For John, BLUF: Don't expect major Federal action on guns. Nothing to see here; just move along.
Confusion Alert: The author of this article uses "liberal" in a manner interchangeably with "progressive".
From yesterday's edition of The Wall Street Journal was have a column by Ms Kimberly A Strassel, "Strassel: The Real Gun-Control Consensus: Despite the press's best efforts to parse his statements, Harry Reid has committed himself to nothing more than a 'thoughtful debate.'" Here is the lede:
The next time you hear a fellow American bemoaning the lack of Washington bipartisanship, tell him to cheer up. There is one issue on which Congress still resoundingly agrees: gun rights. Bear that in mind, too, the next time you read a story about the "new" political debate over gun control.On the other hand, Ms Strassel did pick Governor Romney to win with 289 electoral votes.
We do have New York Governor Cuomo advocating gun confiscation. That didn't work out so well at Wounded Knee. But Progressives are strong believers in American Exceptionalism. No, not the normal understanding of American Exceptionalism, but the belief that our Government could never, ever, turn against the People, going rogue in some way.
Hat tip to Neal.
Regards — Cliff
3 comments:
Odd. I read the Wiki link and can't find anything that supports you last, and silly, remark.
The "Empire of Liberty" is enjoyed by the American overlord class. Of course I believe in Tyranny, Dummkopf.
I am assuming your "last comment" is not Neal. I am not much concerned about the "American overlord class". There are long threads of families remaining in some degree of political or economic power in these United States, but nothing lasts for ever. I think there is more to worry about from the Bilderbergers. Or the Illuminati. My personal main concern is the Hollywood Glitterati.
In my mind the Second Amendment is not about today or four years from now, but out in a distant future, where things go south and there is no way of getting back the natural rights of a people to Free Speech and Freedom to own firearms.
By the way, would you argue that Blogging isn't protected by the First Amendment because the World Wide Web didn't exist in the time of the Founding Fathers and there was no way they could have envisioned it?
Regards — Cliff
The "last comment" is not Neal.
Having said that, Jack gets his belief in spades. We already have a tyranny, one inflicted by the coalition (of sorts) of the Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, and especially the Glitterati. The latter have thrown all sense of restraint aside and have now engaged in constant chatter about their progressive agenda and how those who don't agree simply don't belong. You cannot turn on the TV any longer without being bombarded with the progressive drivel....at times cleverly disguised as "news." Edward R. Murrow and Gabriel Heatter must be sick in their graves. The tyranny of information control is perhaps the most egregious of all.
I agree with Cliff. If one reads the history of mankind, the first step of any would be tyrant is to render the to be oppressed citizenry impotent.
I haven't got a clue what the Obama administration, et al, have in mind for their "gun grab" and when they execute their plans, they may in the end manage success. The Federal government is after all an overwhelming force when it comes to forced compliance. However, I suspect that a national gun grab will make Wounded Knee look like a minor scuffle and could quite easily ignite a civil war of sorts. There is a national consensus against doing much of anything regarding gun ownership...the point of Strassel's article. Already, several states are considering legislation (largely symbolic of course) to repel any Federal effort to control guns. States rights. And then we have added to that...individual rights.
Could be.....pardon the pun...."explosive."
Cliff...speech is speech.
Post a Comment