I am left wondering if all the attention brought to the possibility of violence will only spur more people on to join in the fray. It is possible in any election, but to cover it like this seems irresponsible. Leave it to the authorities to prepare for such a contingency; the last thing we need is the media trying to scare people into voting for Obama, or into a violent rage if he were to lose.
i'll be in south dakota hunting pheasants and ducks on election day, having voted early in va. i am expecting 0.000 (rounding up)trouble out there. however, if i were to be home during the election, i would also feel safe, having availed myself of the opportunity to arm myself, in my home, courtesy of the second amendment. the same one cw earlier declared outdated and no longer applicable to our time and society. actually, i misspoke. i said i would feel safe. that is not quite accurate. i would feel prepared to defend my home and family if need be. that i am even thinking that way during an election in this nation leaves me feeling very concerned about how we got to this point and where we are headed. we are most definitely a divided nation. and so close on the heels of one of the most unifying events in our history. thankfully our forefathers had foresight to craft timeless assurances of our rights. i just wish cw was right and that they were outdated.
Mudge, Mudge. I suppose you are right in classifying my objections to the Second Amendment as falling into the "outdated" mode. My plan is a simple one...take the existing second amendment and add the words "...by the federal government." to the end of it. That way, the federal government shall not infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms....while the keeping of a "well-regulated" militia will return where it has always belonged...at the State level. Pretty simple!
CW - Sure. Great idea. And to be consistent, let's attach the same caveats to all the other guaranteed rights. That way, people in Maryland, Mass, etc won't have to risk being exposed to The Conservative Wahoo and his rantings because they'll be outlawed state by state under the appended first amendment. No thanks. That guarantee is the individual's. Not the state's. And here is how that plan of yours would play out: President Obama signs a bill co-sponsored by SENs Schumer and Clinton and Reps Feinstein and Pelosi that provides Federal "health care" funds to states who have taken actions to limit gun injuries through a list of actions permitted by each state under your revised second amendment. A constitutionality challenge fails the newly-stacked Supreme Court and I am now a criminal. To repeat, "No thanks". I'll take my Constitution as currently written.
"I think it is a big deal — you got an African-American running and [a] woman running,”
ReplyDeleteYeah, I can imagine the soccer moms burning cars, stealing teevees, and smashing trucker's heads with cinderblocks if Palin loses (or wins).
I am left wondering if all the attention brought to the possibility of violence will only spur more people on to join in the fray. It is possible in any election, but to cover it like this seems irresponsible. Leave it to the authorities to prepare for such a contingency; the last thing we need is the media trying to scare people into voting for Obama, or into a violent rage if he were to lose.
ReplyDeleteCR...are you serious? Do you think the people who would riot are paying attention to news stories like this?
ReplyDeleteThe possibility of violence should not even enter one's mind when deciding who is deserving of one's vote.
ReplyDeleteJudge the candidates on their merit and the merit of their ideas and vote accordingly.
i'll be in south dakota hunting pheasants and ducks on election day, having voted early in va. i am expecting 0.000 (rounding up)trouble out there. however, if i were to be home during the election, i would also feel safe, having availed myself of the opportunity to arm myself, in my home, courtesy of the second amendment. the same one cw earlier declared outdated and no longer applicable to our time and society. actually, i misspoke. i said i would feel safe. that is not quite accurate. i would feel prepared to defend my home and family if need be. that i am even thinking that way during an election in this nation leaves me feeling very concerned about how we got to this point and where we are headed. we are most definitely a divided nation. and so close on the heels of one of the most unifying events in our history. thankfully our forefathers had foresight to craft timeless assurances of our rights. i just wish cw was right and that they were outdated.
ReplyDeleteMudge, Mudge. I suppose you are right in classifying my objections to the Second Amendment as falling into the "outdated" mode. My plan is a simple one...take the existing second amendment and add the words "...by the federal government." to the end of it. That way, the federal government shall not infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms....while the keeping of a "well-regulated" militia will return where it has always belonged...at the State level. Pretty simple!
ReplyDeleteCW - Sure. Great idea. And to be consistent, let's attach the same caveats to all the other guaranteed rights. That way, people in Maryland, Mass, etc won't have to risk being exposed to The Conservative Wahoo and his rantings because they'll be outlawed state by state under the appended first amendment. No thanks. That guarantee is the individual's. Not the state's. And here is how that plan of yours would play out: President Obama signs a bill co-sponsored by SENs Schumer and Clinton and Reps Feinstein and Pelosi that provides Federal "health care" funds to states who have taken actions to limit gun injuries through a list of actions permitted by each state under your revised second amendment. A constitutionality challenge fails the newly-stacked Supreme Court and I am now a criminal. To repeat, "No thanks". I'll take my Constitution as currently written.
ReplyDelete