“Madness”

Mr. Herbert’s most recent contribution to misinformation “A Threat We Can’t Ignore” argues that several recent and unrelated murders by “right-wing hate mongering, hate driven, gun craze wackos” is merely the opening volley in an uncoordinated but thematically unified campaign of violence.
The NRA, a morally complicitous co-conspirator, is named by Mr. Herbert as knowingly inflamming the intellectually enfeebled by fueling their paranoia.
These people (potential terrorists all) are dangerously deluded in believing the Second Amendment was drafted to protect their rights, not permit their recreational shooting. This bit of “madness”, Herbert’s term, is being exacerbated and exploited by the NRA.

A signature specimen of Herbert’s hyperbole.

Not to further alarm Mr. Herbert but there are tens of millions of Americans who share that view. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with the logic of liberty responsibly exercised.

Government is force (as Washington observed) and force hasn’t a conscience. Why would a free people forsake the means by which their freedom was won and may yet be preserved? (parchment barriers are so seldom respected by aspiring tyrants or social engineers with a messiah complex)

Subject to Change Without Notice

In an awkward lurch toward the center, dutifully denied by underlings, Senator Obama is changing his tune, if not his mind, with a frequency typically induced by benign prostate enlargement.

The most recent revisionism concerned the Courts Heller (and hell of a) decision: “I’ve always believed the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to bear arms” There followed the obligatory, rambling, multi-claused obfuscation, leaving those afflicted with linear reasoning unenlightened.

The Senator’s opinion on the constitutionality of the D.C. gun ban (he supported it last year) was “inartfully” expressed.

Inartful, his word of choice, suggests his earlier statement was inappropriately unambiguous. Such inartfulness makes denial all the more difficult.

At this rate by mid-September Obama’s policy portfolio will have been amended more than his beloved constitution.

Slippery Slopes

Republicans will try to portray Senator Obama as a left of center candidate by repeating his policy statements and reminding us of his voting record. It’s been suggested, I think by Senator Obama, that this is somehow unfair, divisive, and good old fashioned fear mongering. It could be construed as racist, should he lose the election.

Therefore the following should be read as partisan bias. Recent remarks made by Senator Obama to gun nuts (excuse me, gun owners) in South Dakota were meant to reassure (as distinct from promise) that they “have nothing to fear” from him. Not if they use their guns in a lawful manner. However, he does support “common sense” gun laws and who but the NRA would resist “common sense” gun laws. The NRA, he tells us, has an unwarranted fear that any restriction of ownership, however logical and necessary, is the camel’s nose in the tent. That the smallest concession could lead to total confiscation.

Surely he can understand their apprehension, having been endorsed this week by NARAL. They too have a gratuitous fear of any encroachment on what they consider to be an unalienable and uninfringable right. I believe Senator Obama shares their view and has resisted (“morally” and legislatively) any “common sense” restriction on abortion.

There are camels everywhere.

Second thoughts

The Second Amendment is getting a second look from the candidates and the Court. Two prominent Democratic Senators are on record; the Second Amendment (in their collective opinion) is an individual right, subject of course to reasonable regulation.

Public health and safety, in the broadest of terms ( a variant of the greater good), trumps enumerated constitutional rights in the current and cluttered scheme of things.

Yet the nominee wannabes want the sportsmen and the target shooters to know that their “rights” to engage in frivolous recreational activities are respected.

Of course real life considerations need prevail. Those firearms whose sole purpose is to kill other human beings (clearly a public health issue) must be prohibited.

At this point “reasonable regulation” is in the eye of the bureaucrat.

I would hope that those who take their rights a little more seriously understand that those rights are being misrepresented and marginalized.

With all due respect to recreational shooting, the Second Amendment is an explicit expression of our freedom, not something we do in our free time.