I'm not voting for Jeb Bush, and I think anyone who would has difficulty perceiving reality.
Also, I think that any conservative who goes on Colbert and doesn't just treat the whole thing like the bad joke it is (I'd lead with my "legalize all properly reported homicide" agenda, then segue into a rhapsody of how many celebrities and other media figures would be removed from the public eye with such a measure) is clearly defective as a politician. You have to be able to not take every single damn public appearance so seriously.
That said, what Bush actually says here should be non-controversial. States and localities should be able to pass legislation governing what counts as a useful personal defensive arm within their jurisdictions...as long as that applies without exemption to all persons regardless of local, state or federal employment or connection. If some ecotopian nutbag state wants to say that firearms are polluting (which they are) and ban their own cops and such from having them, then let them go for it. More reasonably, if I happen to know a guy with a Davy Crockett and want to live in the same neighborhood (where people are allowed to own such items), I still feel it's reasonable to have regulations ensuring that people don't just tote them everywhere in the back of their truck. Because that does become a safety concern just from the perspective of whether proper shielding is used, let alone other things that could happen if someone actually tried to use one to fend off a home invasion or whatever.
I'm against bans on simple possession on principle, because there is no pragmatic way to enforce and prosecute such a ban without carving out exemptions for certain classes of people who have proven (throughout history, which the Founding Fathers actually studied) that they cannot be trusted with such special dispensations (being described in the Constitution as a Title of Nobility, in the context of understanding that conferring the privilege of bearing arms forbidden to commoners was the historical foundation of such a title, though extended to conferral of other extraordinary privileges under the law). But I am in no way opposed to regulating how certain materials must be handled (without special exemptions for privileged persons), that's just plain sense. Because the Federal government has no such power from the Constitution in most cases, it is indeed right for it to be exercised by state and local governments where necessary. The right to bear Arms being Constitutionally protected from any form of infringement under any pretext, this necessarily means that some legislative decision must be obtained as to whether certain materials are Arms in the Constitutional sense, and the Federal government is not given any such power by the Constitution.
Jeb Bush isn't smart enough to have invented this idea on his own, so he's most likely just parroting a talking point without much regard to context. But there is nothing wrong with the point itself, no matter what else is wrong with Jeb Bush as a political candidate (and there is far too much to dwell on here).
So...Jeb thinks the States have the power to infringe on that which shall not be infringed? There is really something wrong with this guy. He's one of those who looks at the constitution, and on one hand, see's things that are not there, while on the other hand, fails to see what is clear, plain and obvious.
I really don't want to have to go to war to keep America the beacon of freedom. But if the GOP is going to keep throwing guys like Jeb out there and claim "this is our kind of guy", we are certainly going to end up at war with both Republicans and democrats. In case we do find ourselves at war with these DNC and GOP "establishment" types, we need to resolve to press a huge "reset button" and take them all out quickly, while we still have enough of our country left to save.
The "let's get this party started" guy has a point!
One more thing. Folks claim "Trump is this, or Trump is that. Let me ask you something. Can you look at the entire field of candidates and tell me which one is a bigger capitalist than Trump? Seems to me that what we need RIGHT NOW is an unabashed Capitalist. We need an arrogant, non-apologetic asshole with a great head for business. If Trump does only what he says he can do, make deals with the rest of the world that are advantageous to the United States, if he rounds up and throws all the MS-13 gangsters out,(hopefully with two broken legs each so they don't come right back), and he rebuilds the military back up to frightening strength, I don't give a crap if he puts his name on "the wall" and names all the new ships Trump 1, Trump 2 and so on.
Trump is a corporatist, not a capitalist. BIG difference. He's big on "playing the system" to his advantage rather than dismantling a corrupt system that does the corporations' bidding. What needs to happen is for someone to come along and remove government's ability to pick winners and losers in the marketplace so that rather than spending money lobbying Washington for special laws and favors (as in the medical/pharmaceutical industries for example), companies instead spend their money improving their product/service to better compete against rivals and find cost efficiency. Candidates supporting the Fair Tax understand this....those proposing a modified or progressive flat tax really have no clue other than they believe it more simple than the current, completely unfair and screwed up tax code.
Technically, he's right. We all have the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't specify an actual right to own them, however. Guess we'll have to rent or borrow.
Fuck Jebbie Bush and his drug running/money laundering, gangster clan. Common Core = Government brainwashing. Behind enemy lines ,Ct. I will never stand down. Nor comply. AAA/O.11B20.
8 comments:
I'm not voting for Jeb Bush, and I think anyone who would has difficulty perceiving reality.
Also, I think that any conservative who goes on Colbert and doesn't just treat the whole thing like the bad joke it is (I'd lead with my "legalize all properly reported homicide" agenda, then segue into a rhapsody of how many celebrities and other media figures would be removed from the public eye with such a measure) is clearly defective as a politician. You have to be able to not take every single damn public appearance so seriously.
That said, what Bush actually says here should be non-controversial. States and localities should be able to pass legislation governing what counts as a useful personal defensive arm within their jurisdictions...as long as that applies without exemption to all persons regardless of local, state or federal employment or connection. If some ecotopian nutbag state wants to say that firearms are polluting (which they are) and ban their own cops and such from having them, then let them go for it. More reasonably, if I happen to know a guy with a Davy Crockett and want to live in the same neighborhood (where people are allowed to own such items), I still feel it's reasonable to have regulations ensuring that people don't just tote them everywhere in the back of their truck. Because that does become a safety concern just from the perspective of whether proper shielding is used, let alone other things that could happen if someone actually tried to use one to fend off a home invasion or whatever.
I'm against bans on simple possession on principle, because there is no pragmatic way to enforce and prosecute such a ban without carving out exemptions for certain classes of people who have proven (throughout history, which the Founding Fathers actually studied) that they cannot be trusted with such special dispensations (being described in the Constitution as a Title of Nobility, in the context of understanding that conferring the privilege of bearing arms forbidden to commoners was the historical foundation of such a title, though extended to conferral of other extraordinary privileges under the law). But I am in no way opposed to regulating how certain materials must be handled (without special exemptions for privileged persons), that's just plain sense. Because the Federal government has no such power from the Constitution in most cases, it is indeed right for it to be exercised by state and local governments where necessary. The right to bear Arms being Constitutionally protected from any form of infringement under any pretext, this necessarily means that some legislative decision must be obtained as to whether certain materials are Arms in the Constitutional sense, and the Federal government is not given any such power by the Constitution.
Jeb Bush isn't smart enough to have invented this idea on his own, so he's most likely just parroting a talking point without much regard to context. But there is nothing wrong with the point itself, no matter what else is wrong with Jeb Bush as a political candidate (and there is far too much to dwell on here).
So...Jeb thinks the States have the power to infringe on that which shall not be infringed? There is really something wrong with this guy. He's one of those who looks at the constitution, and on one hand, see's things that are not there, while on the other hand, fails to see what is clear, plain and obvious.
I really don't want to have to go to war to keep America the beacon of freedom. But if the GOP is going to keep throwing guys like Jeb out there and claim "this is our kind of guy", we are certainly going to end up at war with both Republicans and democrats. In case we do find ourselves at war with these DNC and GOP "establishment" types, we need to resolve to press a huge "reset button" and take them all out quickly, while we still have enough of our country left to save.
The "let's get this party started" guy has a point!
One more thing. Folks claim "Trump is this, or Trump is that. Let me ask you something. Can you look at the entire field of candidates and tell me which one is a bigger capitalist than Trump? Seems to me that what we need RIGHT NOW is an unabashed Capitalist. We need an arrogant, non-apologetic asshole with a great head for business. If Trump does only what he says he can do, make deals with the rest of the world that are advantageous to the United States, if he rounds up and throws all the MS-13 gangsters out,(hopefully with two broken legs each so they don't come right back), and he rebuilds the military back up to frightening strength, I don't give a crap if he puts his name on "the wall" and names all the new ships Trump 1, Trump 2 and so on.
Incorporation....it only counts when they say it does. Fawkers.
Trump is a corporatist, not a capitalist. BIG difference. He's big on "playing the system" to his advantage rather than dismantling a corrupt system that does the corporations' bidding. What needs to happen is for someone to come along and remove government's ability to pick winners and losers in the marketplace so that rather than spending money lobbying Washington for special laws and favors (as in the medical/pharmaceutical industries for example), companies instead spend their money improving their product/service to better compete against rivals and find cost efficiency. Candidates supporting the Fair Tax understand this....those proposing a modified or progressive flat tax really have no clue other than they believe it more simple than the current, completely unfair and screwed up tax code.
Technically, he's right. We all have the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't specify an actual right to own them, however. Guess we'll have to rent or borrow.
Fuck Jebbie Bush and his drug running/money laundering, gangster clan. Common Core = Government brainwashing. Behind enemy lines ,Ct. I will never stand down. Nor comply. AAA/O.11B20.
Post a Comment