« "Middle Miss" and the crucial inches | Main | Democrats can look forward a shaky future at best »


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference No balloon fizzle this time. Obama will still be around after 2016.:



There are 250 million guns in the United States, legally owned by tens of millions of people. Let's put this in perspective. Realistically speaking, I would say it is unrealistic to deport all of the millions of illegal aliens. Factoring this, one can say there are tens of millions of more legal gun owners than there are illegal aliens. How do the gun grabbers like you propose to take the hundreds of millions of legally-owned firearms from tens of millions of armed citizens? Let's say a healthy percentage of these people voluntarily turn over their weapons or are sufficiently cowed to hand them over if threatened with jail. What about all those who won't? How many thousands, how many millions, will fight back? How much blood do you want be spilled in order to get every legally owned firearm away from every law abiding citizen?

Personally, I don't want to see any blood spilled. But if the government goes on a gun-grabbing spree, then those in the government doing this are committing robbery and need to be stopped, violently if necessary. This wouldn't have to happen if the government didn't violate the law and the Constitution to turn their employees into criminals.


SteveAR: Is gun ownership more important than democracy? If our elected representatives, following the will of the people, pass a bill to confiscate certain guns, do you still think this should be stopped violently? You realize this is anti-democratic, right?


Sky, Thanks for the good point about democracy. That's really what this is all about. (And money over democracy.) Steve has allowed himself to become a victim as distinct from an American. Annoying, but a victim!

As you'll see from a later post about people who invest in guns, the bottom line is that America puts its money behind guns to make more money.



@skylights: Like PW, you have a complete misunderstanding of the government in this country. We are a republic, not a democracy, as defined and bound by the U.S. Constitution. There are rules in the Constitution that allows the people to change the Constitution. If those rules aren't followed, those violating the rules are subject to civil penalties, subject to criminal charges, or both. Confiscating legally-owned guns by the various levels of government is not only a violation of the 2nd Amendment, but a violation of the 5th Amendment's Due Process and Takings Clauses. In other words, theft. Until such time as the 2nd Amendment is repealed, this is reality.

Theft should be stopped, violently if necessary, especially if the government uses violence (armed robbery) to illegally take these guns. Considering the objects of this potential confiscation are armed, it is likely the bloodbath would immense. That isn't anti-democratic. But confiscation of guns with the 2nd Amendment (and the other clauses) in force is anti-American. And, it would entirely be the fault of the government and those who allowed the government to commit these illegal acts. If that allowance was put in place in part by you and PW, then you two would be in part criminally responsible for all the blood spilled. Keep that in mind.

On several different occassions, a majority of California voters enacted changes to the state's law defining marriage as a being recognized if done by a joining of one man and one woman. Same-sex "marriage" advocates have been using the courts to overturn that for years, with varying levels of success. I could use the same argument that challenging the voters through the courts is anti-democratic, and I'd be right. But I'm sure you wouldn't see it that way, right?


We are a democracy. Even Republican presidents have wanted to "spread our democracy overseas." We have chosen the system known as democracy, thereby becoming a democratic republic.

The Constitution doesn't have rules. It has protection for individual rights and suggestions about how to change elements of its overall protections. The tension between individual rights and community rights is part of the "price" we pay for a greater degree of freedom than many other non-democratic systems allow. But that freedom isn't infinite because infinite freedom tends to invite tyranny. That's why we expect, in this democracy, the understanding that my freedom (say, to own an assault weapon) ends where the community's interest in protecting its members from threat begins. When incidents like Aurora or Newtown occur, we are, of course, horrified at the blood and destruction But we are also threatened by the recognition that we have among us people for whom there is no community and who feel no restraint on their impulses.

There is intelligent debate about the 2nd Amendment. The current reading of it may be changed. It could change again. Because we live in a culture now in which there are many individuals who feel no restraint (for whatever reason), we have to provide that restraint. Later, if we become a healthier nation with more understanding of what freedom entails, then gun restrictions might seem wholly unnecessary.

Those of us (we are many!) who want to see Citizens United overturned obviously don't believe it would be "undemocratic" to overturn it. Good laws and bad laws are challenged everyday in courts. The Constitution gave us that power -- even to change the interpretation of the Constitution itself. Some of the best legal minds don't believe the 2nd Amendment, for example, means what you think it means. The Constitution is a wonderful document but it isn't sacred and it was, let's remember, written in the language and culture of the time. It contained some embarrassing omissions. What those are and what we can do about them will be argued over and over again as our beliefs and our culture change.


The Constitution doesn't have rules? I think even those legal minds who don't believe the 2nd Amendment means what I think it means, know the Constitution has rules. It's the law; laws are rules. It provides rules on how to change it. It says we can't own slaves. It says we have to be at least 18 years of age to vote. It says how a President is elected, through the Electoral College and not by popular vote. It originally said U.S. Senators would be elected by state legislatures, but through a legally-authorized change it now says U.S. Senators are elected via popular vote. It says what powers Congress, the President, and the Judiciary have, and no more. It's when those rules are bent, which has frequently been the case when done by progressives over the last century, that our freedoms get lost. Saying the right to bear arms doesn't mean what it says without legally changing or repealing the right is not only bending the rules, but breaking them, breaking the law.

You are correct in saying the Constitution isn't sacred. But our rights are.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

The Scribe

Under the hood

  • BlogBurst.com
Blog powered by Typepad