More Proof That Democrats Hate Democracy and the Constitution

Welcome to rant day…

There was once a day when the Democrat Party was very concerned about the protections of the U.S. Constitution and the due process of the law. But they used that fealty to the law of the land to protect slavery and disenfranchise blacks. To eliminate this, the system was used against Democrats to destroy their evil intent. Democrats learned a lesson from this, sure, but it was the wrong one. Instead of learning that the Constitution and the law is good, now, with their 100-year-old fealty to un-American, European-styled socialism, Democrats use that same system to undermine every tenet of Americanism. The lesson they learned was not to look for the intent of the law but to use the law as a weapon to destroy enemies.

Sadly, the Democrat Party has never been a force for good in this country.

Take the Second Amendment, for instance. Like the good apparatchiks they are, Democrats pretend they love the U.S. Constitution and blithely tell the media that they would never want to take away guns. Why, all they want, they say, is “common sense” gun laws that keep us all safe while protecting our Constitutional rights of self-defense.

This, however, is a blatant lie.

Look to Illinois, the last, deeply blue state to hold out for passing a concealed carry law, a law that the Supreme Court of the United States has demanded they pass.

Every state but Illinois has some sort of concealed carry law. And after passage of these various laws, nowhere in the country did shootings skyrocket the way every liberal claimed they would. Nowhere. Not one street, municipality, city, county or state saw the “explosion” in “gun fights” after concealed carry was initiated. None.

Yet, even today, as Illinois gets ready to join the United States of America on this issue, liberals in the state are still lying and insisting the above boilerplate will come true.

Take Michael Pfleger, the lying, left-wing extremist who sometimes posses as a Catholic Priest. Only days ago he told the Chicago press, “You are going to see a lot more gun fights and you are going to see people using guns as their first line of defense when they are confronted. To think guns are suddenly going to be the answer to violence in the city or the state, it’s absurd.”

“Absurd” is definitely the right word for this extremist.

But, “Father” Pfleger, you, sir, are a liar. Why would you imagine this would happen in Illinois when it hasn’t happened in 49 other states not to mention the hundreds of counties and thousands of cities in those 49 states. Are your fellow Chicagoans particularly blood thirsty and/or stupid, “Father” Pfleger?

Like his comrades, Pfleger has used the system for years to eliminate Chicagoan’s Constitutional rights because, as it happens, he doesn’t like them. As a left-wing activist, he is in favor of upholding only those laws he likes.

But it isn’t just mere activism the left indulges. It isn’t just rallies and loudspeakers they thunder from. It is also the law they use to deny people their rights even as they pretend they are acting in accordance with the law.

The flavor of a concealed carry law, of course, is that all law-abiding citizens should be allowed to observe their Constitutional rights. Sounds pretty simple, doesn’t it? Ah, but the devil, as they say, is in the details.

These details are where the liberals purposefully defeat the very laws they claim to be trying to insure. I emphasize purposefully.

You’ll recall the days of Jim Crow when Democrats tried to keep blacks from voting by setting education requirements and poll taxes making both so stringent that few blacks could satisfy them in order to qualify to vote. These artifices were set to make it look like they were trying to obey voting laws, but were really going out of their way to make it so hard to vote that in essence they were making sure that no votes could be cast by the “wrong sort of people.”

Well, despite their utter defeat over civil rights, Democrats have not learned that their actions are illicit if not evil. They are using the same tactics today on the gun issue.

Again we can look to the lawless land of Chicago and Illinois to learn that lesson.

We have but to look at the words of Illinois State Senator Kwame Raoul of Chicago. His idea was to load so many restrictions into the concealed carry law that it would make it virtually impossible to be able to carry.

“If you think about all the prohibited places there are,” this un-American cretin said to the Chicago media, “I don’t think you will see an overwhelming number of people actually (carrying weapons) because it becomes such a headache.”

The message: Oh, sure you can have concealed carry, but we are going to make it so hard, so expensive, and so restrictive that it just won’t be worth the effort.

These are the same tactics as Jim Crow.

Now, our third President and writer of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, addressed this very principle in his 1792 Report on Navigation of the Mississippi.

“It is a principle,” Jefferson wrote, “that the right to a thing gives a right to the means without which it could not be used, that is to say, that the means follow their end.”

In other words, if you don’t have the means to observe your rights because the liberals have made it too hard to get a gun, buy ammunition, get a license, or because of any of a myriad of other road blocks they’ve set up, then you have necessarily been denied your rights. Just like Democrat Party-created Jim Crow laws did to prevent blacks from voting between 1870 and 1964.

But this sort of game playing isn’t just happening in Illinois. Just north of the worst state in the union, just beyond that cheddar curtain, Wisconsin leftists are also making to Jim-Crow that state’s concealed carry laws.

Recently leftists in the Dairy State convinced the legislature to pass a law that makes it harder to get a concealed carry license by suddenly limiting the sizes of the training classes in order to makes sure fewer Wisconsinites could qualify for their Constitutional rights. A lawsuit has been initiated to beat back this law, but the leftists are game playing with that, too, by convincing an un-American judge to start moving the venue around bogging the lawsuit down and slowing progress. It is an effort to deny the gun owners their rights both to observe the Second Amendment and their right to due process under the law.

As you can see, these left-wing, Euro-like anti-Americans use the law as a weapon and do their very best to use the system to undermine any law they cannot defeat at the ballot box or in the legislature.

Know who else does this? Islamist terrorists in western countries.

Democrats are not American. And they never were.

Shortlink:

Posted by on July 6, 2013.
Filed under 2nd Amendment, Barack Obama, Constitutional Issues, corruption, Culture Of Corruption, Democracy, Democrats, Gun control, Liberals.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, RightPundits.com, StoptheACLU.com, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events. He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at. hotmail.com "The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it." --Samuel Johnson

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • Brucehenry

    What arrogance, hubris, and sickening playing of the victimhood card for gun fondlers to compare themselves to Civil Rights heroes. Does Ted Nugent = John Lewis? Pppffffttt.

    What a sad and cynical misreading of history to compare sensible restrictions on deadly weapons to Jim Crow. While some proposals go too far, those advocating more gun control are not the equivalent of Bull Connor.

    It’s idiotic — and/or deliberately deceptive — to use this analogy.

    Get over yourselves.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      That cup of coffee is going to cost you $20.00.

    • jim_m

      I agree, since most civil rights heroes today are people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, people who don’t give a rat’s ass about civil rights and care more about fomenting more discontent in order to fatten their pocket books, I would not want to be associated with them for anything.

      However, the fact remains that owning and carrying arms is a constitutional right and a right that the government fears greatly because it prevents the government form completely doing away with every other right we have.

      While idiots on the left scoff at the 2nd amendment and those who defend it, there is not a single right that would remain if we did away with it.

      • Brucehenry

        Yes that’s why Australia, Canada, and Sweden are such totalitarian hellholes.

        • jim_m

          STFU. We have rights in the constitution. I would love to hear you argue how the government should be able to pick and choose which ones we get to keep.

          • Brucehenry

            Shut Fuck The Up? Huh?

          • jim_m

            Fixed for the simpleton.

            [edit]Still waiting for your argument on how the government should determine which rights we should have.

            The left is even willing to violate the 3rd amendment these days. Who ever would have thought that possible?

          • Brucehenry

            Dyslexia is a derrible tisease.

          • Brucehenry

            Welcome to “The Left,” Henderson, Nevada Police Department!

            You’re unhinged.

          • jim_m

            Henderson, NV is in Nevada’s 3rd district and went obama in the last two elections. It’s congressman has switched back and forth.

          • Brucehenry

            So its police department is part of “the left?”

            Know a lot of pinko cops, Jim?

          • jim_m

            Just about every one with administrative authority in Chicago. Oddly enough cops have a diversity of opinion. You have not been able to stomp that out of them yet like you have in academia.

          • Brucehenry

            The government restricts rights all the time and we all agree to it. You have a right to free speech but can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. You have a right to assemble but often a permit is required. You have a right to practice your religion but faith-healer parents have been forced to allow medical care for minor children, as they should be. These things are what are called “common sense” restrictions on certain constitutional rights. See how that works?

          • jim_m

            SO you are in agreement that the government should be able to restrict press rights to government certified journalists only?

            Government wants to restrict rights in many ways that are illegal too. The difference between you and I is that I mistrust the government regardless of who is in the oval office and you trust it completely when there is a dem there.

          • Brucehenry

            No, see, because that’s not “common sense.”

            Your last sentence is funny coming from a guy who has made the comments you have about the PATRIOT Act lately. How there wouldn’t be a problem if we had a president with a “moral compass” like Bush, LOL.

            Edit: Hypocrisy and inconsistency, thy name is Jim!

          • jim_m

            I have said that the original Patriot act was conditioned on it being used to surveil communications originating or terminating outside the US. That is not what obama is sing it for. There is a difference even if you are unwilling to admit that fact.

          • Brucehenry

            And what have you said about why it’s a problem now but wasn’t before? Anything about the respective presidents’ “moral compasses?” Anything at all?

          • jim_m

            Yes, and you are going to argue that obama has a moral compass? LOL please. Save it for your stand up act.

            Even if Bush and Cheney were Hitler incarnate, they had a better moral compass than obama.

          • Brucehenry

            The point is you DO trust the government more when it’s an R in office, so get off your high horse, dude.

          • jim_m

            But not completely. I had many criticisms of Bush when he was in office (TARP, Auto Bailouts, prosecution of the Iraq war, no child left behind (it was a Teddy Kennedy idea after all), etc…). I cannot ever remember when you have criticized obama.

          • Brucehenry

            Because I’m not a me-tooer, Jim. This is not the forum for me to criticize Obama, I do that elsewhere.

            But for the record, I’ve occasionally had a few mild criticisms here of what I consider his eagerness to appease Republicans, his preemptive abandonment of “single-payer” and “public option” in the Obamacare negotiations, and even some of his national security actions.

            And I often post Tom Tomorrow cartoons on Facebook that are critical of Obama — just not for the same reasons you are.

          • jim_m

            Yes, I suspect that your criticisms lie along the lines of obama is not liberal enough, he tries too hard to be bipartisan and other bullshit that doesn’t correspond to reality.

            You probably think obama is a centrist. What a fool you are.

          • Brucehenry

            And I suspect your soi disant (see what I did there?) criticism of Bush was pretty much a mirror image, dude. You ain’t special, just a blowhard on a blog like me and everybody else.

          • jim_m

            So that makes you a soi disant blowhard then.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            No, just a know nothing blow hard.

          • Rdmurphy42

            In other words, your only complaints about Obama is that he isn’t ENOUGH of a radical leftist?

          • Brucehenry

            Jim said I never criticize Obama. I sometimes do.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            [citation required]

          • Rdmurphy42

            Well, yeah. I do tend to trust a bit more people who don’t necessarily have as their explicit goals making the government do things it is not constitutionally allowed to do. Although really, I don’t trust any politician.

    • jim_m

      It’s idiotic — and/or deliberately deceptive — to use this analogy.

      Like the left comparing Bush and/or Cheney to Hitler. It”s always so reasonable when your side does it.

    • jim_m

      And since when are any of the restrictions being proposed sensible? The restrictions in Illinois are meant to make gun possession and ownership so difficult and expensive as to make it impossible to do legally.

      The dems and the left are not interested in sensible restrictions. This incrementalist bullshit is the real deceptive thing. There is one aim and one aim alone: to disarm the public. There is not a single anti-gun group that has anything less as its aim. The dems are supportive of that aim. The dems and the left are the enemies of liberty. Period.

    • LiberalNightmare

      Yikes. Sounds like that one hit close to the mark for Brucey.

      • Brucehenry

        That’s MISTER Brucey to you.

        • LiberalNightmare

          I think Ms. suits you better,

          • Brucehenry

            Probably, because my opinions would have less value to you if I were a woman, right? Silly females should let menfolk worry about politics, amirite?

          • LiberalNightmare

            Your mistaken.
            There is no way that your opinion could possibly mean less to me than it already does.

          • Brucehenry

            Wow between you and Jim you’re getting off a lot of terrific zingers. Good job.

            But your misogyny is still obvious, lol.

          • LiberalNightmare

            I cant take all the credit Brucey, You make it easy.

          • Brucehenry

            Wow between you and Jim you’re getting off a lot of terrific zingers. Good job.

            But your misogyny is still obvious, lol.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            He’s working on that $30.00 cup of coffee…

          • LiberalNightmare

            Your mistaken.
            There is no way that your opinion could possibly mean less to me than it already does.

          • jim_m

            Probably because, like feminists who insist on being addressed as “Ms”, you are the ridiculous PC prig that takes offense at every misstatement and malapropism assuming that they are “code words” for racism, sexism etc.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            If there’s no overt signs of something you’re sure is there, then you’ve got to come up with something to prove you’re right.

            So – ‘code words’, dog whistles and all that…

    • Rdmurphy42

      You have teh GALL to complain about this when for democrats pretty much EVERYTHING is stated to be the equivalent of the civil rights marches, from Gay marriage to gun control? Really?

      • Brucehenry

        Yes I have teh GALL. Lol.

        • Rdmurphy42

          SO in other words, complaining about a typo means you don’t have any real response to the post, right? Its the usual refuge of “I don’t have a good answer to that”.

          • Brucehenry

            Ok, literal-minded Murph.

            I’m not responsible for what others say, be they democrats or anyone else. Got it?

          • Rdmurphy42

            But they, of course, don’t come down for criticism from you?

          • Brucehenry

            Not here, necessarily. But you should feel free.

  • Commander_Chico

    I see no indication Pfleger is not a Catholic priest. I also didn’t know that the right to bear arms is supposed to be a part of Catholic doctrine.

    Who made Warner pope?

    • jim_m

      Pfleger is his own god. He is nominally Catholic at best and has been suspended previously from the Priesthood.

      • Brucehenry

        And Jim, professed non-Catholic, decides who is a nominal Catholic and who is sincere.

        See, this is why I come here. It’s amusing to me to see what hysterical boilerplate — good word, Warner — the authors vomit up, and then to watch ol’ Jim here swoop in to defend in hyperbolic terms whatever paranoia has ensued. Like how he has declared that folks like Gabby Giffords are enemies of liberty –”period.” LOL.

        Also it’s kind if funny, in a sad way, that commenters here rarely concede their political opponents could possibly be sincere in their disagreement with Wizbangian orthodoxy. Couldn’t possibly be good Americans who want what’s best for the country. Noooo, they’re “the left,” “enemies of liberty.” Again, L O Fuckin’ L.

        • jim_m

          To quote Cardinal George of Chicago: “If that is truly your attitude, you have already left the Catholic Church.”

          One does not have to be a Catholic to understand their doctrine. Nor does one have to be a Catholic to understand that if a Priest refuses to take the instructions/orders form the hierarchy then he has departed from his vows and has departed from the law of the Church.

          Yes, Gabby Giffords has made herself such by deciding that she knows better than the rest of us whether we should be allowed to have certain rights.

          • Brucehenry

            I think you guys should demonize Giffords as you have Sharpton or Howard Dean or any number of others. See how that works out for you, politically speaking.

            Edit: “there is not a single anti-gun group that has anything less as its aim.” So Giffords is a liar as well as an enemy of liberty, huh? It is to laugh.

          • jim_m

            Um. yes. I have yet to find anyone who has as their aim only partial regulation of guns. The idea that Giffords is not for banning the handgun that she was shot with is laughable.

            The problem you are going to have is that dems have been more than frank lately about the end game of gun control.

          • Brucehenry

            It’s not a problem for me. I’m pretty sure the republic will survive if there are no further restrictions placed on guns or if a few restrictions, like magazine capacity, ARE implemented.

            My argument here is, as usual, about the hysteria, and about the demonizing of those who disagree.

          • jim_m

            The problem with accepting magazine capacity restrictions is the same as appeasing a fascist. The gun control nuts will never be satisfied with that and there is always the next thing they want to ban.

            You may be comfortable with selling your freedom in exchange for temporary security, but the rest of us would rather learn the lessons of history instead of repeating them.

          • Brucehenry

            Now EVERYBODY’S Chamberlain and EVERYPLACE is Munich. Lol.

          • jim_m

            No, I did not say everyone and everywhere. But I made an analogy. And there are plenty of examples of dictators restricting or banning guns before their reign of tyranny.

            Go read your Ben Franklin.

          • Brucehenry

            No, apparently it’s just me. And I suppose you’re Churchill.

          • jim_m

            I have more hair, and he was funnier.

          • Brucehenry

            He did get off some zingers.

          • jim_m

            Yes, lady Aster. And like Winston, I too will be sober in the morning, but you will still be a stupid lefty.

          • Brucehenry

            Gud wun.

            And it’s Lady Astor.

          • jim_m

            As I said, I will be sober in the morning.

          • Brucehenry

            Another good one, you’re on a roll.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            You’ve already demonstrated he’s a whore, now you’re just negotiating price…

          • Rdmurphy42

            And for democrats “Every place is Selma”.

          • LiberalNightmare

            Is it possible that you missed one of the main points of this posting?

            From Huston’s post:
            In other words, if you don’t have the means to observe your rights because the liberals have made it too hard to get a gun, buy ammunition, get a license, or because of any of a myriad of other road blocks they’ve set up, then you have necessarily been denied your rights. Just like Democrat Party-created Jim Crow laws did to prevent blacks from voting between 1870 and 1964.

            Then compared to your reply:
            I’m pretty sure the republic will survive if there are no further restrictions placed on guns or if a few restrictions, like magazine capacity, ARE implemented.

            Are you actually trying to make Todds point for him?

          • Brucehenry

            No. Are you actually capable of reading English sentences and inferring their meaning?

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            He’s just that stupid.

          • Rdmurphy42

            As a democrat, you are complaining about disagreement being demonized? Really? And you can say that with a straight face? While belonging to the party that calls anyone disagreeing with their racial policies racist, anyone disagreeing with their sexual politics a sexist, and anyone disagreeing with their welfare policies as hating the poor? Really?

          • Brucehenry

            I’m discussing the Wizbang comment section, not political discourse in general. Jim in particular.

          • Rdmurphy42

            How about Brucehenry in general?

          • Brucehenry

            Do you mean ‘in particular?”

          • Rdmurphy42

            No. I mean ‘in general’ as in ‘in your general discourse and average behavior’ . In particular woudl have also been a valid phrase, but not what I specifically meant. And I’m going to leave the typo of ‘would’ in there just so you have something to jump on to make yourself feel good.

          • Brucehenry

            Warms my heart. And I guess I’m sorry I seem to piss you off so. Just commenting on a blog, not trying to change the world.

          • Rdmurphy42

            I don’t need to demonize Sharpton. He has proven his demonic credentials all on his own. They can stand on their own two feet. Sharpton is a racist and bigot, as well as a loony. (Until his mothership comes to pick him up. )

          • alanstorm

            “So Giffords is a liar as well as an enemy of liberty, huh?”

            Why, yes, she is. Are you surprised that politicians can lie?

          • jim_m

            Giffords is a saint of the left she cannot lie, everything that proceeds from her mouth is by definition truth.

        • jim_m

          Again, let me say that I have sympathy for what Ms Giffords has had to endure. That does not excuse her for attempting to infringe my constitutional rights.

          That’s the problem with the left. You think that because someone has had something bad happen to them that they should therefore have carte blanche to demand whatever restrictions on liberties the left wants today.

          Sorry, but the world doesn’t work that way. Some of us are capable of thinking for ourselves.

          • Brucehenry

            I’m not talking about her attempted murder. She has declared that she does NOT want to do away with the Second Amendment, but simply wants what she calls “common sense” regulation of guns, along the lines of magazine restrictions, etc. Restrictions which are endorsed by many police chiefs, mayors, and other sensible people who do NOT want to “take away the guns of the law-abiding”

            In your commentary above you insist that “there is not one anti-gun group that has anything less” than the abolition of the Second Amendment “as its aim.” You are calling her a liar as well as calling her an “enemy of liberty” which is something I assure you she does not consider herself. I think she is sincere in her belief that there is a middle ground. You apparently think she’s part of a fascist plot to destroy gun rights and is lying about it.

            I think that’s the line you should push from now on: “Gabby Giffords is a scheming fascist liar.” See how that works for you as a vote getter.

          • jim_m

            I did not say she was a “scheming fascist liar”. Deluded tool of the left willing to sell her and our freedoms out of fear is more like it.

          • Brucehenry

            “The dems and the left are not interested in sensible restrictions. This incrementalist bullshit is the real deceptive thing. There is one aim and one aim alone, to disarm the public. There is not a single anti-gun group that has anything less as its aim.”

            To me that sounds less like an allegation of delusory behavior and more an accusation of dishonesty and conspiracy. Does it not?

            Or does it not apply to Giffords’ and her husband’s group?

          • alanstorm

            “She has declared that she does NOT want to do away with the Second
            Amendment, but simply wants what she calls “common sense” regulation of
            guns, along the lines of magazine restrictions, etc.”

            Please enumerate these “sensible” restrictions. Nothing I have heard from the gun-control side has been very sensible. I’d like to see what passes your test.

            “Restrictions which are endorsed by many police chiefs, mayors, and other sensible people who do NOT want to “take away the guns of the law-abiding”

            Why do you assume that politicians (yes, police chief, at least in larger cities, is a political office) are sensible? I see little to no evidence that they are any smarter than I am, so why should I trust their opinions on this?

          • Brucehenry

            I am not personally arguing for any new restrictions, Alan. What I have been complaining about is the demonization of opponents and the attribution of motives to them other than sincere opposition.

            What Warner and Jim are doing here is accusing all proponents of new gun control measures of being part of a vast conspiracy to do away with your rights, when most of them see themselves as sincere advocates for a cause — “for the children” or whatever.

            I’m pointing out that Jim and many others here seem incapable of attributing to their adversaries any motives other than malice.

            You are free to mistrust the opinions of whomever you dislike. I’m simply pointing out that the PEOPLE are often sensible people, honest and sincere, not a bunch of liars, conspirators, and fascists as paranoids like Warner and Jim insist they are.

          • alanstorm

            “I am not personally arguing for any new restrictions..”

            Immaterial. You are on record as saying that sensible restrictions are being proposed; let’s hear you state them.

            “I’m pointing out that Jim and many others here seem incapable of attributing to their adversaries any motives other than malice.”

            I have no doubt that most – not all – of the people proposing these restrictions are sincere. So what? Sincerity does not excuse failure to consider the likely occurrences of one’s proposed policies. And here, we have plenty of examples to choose from, none of which support the gun-control crowd’s arguments.

            Short form: No one gives a rat’s posterior WHAT the motivation is. Leftists want to restrict the 2nd Amendment in ways that affect the law-abiding, not the criminals. Yes, you can’t shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater – but theater-goers are not issued muzzles when they go, either.

          • Brucehenry

            Please cite my saying that. Quotes.

            The closest you can come is in my first comment, which was a in a description of how advocates view their proposals. I’ve been careful to say “what she calls” and such except in that one sentence, so sue me.

            I made most of my remarks about demonization before you entered the conversation, Mr Late-to-the-party. And the rant by Warner was ABOUT the motivation for the gun control proposals,. genius, so Warner, at least, DOES give a rat’s posterior.

            You’re right that sincerity’s not an excuse. That’s why I laugh at Jim’s too-late boohooing at the misuse of the PATRIOT Act. And why I’ll prove Cassandra-like when new roadblocks are erected to minority voting as a result of the recent SCOTUS ruling.

          • alanstorm

            It’s in your first comment, and nowhere except here do you try to back away from it.

            If you are opposed to new restrictions, then why do you keep arguing for them? Or are you simply arguing for it’s own sake?

            I’m not sure what the “late-to-the party” comment is for. Not all of us spend all day online. Apparently, you do.

            What is your point about the motivation Warner cites? Do you have any way to disprove it? As I said, most of the people who are for new weapons restrictions are sincere, if not very bright. But many of the leaders of these organizations do indeed want to ban civilian gun ownership altogether, and they have no excuse. See Sen. Feinstein for one, and josh Sugarman for another.

            I wouldn’t go around denigrating anyone else (e.g. using “genius” in a deprecating manner) until you can demonstrate your own brainpower. Haven’t seen any indication of it yet. It appears that you are simply here to stir up crap, and to be very careful to take random potshots at others and them claim unfairness when they fire back.

            “And why I’ll prove Cassandra-like when new roadblocks are erected to minority voting as a result of the recent SCOTUS ruling.”

            I’m sorry, your race card has been refused. Do you have an intelligent argument to offer instead? BTW, nice attempt at an “Ooooh! Shiny!” change of subject.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, it’s fair enough I guess to show that I did say “sensible” in my first comment. I suppose I’d have no problem with better and more universal background checks (along with a large majority of Americans) and I wouldn’t think some reasonable restrictions on magazine capacity would be the end of the world.

            My point about motivation is in response to your claim that no one gives a rat’s ass about it. Since Warner’s article is about exactly that, I used the term “genius” in a “deprecating manner.” Lol, sorry if it hurt your feelings.

            If you want to dismiss every assertion about minority rights as “playing the race card” you are welcome to do so. Must be nice to have an excuse not to think about such troubling issues.

          • jim_m

            The problem the left has is that is has thrown down the race card in so many circumstances where there was no racism that now the claim of racism is highly suspect on its face. One need only go back to the JournOList scandal to see the left scheming to falsely accuse conservatives of racism for the sole purpose of advancing their agenda.

            And then we have a multiplicity of faux racial incidents concocted by the self-proclaimed victims (nooses hung on faculty office doors, etc)

            Given those facts why should anyone give even a moment’s worth of credence to ANY accusations of racism from anyone on the left? EVERY accusation must be considered false and having an ulterior motive because the left has so discredited the making of these accusations.

          • Brucehenry

            Perhaps, and it reminds one of the constant accusations of socialism and fascism and anti-Americanism about every little thing that Obama says or does, from “spread the wealth around” to “you didn’t build that” to yada yada yada.

          • jim_m

            Bad examples. Those examples demonstrate obama’s socialist, anti-capitalist philosophy.

          • alanstorm

            “I am not personally arguing for any new restrictions..”

            Immaterial. You are on record as saying that sensible restrictions are being proposed; let’s hear you state them.

            “I’m pointing out that Jim and many others here seem incapable of attributing to their adversaries any motives other than malice.”

            I have no doubt that most – not all – of the people proposing these restrictions are sincere. So what? Sincerity does not excuse failure to consider the likely occurrences of one’s proposed policies. And here, we have plenty of examples to choose from, none of which support the gun-control crowd’s arguments.

            Short form: No one gives a rat’s posterior WHAT the motivation is. Leftists want to restrict the 2nd Amendment in ways that affect the law-abiding, not the criminals. Yes, you can’t shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater – but theater-goers are not issued muzzles when they go, either.

          • jim_m

            I’m pointing out that Jim and many others here seem incapable of attributing to their adversaries any motives other than malice.

            And how would you feel when someone is trying to restrict or take away your rights? Oh yeah, the left claims that it is a “war on women” when you talk about restricting abortions or even suggesting routine health inspections of clinics. What is an accusation of war if not an attribution of malice?

            [edit]How many times must we hear accusations that conservatives want a return to Jim Crow? Or slavery?!?! When we advocate free market solutions we are accused of wanting to poison children and greedy exploitation.

            Look to your own house buddy.

          • Brucehenry

            You may not have noticed that I have argued with what YOU, Jim M, have said here, and what Warner has said in his article. You insist on trying to make me responsible for what others have said, somewhere, sometime.

          • Retired military

            Bruce
            “but simply wants what she calls “common sense” regulation of guns,”
            Replace guns with abortion and watch the politicians on the left howl worse than progun politicians.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes let’s take that example.

            In NC, the GOP legislature has just passed a bill that would impose such onerous restrictions on abortion clinics that it will close all but one in the state. The Supreme Court ruled in Roe v Wade that women have a right to abortions, subject to certain common sense restrictions. This bill will have the effect of preventing women from exercising their constitutional rights if they don’t have the means of getting to that ONE clinic.

            Is Warner pissed about THAT government abrogation of citizens’ rights? Is Jim?

          • LiberalNightmare

            If abortion is a right – why is Gosnell in jail?

          • Brucehenry

            What a genius “gotcha” THAT was.

          • Brucehenry

            What a genius “gotcha” THAT was.

          • LiberalNightmare

            If abortion is a right – why is Gosnell in jail?

          • jim_m

            I don’t know about the law you cite. I would say two things:

            1) It is long beyond time that the left accept the fact that abortion clinics need to be regulated for the safety of the women. It is hateful and discriminatory to put 1000′s of women at risk of death for your political agenda.

            If that means that some clinics close because they are facsimiles of Kermit Gosnell’s clinic then so be it. Funny how you are so adamantly against reasonable restrictions on abortions and those that provide them (and abortion isn’t even in the Bill of Rights), yet you are so willing to impose restrictions on the 2nd amendment. You’re a hypocrite.

            2) You don’t give a damn about the rights of the unborn. You obviously have no problem with snipping the spinal cord of a child about to be born so don’t go complaining to me about the mother’s rights be violated.

          • Brucehenry

            I have no problem with reasonable measures to ensure safety. The debate should be about what constitutes what is reasonable.

            I have no problem with closing inadequate clinics, either. But when laws are written for the purpose of closing clinics I’m suspicious.

            It’s interesting to me that no conservatives were talking about women’s safety a year or two ago, but instead relied on slut-shaming to score points with the faithful. This sudden concern with the safety of women is nothing more than a new tactic, looks like to me.,

            Your last paragraph is exactly what I’ve been bemoaning here.

          • jim_m

            Conservatives have talked about safety constantly. The difference is that after Gosnell you can no longer ignore us.

          • Brucehenry

            If you say so. If you could post some links from 2010 or before illustrating your assertion I’ll admit you were right.

          • jim_m

            Your last paragraph is exactly what I’ve been bemoaning here

            By that you mean accurate statements regarding left wing dogma?

          • Brucehenry

            No I mean personal ad hominems asserting another’s inhumanity.

          • jim_m

            You mean like asserting that unborn children are not human beings? Yeah I agree with you that such an assertion is horrible. Wait…That’s not what you meant?

          • Retired military

            “But when laws are written for the purpose of closing clinics I’m suspicious”
            But when laws are written to restrict or track gun ownership by law abiding citizens than I am susupicous.

          • Retired military

            I don’t speak for them Bruce.
            I was merely making the observation that depending on the subject the statements made by one side are interchangeable with the statements made by the other on a different subject.
            Lets take your example. Look at the gun control laws in some cities and states. Arent they as restrictive as the abortion laws in NC. I would say yes.
            What is “common sense” for one person is draconian for another and visa versa.

          • jim_m

            Common sense restrictions on guns in Chicago and DC was a complete ban. Now tell me where the left is going to agree that a complete ban on abortion is a reasonable and common sense restriction?

            Sadly, Bruce does not seem to see that when it comes to our rights, “common sense” means something different to the left than what it means when we are talking about rights they values.

          • Brucehenry

            Exactly, so why attribute malicious motives to those honestly trying to make the country a better, safer place? Argue with the proposals, don’t call the “others” liars, conspirators, murderers and fascists.

          • jim_m

            Because, as we see in the examples I have given of NYC, DC and Chicago, the “making the country better” means depriving people of their rights illegally.

            So when I call you a liar it is because you claim that you want common sense restrictions but the real world examples where we have “common sense restrictions” people have no rights. SO when you claim that people will still be allowed to own guns the reality is that when we have allowed you and your side to impose restrictions we have found you out to be liars and we have found our rights taken away.

            So we are now just cutting to the chase and rather than calling you a liar AFTER you take our rights away, we are calling you that up front and keeping our rights.

          • Brucehenry

            OK Jim you win win win. Everyone who disagrees with you is a liar, a fascist, a conspirator and absolutely un- and anti-American. Especially me.

            See you on another thread where I’ll piss you off again.

          • jim_m

            Not everyone.

            Before you go I’d like to get a response about my comparison of abortion rights to gun ownership in NYC and whether you agree with those “Common sense restrictions”.

          • Brucehenry

            Sure.

            I don’t agree with any and all restrictions, especially the draconian ones to which you refer. I agree that just because a proponent says his proposal is common sense doesn’t mean it is.

            Some restrictions are necessary. For instance it’s common sense not to allow civilians to own nuclear weapons. Similarly it doesn’t make sense to take all weapons down to and including flintlocks, knives, and clubs away from everyone. There’s a middle ground, just as there is on free speech and freedom of religion (see my earlier examples).

            The debate should be about what is reasonable. The restrictions you cite are NOT, but there are such things as reasonable restrictions. And those advocating them are often sincere and honest people and not fascists, liars, and conspirators.

            Now I’m gone.

          • jim_m

            Your position may be reasonable. However, you must see that reasonableness has become highly suspect given the history on this issue.

            Abortion proponents see any restriction on abortion (including the very reasonable idea of health inspections to assure minimal standards of hygiene) as only the beginning of incrementalist restrictions on rights and a tool to eliminate those rights outright by abusive application of the law.

            In a similar way gun rights advocates point to the history of incrementalist restrictions resulting in effective bans on guns (in Chicago it started with gun registration and then discontinuance of registration making a de facto ban and then ultimately the outright ban)

            There is too much distrust on these issues today. That distrust has been fostered in no small part by the deceptive tactics of the left which I have listed elsewhere (the JournOList, etc) and the current administration which believes wholeheartedly in the selective application of the law. I am sure that you would cite your own reasons for distrust of the right.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Quel domage!

          • Brucehenry

            Two “M’s” in “dommage,” Genius.

          • jim_m

            Yeah, it’s almost like French is a second language for him or something.

          • Brucehenry

            Had to be taught how to spell “soi disant.” Had to be taught how to spell “quel dommage.” Still hasn’t learned, or has rather refused to learn, the difference in Italian between plural and singular.

            If you’re gonna use foreign phrases to impress us all with your cosmopolitan sophistication, you should spell and use them correctly. Just sayin’.

          • jim_m

            Well, not everyone gets the benefits of a proper foreign language curriculum.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            And there you said you were “Gone” liar.

          • Retired military

            Bruce
            Agree with just about everything you said. However, you act as if the right is only people guilty of the things you say.
            They aren’t and by far IMO not the worst perpetrators at all.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            “For instance it’s common sense not to allow civilians to own nuclear weapons.”

            When you consider that about the only ones who could afford one would be Warren Buffet or Bill Gates, and neither one would use them, I see the problem is self-limiting. Elsewhere… frankly, I’m surprised we haven’t seen one used by some terrorist group – it makes you wonder if the USSR really had viable nukes of any size other than the ones they popped off for tests, or whether their command and control structure was actually good enough to keep the things locked down tight when the USSR dissolved.

            Of course you could take the ‘nuclear-free’ zone one step further – and mandate that any use of a nuclear weapon on American soil would immediately place the offender subject to a penalty of slow flensing with frequent applications of salt and lemon juice, with medical life support (without painkillers) to ensure he lasts a minimum of 30 days. (Might find it hard to get doctors to cooperate with that, but then again…)

            Re Firearms…

            “And those advocating them are often sincere and honest people and not fascists, liars, and conspirators.”

            Sincerity and honesty doesn’t preclude ignorance of a subject or guarantee the high quality of ‘sincere, common sense proposals’, or even guarantee that the person proposing ‘common sense’ (at least, to them) restrictions is actually paying any attention to the ‘unexpected consequences’ of what they’re proposing, or even aware of what laws are already out there, or whether the proposal is even feasible. (Microstamping firing pins with the serial number of the gun, for example, so each round fired would end up with the serial number stamped on it. Yeah, you could do it – but the stamping would have to be so fine that a few strokes of a very fine file would obliterate it.)

            Regarding firearms, It’s almost like ignorance is a badge of honor and complete and total inexperience simply means they’re pure, holy, and uncorrupted by the evil gun, so any random idea the come up with is obviously a good one.

            Sorry to be so late to the party on this – been out travelling…

          • Retired military

            “Argue with the proposals, don’t call the “others” liars, conspirators, murderers and fascists.”
            Bruce
            Unfortunately look at the rhetoric of the left in regards to abortion. “The left:” claims that people who believe killing unborn children is murder of everything from wanting to keep women barefoot and pregnant to wanting to keep them as slaves and breed them like cattle.
            “the left” is much more guility of your statement than the right. Look at the mime that if you disagree with Obama about anything than you are labeled a racist,
            Oh I agree with your statement 100 per cent. Argue the proposals and don’t demonize your opponents. Unfortunately both sides do this with IMO the left being far more guilty of the demonization than the right.
            Note that my statements concerning
            “the left” and “the right” mainly refer to the news media, the talking heads and more guilty than others combined the politicians.

            The article written by Mr Huston is mild compared to something you can find on any given day in the Huffington post, Democrat underground or half a dozen major media outlets. THe daily spewing of the likes of Chris Matthews, Al Sharpton and Rachel Maddow prove my point.

          • jim_m

            Tell you what Bruce, I will agree to the same rights to abortion as there are for owning a handgun in NYC. You have to get a special permit from the city and it is solely at the discretion of city officials as to whether or not they will give you one. In fact people whose lives have been threatened have been denied a gun permit.

            That is what is considered a common sense restriction in NYC, we should restrict abortions to celebrities, city officials and their friends. People without clout or connections will not be allowed to get them. People whose lives are in danger will die because they have no pull to get a permit.

            So you see, what the left calls common sense always results in the deprivation of rights. Always.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes let’s take that example.

            In NC, the GOP legislature has just passed a bill that would impose such onerous restrictions on abortion clinics that it will close all but one in the state. The Supreme Court ruled in Roe v Wade that women have a right to abortions, subject to certain common sense restrictions. This bill will have the effect of preventing women from exercising their constitutional rights if they don’t have the means of getting to that ONE clinic.

            Is Warner pissed about THAT government abrogation of citizens’ rights? Is Jim?

          • jim_m

            Please explain which “common sense restrictions” on magazines or gun ownership that criminals will adhere to.

        • Rdmurphy42

          Interesting description of the average liberal I meet.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      Same what made you cognoscenti.

  • Paul Hooson

    Both parties are and have been so many political parties at the same time, sometimes not having free elections in this country. In 1860, for example, Abraham Lincoln was kept off the ballot in 10 states in the South, and in South Carolina, for example, there wasn’t any election ballots for voters, a group of politicians simply cast their electoral votes for Southern Democrat John Breckinridge. In Maryland, Kentucky and Virginia, Lincoln was counted as having less than 3% of the vote in these three states, which seemed questionablely low, and possibly manipulated election returns. Elections have largely improved in fairness in this country compared to some clearly rigged and manipulated elections of the past.

    Probably the most rigged election of all time? George Washington in 1789 and 1792. Washington , was elected by an unanimous vote of his handpicked friends who comprised the electoral college of the day. Although born in Virginia, Washington was turned down for a full commission as a British officer having served as a British soldier. Because of his anger and disappointment at this, besides being the most wealthy man in the U.S. at the time, Washington helped to lead and finance the revolt against the King and the British and have his friends confirm him not only as president, but as leader of the revolutionary army as well as being named military chaplain as well. – Early voting rules also limited voting rights only largely to White men who were landowners, minority voters, nonland owners and women had to wait for election reforms to vote. The early United States was more of an oligarchy than a democracy.

    The 2000 Election was controversial because the Florida vote was so close, a number of minorities were denied ballot access due to poor rules which denied ballots to voters with names similar to some felons. When lawyers for Al Gore sought recounts by hand in some areas where some ballot problems existed, lawyers for George Bush went to the Supreme Court to block these recounts while Bush was leading by several hundred votes. But, in all fairness, Al Gore can also blame his election loss on voters in his home state of Tennessee who narrowly voted against their home state son, keeping him out of the White House, although he won the popular vote nationwide by half a million votes. Gore became the first major party candidate to lose his home state since George McGovern, which was surprising considering that Gore won the national popular vote, unlike McGovern who was dealt the worst electoral defeat of any major Democratic candidate for president in history . But, surprisingly, George Bush did lose his state of birth, Connecticut which was also another unusual quirk of this strange election.

    Unfortunately, this country has a strong tradition in not allowing free elections, rigged elections and other election mischief. Electoral college quirks have also been responsible for denying at least three men the presidency, despite winning the popular vote.

    The level of democracy in the U.S.? Well, that’s always been relative to the time period that we’re talking about, and not an absolute entity. And, that’s unfortunate.

  • Pingback: If All You See… » Pirate's Cove

  • Vagabond661

    Personally I have decided to quit going to merchants that don’t let me conceal carry. If they think that little of me, they don’t need my business. The mall down the street is almost barren now.

  • warnertoddhuston

    Been on vacation for a few days, but just wanted to pop in on this thread to say that I figured this one would stir some comments. Love it.

  • Rian Penn

    Democrats Hate Democracy and the Constitution- This is too evident.
    __________________________________________________________________
    meya