Senator During Gun Control Hearing: I Don’t Want to Hear About This Constitution Thing

originally posted by: projectvxn
At least she's being honest.

We know liberals don't give a crap about the constitution when it gets in the way of their agenda.

Let me once more stress this point---this woman IS NOT a liberal. She's an authoritarian who thinks the Constitution, rather than being a legal contract, is simply a "living document" to be interpreted to pleasure her opinions.
These Progressives can call themselves "liberal" all they wish----doesn't make it so. Their actions rather than their words define them and actions and words such as hers, define her as authoritarian---meaning what she thinks should be law should be the law despite that pesky 2nd Amendment: "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."
It doesn't take a JD to figure out the meaning of those simple words, a third-grade education should suffice unless you wish to take more power than the founders were willing to hand over. That makes her NOT liberal but authoritarian (aka Progressive).

a reply to: Vroomfondel

This is not about guns, the 2nd amendment, gun manufacturer profits, or how old the Constitution is. To marginalize it that way is deleterious to the cause of maintaining respect for and adhering to the Constitution.

Our elected officials should not only know and follow the tenets of the Constitution, they should be held to a higher standard of behavior than the common man, whom they are sworn to represent in regards to Constitution and the law of the land. When those sworn to uphold the Constitution become the greatest threat to it, change is no longer an option but a necessity.

Where was this self righteous rhetoric when the Supreme Court decided that corporations have the same rights as human beings and can therefore give unlimited funds to politicians? If you don't think everything in Congress is about corporate profits, you have not been paying attention. The Constitution gives you a right to own a gun so you can serve in a militia; that way, we won't have a standing army. Things have changed a bit since the document was written, wouldn't you say?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen

I'll agree to the limits that the leftists want to put on guns when I get to place the same limits on their rights to free expression.

Or their rights to vote.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen

I'll agree to the limits that the leftists want to put on guns when I get to place the same limits on their rights to free expression.

Or their rights to vote.

So your idea of upholding the Constitution is to deny rights to others because they disagree with you? Isn't that what PC is about?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen

I'll agree to the limits that the leftists want to put on guns when I get to place the same limits on their rights to free expression.

Or their rights to vote.

So your idea of upholding the Constitution is to deny rights to others because they disagree with you? Isn't that what PC is about?

Do you consider a traitor as someone who just "disagrees"?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen

I'll agree to the limits that the leftists want to put on guns when I get to place the same limits on their rights to free expression.

Or their rights to vote.

So your idea of upholding the Constitution is to deny rights to others because they disagree with you? Isn't that what PC is about?

I don't know. Some people consider it fair to severely restrict a constitutional right of law abiding people because they don't want to hear about that "Constitution Thingy," so I am saying sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If we can severely restrict one right, then we can put the same restrictions on another.

Why are you suddenly so offended by that idea?

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Didn't LeMAY pull McNamarra's trigger?

Unless this quote is taken severely out of context, I agree that she should be fired or at least face some sort of relatively major repurcussions.

However, please do NOT try to paint constitutional contempt/erosion as some "lefty, liberal" thing because it quite simply is not, and you're letting partisanship get in the way of what's - as you say - important - the constitution. Just about the only one from either side who pays more than lip service to it is Ron Paul. Need I remind you of what act was passed under a Republican president?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Vroomfondel

This is not about guns, the 2nd amendment, gun manufacturer profits, or how old the Constitution is. To marginalize it that way is deleterious to the cause of maintaining respect for and adhering to the Constitution.

Our elected officials should not only know and follow the tenets of the Constitution, they should be held to a higher standard of behavior than the common man, whom they are sworn to represent in regards to Constitution and the law of the land. When those sworn to uphold the Constitution become the greatest threat to it, change is no longer an option but a necessity.

Where was this self righteous rhetoric when the Supreme Court decided that corporations have the same rights as human beings and can therefore give unlimited funds to politicians? If you don't think everything in Congress is about corporate profits, you have not been paying attention. The Constitution gives you a right to own a gun so you can serve in a militia; that way, we won't have a standing army. Things have changed a bit since the document was written, wouldn't you say?

My outrage was the same when SCOTUS decided that corporations have the same rights as humans but this thread isn't about SCOTUS, it's about a Senator who wants to ignore the very contract that forms the basis of law in our country. It is a LEGAL CONTRACT. Go see if you can fiddle with the legal contracts you've signed because time has passed since they were signed. It is a contract between the States and the Feds. IF you think it needs changing the means of changing it is contained within the document itself.
If you were educated in the past two decades in the US I can forgive you for knowing nothing about the Constitution. Your statement constricting the 2nd Amendment to militia suggests that you were educated in the past twenty to thirty years. During that time education evolved into a parody of education, all controlled by the federal government. Do you think they're really going to give you the information you need to oppose them?

a reply to: xuenchen
Thank God we have Barbara Mikulski in Washington to help solve the gun problem.
Guns are only made to kill people.

Only the government should be allowed to have guns.

Governments made up of the likes of the Madame Senator.
Ones that don't mind forgetting about the stupid Constitution in order to keep us all from being killed by evil guns.

a reply to: butcherguy

I agree Komrade !!

It's time we change into modern thinking indeed.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Vroomfondel

This is not about guns, the 2nd amendment, gun manufacturer profits, or how old the Constitution is. To marginalize it that way is deleterious to the cause of maintaining respect for and adhering to the Constitution.

Our elected officials should not only know and follow the tenets of the Constitution, they should be held to a higher standard of behavior than the common man, whom they are sworn to represent in regards to Constitution and the law of the land. When those sworn to uphold the Constitution become the greatest threat to it, change is no longer an option but a necessity.

Where was this self righteous rhetoric when the Supreme Court decided that corporations have the same rights as human beings and can therefore give unlimited funds to politicians? If you don't think everything in Congress is about corporate profits, you have not been paying attention. The Constitution gives you a right to own a gun so you can serve in a militia; that way, we won't have a standing army. Things have changed a bit since the document was written, wouldn't you say?

Since when is preserving the Constitution, and rights for all thereby, self righteous? Its only rhetoric if you disagree with it politically. I think that says it all.

I have been paying attention, and no, not everything in politics is about corporate profit. If it were, things would be very different than they are now, worldwide, not just here. Corporations play a part in this, as do narcissistic politicians whom by their very nature abhor the corporate regime, doom bringers, naysayers, and sheeple of all nature and variety. All can lay claim to some portion of blame for things as they are, and will soon be.

You are partially correct in saying that owning a gun allows you to participate in a militia. However, the militia has much more to do than defer a standing army, which we have always had as a nation. The main purpose of the militia is to defend the common man against tyranny, abroad or at home. So the answer is no, things have not changed much since it was written. The need and reason for a well armed militia is as strong as ever.

Well, in reality, the 2nd Amendment is probably the most misquoted piece of the Constitution.

By the NRA.

The actual text reads

"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."

However, according to the NRA, the text reads "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

They completely ignore the first part.

originally posted by: babybunnies
Well, in reality, the 2nd Amendment is probably the most misquoted piece of the Constitution.

By the NRA.

The actual text reads

"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."

However, according to the NRA, the text reads "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

They completely ignore the first part.

Whether it be for a militia, hunting, target shooting, or whatever, none of it will happen if the right to keep and bear arms is infringed. Whether the NRA focuses on or ignores the first part changes nothing. If the right to keep and bear arms is infringed, any and all purpose for keeping and bearing arms is moot.

The pro-gun side insists that the right shall not be infringed per the Constitution. The anti-gun side says the idea of a militia is no longer valid. I say our forefathers took great care in choosing their words. Did they conceive of a time when hunting was not a mainstay for food? They made no mention of it. Did they foresee a time when self defense was no longer necessary? They made no mention of it. These things were taken for granted, that no one would ever be stripped of the ability to protect himself or hunt for food. It was the right to defend against government run amok that they spoke of, the one thing they feared we would have to deal with again one day. To that end, the right to keep and bear arms was second only to freedom of speech, religion, press and assembly. The second a means of protecting the first.

Some may say the Constitution is outdated or doesn't translate well into modern life. I say what has changed is the way people think and speak and act with regard to freedom and patriotism. If more people spoke the language of freedom perhaps it wouldn't be such a foreign concept to so many. Our youth are learning that patriotism was something that happened 200 years ago. That is a shame. The less we use the language of freedom the more silent we become.

a reply to: babybunnies



That's because those are two separate entities.

1. A well regulated Militia

2. the right of the people

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: babybunnies

That's because those are two separate entities.

1. A well regulated Militia

2. the right of the people

Didn't you learn anything from the Senator?
The Constitution isn't valid in questions of Constitutionality.
What are you? Some kind of liberty freak or something?

originally posted by: babybunnies
Well, in reality, the 2nd Amendment is probably the most misquoted piece of the Constitution.

By the NRA.

The actual text reads

"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."

However, according to the NRA, the text reads "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

They completely ignore the first part.

An interesting side note: The NRA president in 1934 had this to say

I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.

Source

Just a small bit of info. I don't really wish to debate the 2nd amendment issue because my views will cause disagreement from all sides.

I prefer how Mr. Jillette breaks it down.

originally posted by: babybunnies
Well, in reality, the 2nd Amendment is probably the most misquoted piece of the Constitution.

Yet, it is the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution as it stands,
so The Senator should resign immediately and go look for work.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: babybunnies

That's because those are two separate entities.

1. A well regulated Militia

2. the right of the people

Didn't you learn anything from the Senator?
The Constitution isn't valid in questions of Constitutionality.
What are you? Some kind of liberty freak or something?

I keep forgetting.

Now I have to read my history book over again.