« Plan On Staying A Loser | Main | Let's Outlaw Crazy »
Tuesday
Dec182012

In Order To Form A More Perfect Union

I have always tried to use logic to solve problems. But I know this does not work in the crazy world of politics with elected officials who do not have term limits.

Let’s try liberal logic in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy.

I think a total news blackout would benefit everyone involved with an incident like this.

We could set up a panel of government officials who could monitor the news and stop any reporting on a school shooting – until the facts are in.

Now wouldn’t that be a novel, progressive response? I think it would in liberal terms.

You would have a government panel, who doesn’t like that, one with everyone’s best interests in mind, monitor scary news so it doesn’t make politicians jump to conclusions, like we see in the Ct. case.

This is totally Constitutional as well because the Founding Fathers never envisioned a 24 hour news cycle or instant live reporting. Just like the Founding Fathers supposedly never envisioned semi, let alone fully, automatic weapons.

We could make news reporting and freedom of speech a “collective right” like we have heard lawyers for the ACLU say the Second Amendment is.

Besides, I don’t want to listen to the news about Sandy Hook until all the facts are in, just like some hunters don’t care if other gun owners have their guns restricted. A government body would collect the news and give it to reporters all at once.

We have news blackouts right now with Hillary and Benghazi, the Marine in Mexico, a new black TEA Party Senator from South Carolina, and how much debt we really have in our country, Senator Robert Menendez’s boy/sex offender/illegal alien pal and former Gov. Rendell scamming the Pa. gambling industry for personal gain, to name a few.

If we are going to ignore the Second Amendment shouldn’t we at least start with the First Amendment and work down the list?

 

Reader Comments (35)

Ed -- exactly what does the Second Amendment say? Does it say you can buy and own any weapon of any size, capacity, or capability? No. There are limits. Let's look at the Second Amendment, and consider what it really says, and the restrictions -- "...a well-regulated militia..." that is inherent in it. Therein, there has to be limits to the power of the weapons. Certainly, there is common ground for reasonable, responsible people, isn't there? Or are we to say that weapons of any kind should be allowed under the Second Amendment?
December 18, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterJim Splaine
Jim:

Clearly, the First Amendment was not created when there were cable television shows or instant news. So whay in the world do we allow people to report in any shorter news cycle than was available in 1776ish.

Just like guns, we have to be reasonable with the US Constitution.

How many times have you said "We don't vote on rights'," (unless its the ones you don't like).

So here goes:

The First Amendment is a collective right and has numerous restrictions on speech - just like guns. How's that feel?

The First Amendment was never intended to be part of a cable news program - just like guns should only be for hunting. How's that for ya"

The First Amendment should shut dowm "loopholes" like movies, just like gun shows. Like that Jim?

I got more.
December 18, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterEd Naile
The Supreme Court has applied the "free speech" language in our Constitution to all modern day usage -- free speech is free speech, but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater, and you can be sued for liable.

The "well regulated militia" language of the Second Amendment certainly can't apply to allowing people to keep cannon on their front lawn, or carrying machine guns down our town and city sidewalks. Therein lies the allowance to have reasonable restrictions on gun ownership.

There has to be a limit -- otherwise, what IS the limit? You must have some limit in your own mind, or in Edville could people ride around with bombs in their cars or walk around with grenades strapped to their waist? It is that limit around which we should be able to have a dialogue about reasonable and responsible gun and bullet control.
December 19, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterJim Splaine
Jim:

It isn't my limit, its in the Constitution - no registration unless you have your weapon on a trailer - with tail lights.

But the First Amendment really needs some updating since Sandy Hook.

It is always best to take the bull by the horns even before the the facts are in. Much of this slaughter was the fault of free speech. This killer glorified death from movies and video games so we have to begin limiting that stuff as soon as we can get a bill with a title on it. Pass the bill and fill in the language later. Like Democrats are good at.

Next we work on the Privacy Amendment and pornography while the iron is hot.
December 19, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterEd Naile
It's hard to have a dialogue to find solutions with someone who just doesn't want to have a dialogue to find solutions. Sad, because you really do have so much to offer. I'm hoping those in Concord and Washington will be more successful, because they're serious about this life-and-death issue.
December 19, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterJim Splaine
Ed;

Your comment #2 I don’t agree. Our Constitutions are written in stone, they are not fluid the slightest bit. They can not be twisted to accommodate societies wishes. We already have government taking over and trying to block the news. The Connecticut State Police are threatening anybody that post misinformation regarding our tragedy. Speech can’t be restricted either, regardless how repugnant or repulsive it may be. Restricting speech is greasing the slippery slope. Nobody is compelled to listen or watch, turn the station. http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/124587-2012-12-17-connecticut-police-threaten-to-arrest-anyone-who-questions-their-version.htm

Jim Splaine, for a person under Oath, you should be totally ashamed of yourself for your statements. Explanation;

First All laws pertaining to possession of arms are unlawful. There is nothing in the 2A regulating arms. Nor who are prohibited from possession. When the document was written, could’ve easy stated no one could possess a canon, a sword, knife of certain length or description. A Felon has just as much right as anyone to protect themselves, family and property. We have felons with no victims, like growing a particular plant. Yet our Admiralty Courts are incarcerating innocent people for possession of arms, Admiralty Courts like you Jim, don’t recognize Our Constitutions for their intended purposes, to protect the people from government?
Jim, read and study the last part of 2A. Plainly states ’the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’. One of the key words here is people, do you understand the meaning of people? Notice Arms, A is upper case this is for a reason. The militia were ‘people’ organize to protect the state. Identically as stated in Article 2a New Hampshire Constitution. Once you read and understand Amendments 9 and 10, and Article 2a NH Constitution, you will agree all laws pertaining to possession of any type of Arms are unlawful.

Folks kindly pay attention to the words of Dr. Suzzanna Gratia-Hupp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mMloa_eU5gA

Extremism in the Defense of Freedom is No Vice.

In Freedom

Harold
December 19, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterHarold
"free speech is free speech, but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater, and you can be sued for liable."

Actually Jim, it's not the speech that is illegal. It is the action. By yelling fire in a crowded theater you create a clear and present danger to everyone there.

In the case of liable, that too is not a ban on speech. It is a consequence or result from what you say. Free speech does not equate to freedom from consequences.

Also Jim to imply that the founding fathers after seeing weapons progress from stones, to bows and arrows, to crossbows, to muskets, to cannons etc would not have had the foresight to expect weapons to continue to improve is just silly. Even private ownership of cannons was allowed. In fact if you look back at that point in time, the weapons held by "the people" were indistinguishable from weapons used by the military.
And if you read their letters and writing, the intent behind the 2nd amendment wasn't hunting or gun collecting, it was protection. Most importantly protection from a corrupt government.
December 19, 2012 | Registered CommenterRick Barnes
Rick –
You were redundant: "corrupt government".
– C. dog
December 19, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterC. dog
Harold –
Please explain the upper case A in Arms, and "Once you read and understand Amendments 9 and 10, and Article 2a NH Constitution, you will agree all laws pertaining to possession of any type of Arms are unlawful."
– C. dog willing to learn new tricks
December 19, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterC. dog
There will not be an end to senseless acts of immorality as long as we contniue to propogate an immoral society. We need to start rebuilding at the base, not half way up a slippery slope. When we have a leader, and many of his followers, who think leaving a newborn baby who was not wanted to die on a table is a 'choice' we cannot have a free and open discussion. As long as we have leaders who propogate rampant disintegration of the family, we cannot have a free and open discussion. It will be just another 'Move along now, nothing to see over there' while we talk about the symptons, not the cause. Take another pill to hide the pain. People like Jim don't want to engage at these levels. We might as well try reasoning with one of Ed's donkeys.
December 19, 2012 | Unregistered Commenterdave
Thank goodness most of our Supreme Court justices -- empowered by the Constitution to INTERPRET the Constitution, have more sense than some others. The Constitution is indeed a living, flexible document -- that's one of the core principles of it.

"Well-regulated" in the Second Amendment has meaning, and that's why the Courts have allowed for regulation over guns. But, that's meaningless to those who don't want to engage in dialogue, but want to put their feet in the sand. Fortunately, we're going to see more reason in Concord and Washington than on the blogs, where people can take potshots without thinking the issues through. Even Republicans in Concord and Washington will bring more sense to the discussion.
December 19, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterJim Splaine
Jim.... this is not a 2nd amendment issue. In fact this is not really a constitutional issue. It is about morality and the destruction of the family. How can killing one million children a year be a choice, and twenty a tragedy? Until you quit embracing a culture of death, it will continue.
December 19, 2012 | Unregistered Commenterdave
Jim:

What Supreme Court you talking about?

Once they evolved to believe a US citizen can be forced to buy health insurance they exposed themselves for what they are.

I could care less what the US Supremes say or don't say.

They have no power, army, moral authority, and can not print money.

They have made themselves irrelevant.

The Supremes are high priests of your religion not mine.

When the US Government has no more money they are just nothing.
December 19, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterEd Naile
Well, Dave -- that 1950s mentality about choice is no long America. And Ed -- YOU don't have the power to prohibit the Supreme Court from deciding that affordable health care is legal, or that guns can be regulated within the perimeters of the Second Amendment. Sorry, guys -- you lost those.

Surprising we haven't heard so much about the birther controversy lately.

I love America, and plan on staying and participating.

But, Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas to you.
December 19, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterJim Splaine
Jim:

As a liberal, you miss the point.

I don't have the power to decide if citizens can be forced to buy phony health insurance - neither does the Supreme Court.

Enjoy "your world" while it is still treading water.
December 19, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterEd Naile
Oh but Ed -- you miss the point. YOU don't make the decision as to the powers of the Supreme Court.. The Founding Fathers and Mothers did (yes, women were helpful to the document too, even though they didn't get the vote for another 100+ years). And they set up the Supreme Court as a co-equal branch of government: Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary.

Maybe you missed that class in elementary school. It's the law of the land, Ed. Like it or leave it. That's the way it is. Got ya.
December 19, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterJim Splaine
Got ya?

That's pretty good.
December 19, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterEd Naile
Ed –
Time to separate and uplift ourselves from the Grande Pooh-bahs down in D.C. Seems the N.H. Constitution is a good platform from which to spring into Freedomstan. Time to muster the courage and take the plunge; the water is just fine.
– C. dog
December 20, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterC. dog
The Court was not set up as co-equal and in fact for several years met in a closet in the Capital. It was to ajudicate narrow issues and was subservient to Congress. You will notice in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution the Court is only allowed to have original authority over cases affecting " ... Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls...." and that for everything else they only have the authority "....under such regulations as Congress shall make." So in effect, Congress can pass a law and an accompanying regulation to tell the Court to keep out. Since Congress also is responsible for all Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court, that gives Congress primary authority. It's too bad that for almost 200 years Congress has failed in its duty. It's time to put the Court back in the Closet.
December 20, 2012 | Unregistered Commenterdave
Oh my goodness Dave, you're reinventing history and the Constitution. Of course the Judiciary is a co-equal power, and can essentially "veto" the Executive and the Legislative. Article III, giving judicial power, is clear in the way it bestows authority to the Courts. Sure, each has different tasks assigned to them, but the balance of power is equal in what they oversee together -- which is most aspects of government.

Now it is true, as the right-wing tries to encourage in its blogs, and which the Tea Party tried to promote these past two years, that Congress can flex its muscle and try to circumvent the Executive and the Judiciary. But similarly, we often hear discussion about a President assuming more power for himself than he otherwise might be given, like FDR did for a while trying to pack the Supreme Court, and Richard Nixon trying to maintain that his executive powers gave him authority to operate above the law and indeed cover-up what he called "national security."

But as we saw first-hand this year, the Supreme Court can interpret laws, and declare them constitutional or not. And as we're going to see in 2013, they'll do that on the issues relating to marriage equality that have been sent their way.

Ultimately, it's the people who rule. We decide our legislators -- nationally and locally. We can amend the Constitution, though our Founders knew they had to make that difficult, and it is. We select the President. And our Supreme Court justices and many other judges must be appointed or nominated then confirmed by members of both the Executive and Legislative branches. That's the balance of power that has made our nation quite successful.

In the meanwhile, instead of reinventing history, let's learn it and cherish it. Our history is exciting enough without having to make things up. Just because something is written in right-wing blogs or said on Faux News doesn't make it so.
December 20, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterJim Splaine

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.