Today’s opinion piece disguised as a straight news article, by Phillip Rucker and Sean Sullivan, appearing on the front page of the web page. It’s meant to say how Republicans are outside the mainstream in their support of guns and gun rights. Funny how the Washington Post never does the same about radicalized Muslims, who have been involved in multiple “mass shootings”, including San Bernardino
Gun rights? Try gun pride: GOP candidates display firearms machismo
Ted Cruz strode Friday into a shooting range here, where assault rifles and handguns were displayed on the walls and boxes of ammunition were stacked up for sale, to deliver tough talk following this week’s massacre in California.
“You don’t stop bad guys by taking away our guns. You stop bad guys by using our guns,†Cruz thundered to a roomful of Second Amendment activists. The Republican senator from Texas vowed that after he is elected president, any “lunatic†or “jihadist†who attempts to harm innocent Americans will “encounter the business end of firearms.â€
There was a time when politicians professed their enthusiasm for gun rights by donning camouflage and hunting pheasants. Now, Republican presidential hopefuls campaign in active shooting ranges. They invite the media to watch them fire assault rifles or demolish the tax code with an AR-15. Or, as Cruz did in August, they wrap strips of raw bacon around the barrel of a machine gun to cook them with the heat of gunfire.
And Republican voters LOVE IT! We understand that this is a person who will defend the Constitution.
Republican politics have hardened from gun rights to gun pride, as candidates embrace and show off the more militaristic features of weaponry.
Of course, as most bed-wetting liberals fail to notice, no matter how you dress up the gun, it’s still has the same characteristics of non-scary looking guns
Here’s the money quote
“If you’re a Republican candidate these days and can’t handle a firearm, all you can run for is the border,†said Mark McKinnon, a veteran GOP media strategist. “Republicans are all about being tough on crime, tough on terrorism and just plain tough.â€
Can anyone find a similar quote about Democrats? These are the people who seem to support criminals (for instance, Tookie, Mumia, and Michael Brown), want un-fettered illegal immigration and to bring over “Syrian” refugees who are completely unknown, have whined about the war on terrorism and call any, even minor, condemnation of Muslim extremists, “Islamophobia”, and, as far as toughness goes, they caterwaul, carry on, and need safe spaces over minor things that upset them.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Our Constitution is silent on rifle actions and magazine capacities.
To start, I would eliminate semi-automatic rifles and rifle magazines with more than 4 rounds.
If you feel this “infringes” your right to fire 30 rounds rapidly, tough.
Pretend warriors that wanted to play act soldiering would need to chamber a round each time and reload every 4 shots. They could still play act with their guns that looked like real Army guns. Children have been doing that for decades.
NO Amendment is absolute.
It’s so much fun watching Jeffery and john spout their ignorance.
The Constitution is silent on abortion and health care. If you want to run with the argument of “silence,” I’ll be happy to do so.
Courts have long ruled that impediments to rights are in fact, unConstitutional. Therefore if you want you to do the things you want, you are in fact infringing on the rights of legal citizens. If you don’t like the fact that people have rights that you can’t trample upon, tough.
That’s correct john. But the test of restricting a right is whether 1) the actions in question infringe upon the rights of others and 2) whether the government has a compelling interest in the restriction of the that right.
The legal ownership of a weapon does not impede on the rights of another person. That is clear to anyone. Absent that, the government has no compelling interest in the restriction or infringing of the rights of legal gun owners who have not violated any laws or used a weapon illegally.
And if you don’t like that, tough.
Are you arguing that restrictions on magazine capacities are unconstitutional? Or restricting semi-automatic actions??
Do you find the ban on machine guns, hand grenades and SAM missiles to be similarly infringements on your rights?
I am saying that your thought process is deeply flawed, inconsistent and contrary to established law ant the Constitution.
Got it now?
Yes, we get it. You refuse to engage in discourse.
I made a very straight-forward proposal: We as a people should restrict the sale and ownership of semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines.
Are you arguing that restrictions on magazine capacities are unconstitutional? Or restricting semi-automatic actions?
I did engage your silly rant Jeffery.
I gave you answers and you just were either too stupid or too ignorant to recognize them for what they are.
What you seem to be missing (obviously deliberately) is that such a restriction impedes on a right and therefore it is unConstitutional.
I already said this before but you were too stupid to read it and instead decided that you would respond with the same nonsense.
Seems gitarcarver refuses to engage in the stupidity of lil’ jeffy’s rantings.
Yes, seems to be no response to the “constitution is silent on abortion and healthcare. J, are you arguing that restrictions on abortion are also unconstitutional?
We’re just trying to plumb the depths of your depravities.
Is there a limit to the rights of Americans to possess weapons? If so, what are they?
Restrictions on abortion are clearly Constitutional.
And there you are, shifting the goalposts again.
Tell that to the State Courts and the US Supreme Court which has ruled otherwise.
Even so, you are still missing the point even though it has been laid out for you. There is no need for people to repeat the same thing in a discussion when you cannot and will not look at what has been said.