, without really trying (that's VD's appeleation, not mine, of course). The GOP just spent over a billion dollars trying to win and they failed.

Impeaching over the use of executive power to control the actions of executive branch employees is just going to cause Congress to finally lose it's grip on power. It will become even less useful in holding back the Executive, which it barely and rarely does as it is.

For people who supposedly love the piece of paper, you sure are willing to ignore it when it suits: "high crimes and misdeamnors" means "whenever we feel like you are mean".

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 10:40 PM  

This stood out to me too. This mental health angle is extremely dangerous. Who decides who is sane or insane? Fit or unfit for guns? They did this exact thing in the Soviet Union; politicizing mental health coupled with the Gulag system. I can see it being used as a weapon again.

Look at what they have done with ADD and ADHD in the schools and Ritalin.


Why would we settle it any other way than anything else? This is what the Courts are for. Due process doesn't just mean for criminal charges, this is the very concept that it was recognizied and protected for. And in fact, it's been happening like clockwork since 1968, when the background check system was first created.

Anonymous zen0 January 16, 2013 10:45 PM  

@ dh

Short version: a bunch of leftist loons tried this with Pres. Bush, and failed miserably.

Really? Depends what their goals were. Now was much better defense that what the Repukes got now. He did not get impeached on all counts, and he did not leave office, but the energies of the administration suddenly had to go on the defensive.

You can quote all the legalities you want, politics is is different. You need to take a more sophisticated view.

Anonymous Todd January 16, 2013 10:50 PM  

Let's see, Obama parades the children out to help emotionally sell his idea as "doing it for the children"? All while sattling said children with $100's of thousands of the US debt (their portion ... which is increasing daily)?

Only a small fraction of children will ever be harmed by a gun but 100% of them will be harmed by this debt.

Anonymous Dr. Idle Spectator, Johns Hopkins Neuropsychology January 16, 2013 10:50 PM  

This is what the Courts are for. Due process doesn't just mean for criminal charges, this is the very concept that it was recognizied and protected for. And in fact, it's been happening like clockwork since 1968, when the background check system was first created.

Due process? Your naïveté is charming here... e.g. children given Ritalin in schools.

There is NO due process. It's like barring students access to schools without current immunizations. Then the diagnosis goes in their permanant academic record. And up until recently, that means they were barred from things like joining military service.

Why could I not easily apply that to access to guns? How many people are on either some behavior-modification drug or antidepressants?

"Oh, that kid is clear unstable. No gun for you."

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 10:53 PM  

He did not get impeached on all counts
Or any...

ut the energies of the administration suddenly had to go on the defensive.
That was much more likely related to the failures of the Iraq war.

You can quote all the legalities you want, politics is is different. You need to take a more sophisticated view.
I am happy to take it, I just don't think it changes the equation...

..also I was responding to the attempt to arrest the President, is that what you are talking about?

Anonymous FrankBrady January 16, 2013 10:55 PM  

@dh

Why would we settle it any other way than anything else? This is what the Courts are for. Due process doesn't just mean for criminal charges, this is the very concept that it was recognizied and protected for. And in fact, it's been happening like clockwork since 1968, when the background check system was first created.

Nonsense, the government's corrupt courts consistently misinterpret the Constitution in order to grow the government's power. Much of the socialist federal judiciary is a great a threat to liberty as the socialist politicians of the executive and legislative branches. The courts are the hammer that have destroyed the nation on the anvil of public apathy.

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 11:07 PM  

Nonsense, the government's corrupt courts consistently misinterpret the Constitution in order to grow the government's power.

Describe an outcome which you disagree with that you acede is not corrupt? Can you?

Is a disagreement among reasonable, honest people possible in your view?

Anonymous Anonymous January 16, 2013 11:14 PM  

Executive orders were created by Lincoln to bypass the constitution in order to make war on the Confederate States.

They remain extra-legal and carry no force of law, only the force of those of the federal government who hope Americans are stupid enough to go along.

Anonymous FrankBrady January 16, 2013 11:24 PM  

@dh

Is a disagreement among reasonable, honest people possible in your view?

When the people agree on ends (goals), it is possible to negotiate means (how to attain those goals). In the United States, there is no agreement about the goals of government. Two incompatible political philosophies have evolved, a collectivist view that values order and safety and a traditional view that values freedom and the individual. They cannot peacefully co-exist in the same nation state. Many Americans, and I am among them, believe that the monstrous governing apparatus the intrudes into every aspect of daily life long ago forfeited any claim to Constitutional legitimacy. It appears that many are in the process of withdrawing their grant of moral authority to the Federal government, without which it cannot survive.

Anonymous Dr. Idle Spectator, Johns Hopkins Neuropsychology January 16, 2013 11:24 PM  

Vox, the more I think about this, the worse it gets.

In your previous post you showed 23 postulates. Let's divide them.


Postulates relating to the recently passed Obamacare and mental health:

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.


- So the government will control healthcare (2), and then they are going to have my doctor spy on me with regards to guns (16)?

- Politicize mental health (14, 23).

- The government is watching your guns (17).


Postulates related to public schools:

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.


How many avenues for abuse are here? How many students in public schools are on medication?

- ADD or ADHD? Can't have a gun. You might not be able to focus.
- Depressed? Can't have a gun. You might be suicidal.
- Bipolar, schizophrenic, borderline? Can't have a gun. You might be psychotic.
- You are fine, but someone in your household is nuts? Can't have a gun. They might have access to it.

This is conveniently cross-checked with school and medical records.

Think about it Vox.

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 11:29 PM  

Executive orders were created by Lincoln to bypass the constitution in order to make war on the Confederate States.
False. The Secretary of State retoractively started numbering them with an order written by Pres. Lincoln (which had nothing to do with warmaking, by the way). This was right around 1900.

They remain extra-legal and carry no force of law, only the force of those of the federal government who hope Americans are stupid enough to go along.
Also false. Executive orders derive their authority through delegated powers, assigned by Congress.

Furthermore, the most agregious expansions of Executive power - done by Pres. Lincoln and later by Pres. Franklin Roosevelt, were both sanctioned by Congress - first by passing the Haebas Act, which retroactively and permanently allowed the President to suspend Haebas Corpus and then later backing up and legalizing the confiscatory and nationalization efforts of the New Deal.

The Supreme Court has also ruled numerous times, sometimes striking down executive orders when they contradict Congressional actions, and at other times upholding them when the laws exercise a delegated or Constitutionally assigned power of the Executive.

Meaning, if Congress directs the Executive to do a certain task, the President may executive orders to direct his agencies and agents to do those tasks.

Vox's and others silly trick is to try to pretend that none of this exists, but of course, that's not the case. He can claim that there is no mental health exception to the 2nd amendment, but Congresss and all of the US courts disagree, as well as even the NRA.

Anonymous Dr. Idle Spectator, Johns Hopkins Neuropsychology January 16, 2013 11:32 PM  

This just makes TOO MUCH sense.

Why else would you tie Obamacare into the new gun control push???


Ok I'll stop now, I am being bad.

Anonymous Gen. Kong January 16, 2013 11:38 PM  

It's rather comical the way dh prattles on and on about the law as if it means anything whatsoever. There is no rule of law in the Banksta Banana Republick - only the law of rule. The Corzines, Soroses, Soeteros, Clintons and Bushes have no law or constraint of any type upon them. Laws only apply to proles, zeks and helots - not to oligarchs. As for the Republicans, is anyone here still stupid enough the think they will do anything apart from fellate D'Won as Jonah Goldberg and the rest of Conservatism, Inc. cheer them on for kneeling down for "conservatism"? They've had much more than enough to impeach and remove Eric Holder for over a year - yet Holder remains untouched, probably running more guns than ever to the cartels. Law is whatever a blackrobe says it is. Heads they win, tails you lose, zek. Nobody gets to be a blackrobe who doesn't bow before the Babylonian masters of the universe. That includes "conservatives" like Scalia and Thomas - who are allowed to be "conservative" to keep up appearances for the idiocracy (for now). When the chips are down they'll do as they're told, just like the closeted chief "conservative" blackrobe Roberts. This has all been under way for a very long time - at least a century. Many tried to warn in days past but nobody listened.

Anonymous zen0 January 16, 2013 11:44 PM  

@ dh

...also I was responding to the attempt to arrest the President, is that what you are talking about?

When dimensions collide...

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 16, 2013 11:45 PM  

...but there has to be some principled anti-establishment “leftist” types with whom we can find common cause.

Watch the video here, pay attention at 9:50

Gun Control Advocates Refuse to Advertise Their Homes as "Gun Free"

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/01/gun-control-advocates-refuse-to.html

Anonymous FrankBrady January 16, 2013 11:48 PM  

@dh

Also false. Executive orders derive their authority through delegated powers, assigned by Congress.

Furthermore, the most agregious expansions of Executive power - done by Pres. Lincoln and later by Pres. Franklin Roosevelt, were both sanctioned by Congress - first by passing the Haebas Act, which retroactively and permanently allowed the President to suspend Haebas Corpus and then later backing up and legalizing the confiscatory and nationalization efforts of the New Deal.


Are you really that dim? The President, the Congress, and the Courts have only those powers specifically granted to them by the Constitution. It doesn't matter if every member of Congress and all Sitting Justices acting in concert "legitimized" an unconstitutional act of the President. Lincoln had absolutely no Constitutional grounds to stop the Confederate States from leaving the Union. Stop licking the boots that extend from beneath those black robes and grow a pair.

Anonymous zen0 January 16, 2013 11:48 PM  

@ dh

He can claim that there is no mental health exception to the 2nd amendment, but Congress and all of the US courts disagree, as well as even the NRA.

Adam Lanza would beg to differ.

Sheeit. This funner than the charity dunk tank down at the county fair.

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 16, 2013 11:51 PM  

Shall not be infringed... except by due process.

Anonymous zen0 January 16, 2013 11:59 PM  

Mr. Pea January 16, 2013 11:51 PM

Shall not be infringed... except by due process.


"In 1855, the Supreme Court explained that, to ascertain whether a process is due process, the first step is to “examine the constitution itself, to see whether this process be in conflict with any of its provisions . . . "

Stalemate --> politics.

Anonymous Anonymous January 17, 2013 12:01 AM  

Roberts nakedly and illegally "upheld" Obamacare by first striking it down and then reinventing the law. When this happened squarely in front of the nation with no pretense, with no remorse and when no one questioned it, that is when I realized that it's all a total charade. Roberts should've been impeached by Congress for what he did. It shouldn't be considered out of bounds for a Supreme Court justice to be removed from office, it should be considered the duty of Congress.

It is all a total sham. If one has the means it would be better to watch all of this on CNN from Equador.

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 17, 2013 12:01 AM  

Hi Doc. I keep having this recurring nightmare of the little girl who ran into my sight of fire and her head exploded.

Doc writes: Has recurring fantasy of blowing little girls heads off.

No firearms for you.

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 17, 2013 12:06 AM  

Zeno...

Sarcasm

Anonymous dh January 17, 2013 12:07 AM  

Are you really that dim? The President, the Congress, and the Courts have only those powers specifically granted to them by the Constitution. It doesn't matter if every member of Congress and all Sitting Justices acting in concert "legitimized" an unconstitutional act of the President. Lincoln had absolutely no Constitutional grounds to stop the Confederate States from leaving the Union. Stop licking the boots that extend from beneath those black robes and grow a pair.

It all comes down to opinion, doesn't it? Those in the North felt otherwise - that the union was indestructible.

Are you willing to refight the Civil War? Is that was this is all about?

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 17, 2013 12:08 AM  

But thanks for learning me regardless on that Supreme Court case.

Anonymous dh January 17, 2013 12:08 AM  

When the chips are down they'll do as they're told, just like the closeted chief "conservative" blackrobe Roberts. This has all been under way for a very long time - at least a century. Many tried to warn in days past but nobody listened.
Ah yes, another believer in the multi-generational conspiracy.

Anonymous zen0 January 17, 2013 12:09 AM  

The War on Poverty eliminated Poverty.
The War on Drugs eliminated Drugs.
The War on Women (heh) eliminated Women.
The War on Guns will eliminate Guns.

Everyday, I thank the powers that be, that I lived to see this day.

Thanks.

Anonymous dh January 17, 2013 12:10 AM  

ouldn't be considered out of bounds for a Supreme Court justice to be removed from office

It's not. It's totally in the realm of possibility.

Roberts nakedly and illegally "upheld"

Illegal, according to whom?

Anonymous dh January 17, 2013 12:11 AM  

They've had much more than enough to impeach and remove Eric Holder for over a year
Oh really? What law has Holder allegedly broken?

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 17, 2013 12:12 AM  

It all comes down to opinion doesn't George? What say you Madison and Jefferson? Are you willing to start a revolution over all of this?

Anonymous zen0 January 17, 2013 12:13 AM  

Mr. Pea January 17, 2013 12:06 AM

Zeno...

Sarcasm


Thanks for the heads up. You are obviously too good at it, I was unsure, but now i will know.

Anonymous dh January 17, 2013 12:15 AM  

It all comes down to opinion doesn't George? What say you Madison and Jefferson? Are you willing to start a revolution over all of this?

Bingo.

The armchair patriot/rebels are happy to talk about it, but substantially, nothing has changed in the last 20 years in the law. The only actual new regulation that Obama has proposed is a restriction on the size of a magazine clip. Everything else is either returning to the law that already was in place and expired, or under discretion already granted to him by Congress.

Yet the armchair patriots would have you believe that the last straw has been exercised, and they are THIS CLOSE to starting the shooting.

Anonymous FrankBrady January 17, 2013 12:15 AM  

@dh

Are you willing to refight the Civil War? Is that was this is all about?

War is a terrible thing, a last resort. However, we have only to look at the history of the last century to see what happens to the population when untrammeled tyranny seizes a nation. From the Armenian genocide, through Stalin's slaughter of the White Russians, Mao's murder of millions, and Pol Pot's Cambodian slaughter house, the lesson is unmistakable.

Given Obama's willingness to lie and kill (and he has already killed Americans, without due process) and given the general amorality of socialists, my answer must be a reluctant "yes", if liberty cannot otherwise be restored.

Anonymous Rod Freeman January 17, 2013 12:18 AM  

I don't understand all of this pointing at the Constitution itself as something with inherent power.

Power only exists because living human beings ascribe it to people or things. The power originates from and flows out of those doing the ascribing, not in recipient.

The president of the US quite obviously doesn't ascribe any real power to the Constitution.

But nor do his detractors.

If they did they would exercise and act on that power.

They never lift a finger to act on the power they say is inherent in their Constitution ... except to click a vote button to choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee - an obviously powerless act accomplishing nothing whatsoever.

Modern Pro-Constitution Americans talk a big game but they never take it to the streets. There may be rare individuals today in the US who are prepared to die in the process of revolting for the Constitution. Maybe, but I doubt it.

Think Tahrir / Tianmen / Nicolae Ceaușescu.

I don't think I'll see anything like that in my lifetime in the USA. Why? Well, if not now, when?








Anonymous FrankBrady January 17, 2013 12:26 AM  

@dh

The armchair patriot/rebels are happy to talk about it, but substantially, nothing has changed in the last 20 years in the law.

Do you not understand that this goes beyond "a legal issue." It has to do with much more than "changes in firearms laws". We stand on the brink of catastrophe because of the political and banking establishment's blatant and bi-partisan assault on the nation through atrocities such as the Patriot Act, FISA, the NDA, The Accountable Care Act, the War on Terror, the unlimited assault on the currency, the explosion in Federal spending, etc., etc. ad nauseum.

The trajectory is absolutely clear and unsustainable.

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 17, 2013 12:26 AM  

Yet the armchair patriots would have you believe that the last straw has been exercised, and they are THIS CLOSE to starting the shooting.

I agree that there is a lot of chest thumping. But, chest thumping does serve a purpose. So does voting with your feet, hence the mass gun buy. One can only imagine how uppity and how far Obama would have gone if the people did not go on a mass gun spree and kept their mouths shut... no?

Anyhow dh... they mean well. And there will be a time when they start shooting. The spreading fire of government dictates that to be so, eventually. Patience.

Anonymous FrankBrady January 17, 2013 12:29 AM  

@Rod Freeman

I don't think I'll see anything like that in my lifetime in the USA. Why? Well, if not now, when?

Well, since you did ask, I'm thinking about the middle of June would be a pretty good guess. :-)

Anonymous NewAnubis January 17, 2013 12:30 AM  

Stringing together a theory:

As most here are likely aware, we (every person in every town in our country) have been being Fumigated with heavy metals (Aluminum, Strontium, Manganese, etc. with some nanofiliament kickers) since the late 80's deliberately. One needn't do more than observe the skies overhead.

The chief result on this bombardment has been nuanced cognitive impairment hence the staggering amounts of ADD--for which most I believe will sense a bit in their own lives.

Should such condition be classified as a mental disorder (and again, we've all got it) then by the power vested in gov't doctors a firearm denial could be made on this basis.

Yes, I realize it's sketchy and could perhaps be presented more eloquently, but it'd be a fairly effective workaround--if one is even needed anymore.

Oooh, channel two's Pothole Patrol on now....gotta scoot.

Anonymous Toby Temple January 17, 2013 12:37 AM  

The armchair patriot/rebels are happy to talk about it, but substantially, nothing has changed in the last 20 years in the law.

It always start at the "talk". When words are no longer enough.... I think everyone knows what happens next.

Anonymous Gen. Kong January 17, 2013 12:40 AM  

Amusing how dh resorts to "conspiracy" finger-pointing. It's all been out there in print for a very long time, dh. The utopian ideology has been around since well before the French revolution, as have its murderous true believers. They've amassed some impressive mountains of corpses and rivers of blood to their credit - even exceeding those of Islam (who've been at it for 1400 years running). Calling it all "conspiracy" is like calling Islam a conspiracy. It's just a word you throw around as a deflection tactic. You'd make a fine Muslim as well, dh. You are already well-schooled the the practice of taqquiyeh.

Oh really? What law has Holder allegedly broken?

Holder directed the lawless gun-running operation known as "fast and furious" and has been obstructing justice ever since the first clues began to emerge. Nixon did far less and resigned under threat of impeachment. Since laws don't mean anything more than what some worthless asshat wearing a blackrobe says they mean anyway, he'll skate - just like Corzine and all the rest. As with the currency, the laws of the Banksta Banana Republick aren't even worth the paper they're printed upon.

Anonymous rs accounts for sale January 17, 2013 12:51 AM  

Thank you, I have recently been looking for info approximately this topic for a long time and yours is the greatest I have came upon so far. But, what about the conclusion? Are you sure about the supply?|What i do not understood is if truth be told how you’re not actually much more well-liked than you might be right now. You are so intelligent.

Anonymous dh January 17, 2013 1:07 AM  

I agree that there is a lot of chest thumping. But, chest thumping does serve a purpose. So does voting with your feet, hence the mass gun buy. One can only imagine how uppity and how far Obama would have gone if the people did not go on a mass gun spree and kept their mouths shut... no?

Right. One can only imagine...

On the other hand, the objective facts are that:

1. Obama, nor anyone in Congress, has proposed confiscation.

2. Obama, nor anyone in Congress, has proposed any significant control of guns that wasn't already law at one point. The only net new regulation is.. on magazine clips.

3. The people fear mongering a ban on guns have a financial interest in promoting the sale of more guns and ammunition.



I love how every possible angle of the corruption of the banksters, and the government-banking duopoly is explored, but when an attrocious scare-mongering campaign between the NRA and gun makers takes on a new level of back dealing, that's the 3rd rail.

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 17, 2013 1:23 AM  

dh

Oh, they have proposed it... as of yet, they have not the guts to implement it.

But hey... a little nickel and diming eventually pays off.

I've already predicted that they wouldn't go for a wholesale gun ban in another thread.

The fact is, we are all moving into the new camp. So really, who are you... or I, to them. It's like a generational curse that just keeps getting worse with each generation.

It does take a village... one generation at a time.

We'll see dh.

Remember where we were? Here we are. Imagine where we will be.



Anonymous FrankBrady January 17, 2013 1:24 AM  

@dh

On the other hand, the objective facts are that:

1. Obama, nor anyone in Congress, has proposed confiscation.

2. Obama, nor anyone in Congress, has proposed any significant control of guns that wasn't already law at one point. The only net new regulation is.. on magazine clips.

3. The people fear mongering a ban on guns have a financial interest in promoting the sale of more guns and ammunition.

I love how every possible angle of the corruption of the banksters, and the government-banking duopoly is explored, but when an attrocious scare-mongering campaign between the NRA and gun makers takes on a new level of back dealing, that's the 3rd rail.


dh, how about visiting this site and getting back to us?

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 17, 2013 1:40 AM  

Let me just point out dh, that despotism does not complete its works over night. It creeps along and progressively gets worse over time.

If you can not see the pattern happening in AmeriKa, you're blind.

Their not stupid. It's just going to take a little longer in AmeriKa.

They will come to their time.

Anonymous dh January 17, 2013 1:45 AM  

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

This is the essentially the same as 1994 law, which was law, and expired. It has a few new types of guns, and accessories, some of which are just new since the last law expired.

See my point #2.

Anonymous dh January 17, 2013 1:48 AM  

If you can not see the pattern happening in AmeriKa, you're blind.

Or perhaps it's not happening.

How's this one for size: the right to own firearms has rarely ever been stronger in America. Since DC v. Heller, it is in better standing now than it has been in about 150 years.

Obama passed on the opportunity to significantly restrict gun ownership. He had the votes in both Houses of Congress. He took no action.

So, yes, it's possible that Obama is running the super long 3 dimension chess game of chess, where-in he, for his entire two terms in office takes no tangible steps towards confiscation, and takes no tangible steps to disarm America, and where-in he instead makes only minor changes to existing laws, properly enacted by Congress, and engages in the political process to attempt to bring about new restrictions, that have previously been law.

Sounds like tryanny...

Anonymous dh January 17, 2013 1:49 AM  

Oh, they have proposed it... as of yet, they have not the guts to implement it.

Link or it happened in your head only.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 17, 2013 2:06 AM  


I don't understand all of this pointing at the Constitution itself as something with inherent power.

The power of the Constitution is in guiding well-intentioned, often wise, but flawed men through the necessary evil of selecting and running a government. It has great power for them. It has no power over the ill-intentioned or the stupid.

In which we see the underlying cause of the fading the Constitution.

Anonymous Anonymous January 17, 2013 2:24 AM  

As a default atheist I really like your site, you bring up a lot of good arguments I had not thought of. What do you think of the argument, that the bible can't be the absolute judge of morality because there are acts in the bible that you would judge morally wrong , incest, killing, ect. If you find them morally wrong but the bible doesn't you must be judging it by a higher moral standard

Anonymous robwbright January 17, 2013 2:26 AM  

"So on the one hand, we have the personal opinion and intrepretation of one Vox Day, and on the other, the Supreme Court, history, the writers intent, precedent, the will of Congress, and vast public support."

dh, what you miss in your support of the "Supreme Court, history, the writers intent, precedent, the will of Congress, and vast public support" is in the writers intent.

Vox's position (and mine) is, in fact, consistent with the writers' intent. A review of their writings would make that obvious to you. I suspect you've read the Founders, but I also suspect you don't quote them with any regularity because you likely don't like what they had to say on this issue.

The mere fact that the modern Supreme Court and Congress disagree with the writers' intent doesn't mean that the moderns are correct. On some issues, the two parties hold opposing opinions. Both cannot be "right" and in accord with the original intent. Obviously, the views of politicians on both sides of the aisle today don't jive with the views of the Founders.

Of course, the position of the moderns is the current law, though. That fact doesn't mean that the current position is "constitutional" in the sense of the original intent.

A good example is DUI checkpoints where everyone gets pulled over. Modern courts have held that such searches are constitutional. It's OBVIOUS that there is no probable cause for a stop/search of everyone, yet for the "common good" the modern Courts have carved out an exception to the 4th Amendment.

Anonymous Toby Temple January 17, 2013 2:36 AM  

As a default atheist I really like your site, you bring up a lot of good arguments I had not thought of. What do you think of the argument, that the bible can't be the absolute judge of morality because there are acts in the bible that you would judge morally wrong , incest, killing, ect. If you find them morally wrong but the bible doesn't you must be judging it by a higher moral standard

Praise God! I do hope your inquiry is coming from a honest desire to learn.

And please pick a name. As you can see on the upper left side of this page, NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.

Anonymous Red Comet January 17, 2013 2:39 AM  

@ dh

Obama and people like him want the guns gone because they are centralized authority control freaks.

They pass their policies a little at a time because otherwise the people would see them for who they are. Their strategy is and always has been death by a thousand cuts. This is why people like us THAT KNOW THIS oppose them on laws that seem minor to people like you.

If you don't give them that first inch they'll never take the mile.

Anonymous dh January 17, 2013 2:43 AM  

They pass their policies a little at a time because otherwise the people would see them for who they are. Their strategy is and always has been death by a thousand cuts. This is why people like us THAT KNOW THIS oppose them on laws that seem minor to people like you.

Another vote for the long game - Obama is passing laws that will hopefully in - what, 10, 20, 30, 100? years - serve as the basis for tryanny.

Anonymous Red Comet January 17, 2013 2:45 AM  

As a default atheist I really like your site, you bring up a lot of good arguments I had not thought of. What do you think of the argument, that the bible can't be the absolute judge of morality because there are acts in the bible that you would judge morally wrong , incest, killing, ect. If you find them morally wrong but the bible doesn't you must be judging it by a higher moral standard

The argument you put forth is circular reasoning.

Anonymous dh January 17, 2013 3:01 AM  

Vox's position (and mine) is, in fact, consistent with the writers' intent. A review of their writings would make that obvious to you. I suspect you've read the Founders, but I also suspect you don't quote them with any regularity because you likely don't like what they had to say on this issue.

Please, by all means, post some of the founders intent on the 2nd amendment.

Here is one, Thomas Jefferson, on his earlier proposals for a gun-rights amendment in Virgina, quoted by the Surpreme Court in DC vs. Heller:

Other States did not include rights to bear arms in their pre-1789 constitutions—although in Virginia a Second Amendment analogue was proposed (unsuccessfully) by Thomas Jefferson. (It read:“No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements].”18 1 The Papers ofThomas Jefferson 344 (J. Boyd ed. 1950)).

ALong those same lines, Justice Scalia goes on for several pages, with reference, about the original intent, drafting history, and early intrepretation of the 2nd amendment.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf - start reading at around page 29.

Obviously, the views of politicians on both sides of the aisle today don't jive with the views of the Founders.
This is not obvious, nor true. I can find no support, at any time in Americna history, that any founder held for an absolute right to bear arms, absent any restrictions. From the first days of the country there were restrictions passed by States and the Federal government on gun ownership, use, and discharge. The Supreme COurt, in both Miller and Heller goes into detail discussing the historical basis for restrictions on the 2nd amendment, and explictly endorse the concept that nothing in the 2nd amendment guarantees an absolute right to own guns.

Anonymous dh January 17, 2013 3:02 AM  

Obama and people like him want the guns gone...

I highly doubt you can support this allegation in any way. There is zero evidence that Obama wants gun gone.

Anonymous Todd January 17, 2013 3:20 AM  

dh: Ah yes, another believer in the multi-generational conspiracy.

Do you mean like the mafia? The mafia is a multi-generational conspiracy, no?

The mafia is lower down on the pyramid of the power structure.

Anonymous map January 17, 2013 3:38 AM  

It seems obvious that the Founding Fathers intended the Bill of Rights to provide an easy path to overthrowing a government. Essentially, they codified into law the very things they did to fight the British Empire and limited what the government could do to fight them.

I don't get why libtards think the "long game," conspiracies and "death by a thousand cuts" is so silly.

The purpose of a conspiracy is never the conspiracy itself. Nobody "recruits" potential conspirators. Conspiracies evolve organically among like-minded people who want to keep things hidden.

Obama's latest gun grab is huge. HIPPA is being re-written to allow schools to have access to your kids' medical records. Every instance of ritalin or anti-depressants is an occasion to ban the kid from ever owning a gun. And if there is a gun in the house?

Confiscation, or very intrusive checks by police into a person's home.

Isn't it obvious where this is going? Yet, idiots like DH honestly believe nothing is happening until everything is spelled out completely.

There is no conspiracy unless some bureaucrat tells DH there is a conspiracy.

Anonymous Barko Ramius January 17, 2013 3:42 AM  

DH: "From the first days of the country there were restrictions passed by States and the Federal government on gun ownership, use, and discharge."

Really? And how many years after the framers penned the words, "Shall not be infringed" did these 'restrictions' become law?


Blogger ray January 17, 2013 3:59 AM  

Obama should be impeached

zero (0) chance of that -- u.s. is not getting off the hook with some easy cheesy political gambit


although there is no chance that the Democratic Senate would vote to remove him from office even if he barbecued the children he was using to sell his Second Amendment violations in the Rose Garden and ate them in front of the cameras.


Moloch Lives! now he's the King!

twas ever thus

Anonymous Free man January 17, 2013 5:07 AM  

"They're probably selling it by the caseload."

Lol. You know it Vox.

Anonymous Second Thoughts January 17, 2013 6:23 AM  

@ map

Yet, idiots like DH honestly believe nothing is happening until everything is spelled out completely.

Don't you worry. If and when it all comes down, dh will come back and apologize for being obtuse.

Blogger James Dixon January 17, 2013 6:38 AM  

> There is zero evidence that Obama wants gun gone.

As I noted in another thread, is Obama a democrat? Last time I checked, yes.

But he doesn't want guns gone, he just doesn't want us to have them.

Anonymous Outlaw X January 17, 2013 6:57 AM  

I did what I told Vox what I was going to do. I got 4 guns left to defend the homestead. All the rest sold along with ammo in less than a week. Only to people who spoke Texan. The ammo really made a killing, but the guns were good. Believe I shall retire. Still got 4 guns and enough ammo to protect the homestead. All just by word of mouth and if they talked Texan and were farm boys they could buy. All the rest were told it was already sold. Got it done before any executive order was signed.

There are better men than me owning those guns. All before Instacheck and most of them from gun stores now out of business. Play with that coconut, cash deals, no last names.

Outlaw X sees the future, dying and don't care.

Anonymous RedJack January 17, 2013 6:59 AM  

dh,

Google Gramsci. This link should get you started.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci

Then look up a little book by HG Wells called the The Open Conspiracy
http://www.inlex.org/stories/wells/opencons.html

And if you are still interested, look up the stated goals of the Fabian Socialists.

Now, I suspect you won't take the time to do that. And if you did you would claim it isn't true. But realize that the first two links I sent you were written over a hundred years ago, yet are a script of how things have gone over that time.

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 17, 2013 7:40 AM  

Link or it happened in your head only.

Stop being an idiot! Are you that uninformed? Go look it up yourself. I am sure you think you have everyone captivated by your brilliance, reality is that no one is baffled by your bullshit.

As for challenging others to prove that the Founders said this or that, why don't YOU use the internet... or a bookstore, to read correspondence of the various Founders? Or speeches? Or, any of their writings in general? Stop living in what you want to believe despite all the facts, read, and come down to reality and the truth. The fact is, you do not want to.

Link or it happened in your head only.

"Link. Because I have had my head up my ass all these years thunking."

Anonymous Holla January 17, 2013 7:43 AM  

Can somebody explain the Second Amendment to poor old Holla?

I am generally favorable to unrestricted gun rights, but seem to think that most pro--guns harp on the "shall not be infringed" and ignore the "well regulated militia."

What was the actual historical intention of #2?

Anonymous FrankNorman January 17, 2013 7:50 AM  

Holla January 17, 2013 7:43 AM

Can somebody explain the Second Amendment to poor old Holla?

I am generally favorable to unrestricted gun rights, but seem to think that most pro--guns harp on the "shall not be infringed" and ignore the "well regulated militia."

What was the actual historical intention of #2?


A "militia" is a group of civilians with weapons, who have gotten together to defend their lives, or town, or whatever.
"regulated" in this context means "equipped".

So to be secure as a free people, they need to be well-supplied with weaponry.

Anonymous Stilicho January 17, 2013 7:59 AM  

The armchair patriot/rebels are happy to talk about it, but substantially, nothing has changed in the last 20 years in the law. The only actual new regulation that Obama has proposed is a restriction on the size of a magazine clip. Everything else is either returning to the law that already was in place and expired, or under discretion already granted to him by Congress.

Yet the armchair patriots would have you believe that the last straw has been exercised, and they are THIS CLOSE to starting the shooting.


You sound so disappointed. Lighten up, Francis.

Anonymous Tad January 17, 2013 8:51 AM  

@FrankBrady

Nonsense, the government's corrupt courts consistently misinterpret the Constitution in order to grow the government's power. Much of the socialist federal judiciary is a great a threat to liberty as the socialist politicians of the executive and legislative branches. The courts are the hammer that have destroyed the nation on the anvil of public apathy.

People fear what they don't understand. Frank clearly does not understand the law. Hence, the fear dripping from his comment. There are a number of books I can recommend. For the Constitution, not the paranoia.

Anonymous Tad January 17, 2013 8:57 AM  

@Holla

What was the actual historical intention of #2?

Well, that depends who you ask. If yo as Vox Day, it was to assure that all American's have the right to possess nuclear weapons. That would be the intent of the 2nd Amendment by most of the others who comment here and have looked deeply into the issue.

What's not clear is if the 2nd Amendment actually requires American's to also wear Tin Foil Hats and straight Jackets while wielding the Nuclear arm.

It's all very confusing.

Anonymous Tad January 17, 2013 9:24 AM  

@Anonymous

Roberts nakedly and illegally "upheld" Obamacare by first striking it down and then reinventing the law. When this happened squarely in front of the nation with no pretense, with no remorse and when no one questioned it, that is when I realized that it's all a total charade.

Oh, it was questioned alright. The fact is, as you note, Roberts got that one wrong. If you want to see the correct understanding of the Affordable Healthcare Act then read Ginsburg's concurrence. It is brilliant and slicing and spot on.

Anonymous Red Comet January 17, 2013 9:59 AM  

I highly doubt you can support this allegation in any way. There is zero evidence that Obama wants gun gone.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7312.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_social_policy#Gun_policy

http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

And plenty more with even a light use of google. What now, bro?

Anonymous TheVillageIdiotRet January 17, 2013 10:02 AM  

Using the computer in the institutions library I was able to hack into that new super computer.
THE EUREKA MACHINE
This computer is so advanced that the answers are beyond the comprehension levels of today's scientists. They're going to have to invent a computer to interpret the answers of the super computer.

I asked the eureka machine:
What is the RESET or RESTORE DEFAULT SETTINGS button for THE U S CONSTITUTION?
It's reply was;
2ND AMEND; B O R

Now we're thinking B O R might mean bring own rifle.
Anybody knows what 2nd amend might mean?

DannyR

Anonymous Gen. Kong January 17, 2013 12:32 PM  

There was no Federal laws restricting firearms ownership before 1934. In the 1920s, one could walk down to the local hardware store and purchase a Thompson submachine gun, completely operational with a 100-round drum if ordered. There were various laws in some states restricting weapons, notably the former slave states. The first 'modern' gun control law was the 1912 Sullivan Act, written by a politician who was the employee of the New York mob - who didn't like the idea of shopowners being able to defend themselves against their "collection agents". The 1968 Gun Control Act, which dh has most of thread defending as if it were somehow 'reasonable' is closely patterned after Germany's gun control law of 1928, which greatly enabled the Nazis once they took over. Common street thugs and criminals pay no attention to gun control laws. Despite the most restrictive gun control in the country, Rahm Emmanuel's Chicago saw a significant increase in gun homicides last year. Gun control serves only one purpose: to disarm those who might conceivably resist tyranny or totalitarianism.

Anonymous Outlaw X January 17, 2013 4:06 PM  

Tad

You should move to Australia. They have free healthcare and say things like "mate". then you can have a pint with your best mate and go out under the dark night and view the stars from south of the equator and watch the kangaroos hop and make friends with them. Then you and your mate can go back home and open a bottle of yellow tale and stump each other.

Anonymous FrankBrady January 17, 2013 7:22 PM  

@dh

This is the essentially the same as 1994 law, which was law, and expired. It has a few new types of guns, and accessories, some of which are just new since the last law expired.

You are just too information challenged to be discussing this issue with your betters. In addition to Feinstein's proposal to outlaw virtually all firearms that accept a detachable magazine, Obama's universal background check requirement would necessarily require universal firearms registration.

Anonymous Boris January 18, 2013 12:35 PM  

"You should move to Australia."

You should try Somalia. Lots of guns, no government. It's a paradise.

"Obama's universal background check requirement would necessarily require universal firearms registration."

WHAT?!?!?!? The next thing you know, they'll make us register our cars with the government.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts