Wednesday, September 2, 2015

Jeb Bush announces his theory that your Second Amendment rights are subject to compromise based on geography. (Get's condemned by collectivist Wasserman-Schultz anyway.)

“The federal government shouldn’t be involved in gun laws. The country is very different. . . If you go to a rural area where guns are part of the culture, to impose laws from Washington that are going to work for New York City or work in a rural area, makes no sense.”
“In claiming that there is no role for the federal government in regulating gun safety, Jeb Bush is insisting that Americans simply must accept future violence and leave a response to the possibility of a state-by-state solution. I am speechless,” (Wasserman-Schultz) said.
She should be speechless more often, but the fact that Jeb considers your firearm rights to be compromisable depending upon where you live tells you all you need to know about the prick and the elite he represents.


Chiu ChunLing said...

To be fair, Jeb Bush didn't originate this theory nor has he made any peculiar claims on it.

And, in my considered opinion, while the provisions of the Constitution that are termed generally enough to apply to the state and local governments (including those subject to 'incorporation' under the 14th Amendment) cannot legitimately be violated by any officials of the government at any level, it is not the place of the Federal government to be involved in enforcement of such provisions except in certain special circumstances. The Constitutional Militia (being the body of the people, armed and trained adequately to the purpose) is to function independently in duties of general enforcement of the laws, coordinated as necessary by their own locally elected law enforcement officers (meaning officers selected to lead the Militia rather than supplant it in the performance of local duties) where individual disputes arise interpreting the law. The Congress is only to call forth the Militia and specifically direct its law enforcement activities in situations of a more serious nature, including (though not absolutely limited to) insurrections and invasions.

I think that a case could be made that our current situation is serious enough to warrant a Congressional act calling upon the Constitutional Militia to remove from office by whatever force deemed prudent and necessary such persons in the state and local governments as are openly abrogating their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution, particularly as concerns adherence to the provisions contained in the Bill of Rights. If I were in Congress, I would certainly seek to introduce such an act. However, this would be an extraordinary duty of Congress due to unusual danger to the nation, not a usual responsibility of Congress or any other part of the Federal government.

So while I have many reasons for preferring that Jeb Bush desist from seeking nomination as a Presidential candidate, his general endorsement of the theory that interpretation and enforcement of the Second Amendment should generally remain a local matter rather than being decided by Washington is not one of them.

Arkindole said...

I'll go with with the brain damage or congenital retardation for $50. You know the Bloomberg's and Soro's just got massive boners with that codespeak.

Anonymous said...

"Anyone caught inside the ghetto with weapons will be brought to the unterscharff fuehrer and immediately face a firing squad!" ... And in that darn ghetto is where we needed them most!

Josh said...

Lol he thinks gun laws work in nyc and other shitholes. Sorry but criminals by definition do not obey law, so anti gun legislation can only disarm their law abiding victims. Wich disarmament of victims, oddly enough, is greatly desired by criminals in and out of office.

Oh by the way;

Anonymous said...

Ben Carson has taken this exact position. You don't need rifles in the city he said....If carson gets a pass then so does jebbie, right?

Chiu ChunLing said...

Actually, I would like to add that I do think that there is a place for local ordinances defining the general category of weapons which would be considered suitable for defensive military operations in a given area due to local environmental concerns.

While I am categorically opposed to bans on simple possession (regardless of the items or material in question), since they cannot in principle be enforced without exempting law enforcement officials from obeying such bans themselves (and that's a very slippery slope indeed), I can see locally determining that a given type of man-portable weapon system is not suitable for military use in a given environment and thus should be kept unarmed and not readied for firing there. As long as there are no exemptions for law enforcement, military, or anyone else.

For instance, if someone has a Davy Crockett, I think the neighbors should be able to say, "that's not a suitable weapon for defense in this area, keep it safely locked in a shielded container."

Sedition said...

Who said Carson got a pass?
I had one of his stumpers call me today and I reminded her of Carson's views on the Second Amendment before he decided to run for POTUS. She claimed she remembered, but that she herself was a member of the NRA. I laughed loudly and told her that she was backing 2 loosers and that I would rather slam my scrotum in a car door 80 times in a row than to either vote for Carson or join the NRA.
She wasn't too happy with me because she got all butt-hurt and hung up.

Anonymous said...

Frankly im dismayed that any rational person supports any of the Blue Falcon Republican politicians we have....NOT A SINGLE ONE is conservative and every single one is a sell out....

You people need to get real lives if you believe and accept anything this crop of politicians of any stripe, says...You must be desperate to support any of these losers... Support the lesser of two evils my ass, I ll never vote for any of them. When this shit goes completely to hell, it will not be because of the ones who VOTED for the assholes, it will be because of the voters who legitimized the blatantly corrupt system by taking part in it. Its your fault...Own it.

Sign me , Neal Jensen

Anonymous said...

Perhaps a quibble over nothing but its important to me.

They are not "Second Amendment Rights". Recognition of a natural right to keep and bear arms goes back at least as far as Blackstone and Locke. In US v Cruikshank, SCOTUS pointed out that the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights and The Declaration of Independence predate both and the US Government and are not dependent on either for their existence.

If The Second Amendment and/or The United States ceased to exist the survivors of that calamity would still have a right to keep and bear arms.

Anonymous said...

The District of Criminals and all gun grabbing toadies in state capitals .Can kiss my ass. No compromise ,not one more step back. You want them ,come and get them ! I have nothing to lose. But my life. Which will have to be bought, paid for in blood shed. Pure and simple. They don't recognize the fact that there is no sporting use clause in the 2nd Amendment. It's about killing tyrant's .Who have the audacity, to think they can impose their corrupt will upon " WE THE PEOPLE ". An unconstitutional law ,will all ways be null and void. Behind enemy lines. In collectivist Ct. I will not comply, nor stand down. AAA/O. 11B20.