Apply Same Sex Marriage Argument To Second Amendment
Apr 28, 2015 Commentary
It works better there…
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today regarding same sex marriage. Two items are at issue here. The first is whether the Court will require all states to allow same sex marriage and the second is whether states that do not have SSM will be required to honor SSM from states that do allow it. If the first one passes the second is basically moot. If the second one passes then it invalidates the first because people can travel to get married and then return to the state that does not allow it.
It appears to be an all or nothing issue.
I read some of the arguments and do not agree with a lot of the pro argument side. There is no Constitutional right to marry. This applies to any kind of marriage. No one has the right to marry period. People have to apply for a license and the state can deny that license for any number of reasons.
The reality is that marriage is something that has been defined as the union between a man and a woman for a very long time. The US even made polygamy illegal thus strengthening the issue of one man and one woman.
The other reality is that marriage has always been an issue that was decided by the individual states. Different states have different rules for who can and cannot get married. You see, there is no right because you need permission.
It is also true that marriage has been seen as a religious institution for a long time. The government got involved for a number of reasons but the basic concept has its foundation in religion.
A state has the right to define marriage so some states have SSM and others do not. It is important to note that the large number of states that have it is no indication that most favor it as many were forced to recognize it even though their citizens voted against it. Activist courts forced them to accept it.
I have read many posts about the issue. People are claiming that this is a basic right and government should not be allowed to restrict it. They claim that people should not be allowed to vote on these rights and they are being discriminated against. They further claim that most of society agrees with it so it should be made the law of the land.
I have already shown that it is not a constitutionally protected item and that states have the right to regulate it (not the federal government). But let us ignore that for a moment and assume these people are correct.
Why not use this same logic for firearms ownership and carry where it would more appropriately apply? The Second Amendment is absolutely in the Constitution and it protects the preexisting right to keep and bear arms. It further states that right shall not be infringed.
But liberals, the very same group that is saying SSM is a right and that it should apply to all states equally especially since most states already allow it (a fact that is skewed by court action) will say that people should not own or carry firearms and that states can decide what they want to do. These are the very same people who will work hard to have this protected right banned.
[note]During arguments one of the justices asked about clergy being forced to perform these marriages if they are made legal. He was assured this would not happen as there is a First Amendment right to protect them. They have ignored the Second so what makes anyone think they will obey the First? Once it is legal Obama and his DOJ will force clergy to perform them under threat of jail. Look at how florists, bakers and photographers who have religious objections are treated.[/note]
Most states allow either open or concealed carry (or both) and they do so without the court forcing them to. People in some states are discriminated against because they can’t do the same thing with regard to firearms as those in a majority of the states. A majority of the population is in favor of firearms ownership and shall issue carry permits. As an aside, I prefer must issue with no permit required. If you pass the check to get the gun you can carry it any way you want.
If the Supreme Court decides that marriage is a right and that the federal government can define it and thus allows SSM to be the law of the land in all states then it only follows that the same should hold true with regard to firearms.
The Court should immediately invalidate all state gun laws and issue an order that all states will be must issue.
The Second Amendment, unlike any kind of marriage, is a right protected by the Constitution.
Funny how liberals always call things they want rights and then say everyone has to give in and honor them while they continue to ignore the G-d given right to keep and bear arms.
I think the SCOTUS will allow SSM. They clearly have no sense of Constitutional rule as evidenced by their decision on Obamacare. Our society is on the decline and will not be around much longer. SSM is one more thing needed to ensure the demise of society.
I do wonder though why states would even obey the ruling. Just tell the feds you won’t do it. What will they do? Tell the SCOTUS you don’t agree and do your own thing.
Obama has been doing that so it is not like he could object.
He certainly has not suffered any consequences of his refusal to obey…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: agenda, gun control, lies, rights, same sex marriage, scotus, Second Amendment
Did Hate Speech Inspire These Left Wing Lunatics?
Jan 25, 2011 Political
Almost immediately after the shooting in Tuscon the left wing liberal echo chamber was reverberating the story that Sarah Palin and the right wing were responsible for the violence. The fact that nothing was known about the shooter did not keep them from making false claims. They continued this for a week until they got push back and they saw polls showing that America was not buying it.
They also quieted down when it was discovered that the shooter paid little attention to politics but leaned to the left. It also did not help that the left’s mouthpiece sheriff turned out to be negligent in that his department had multiple contacts with the lunatic shooter and ignored the violent threats from him. They could have had him evaluated and if he was diagnosed with a mental disorder he could not have bought a gun. A liberal sheriff neglected his duty and people died.
The left wants us to believe that all the violence that is perpetrated is from the right. The only major bit of violence I am aware of with regard to a person who claimed to be protecting the Constitution was McVeigh. I was challenged with a list of so called violence which included imagined threats and people “inciting” violence or incidents against Democrats (and their offices) in which no one was caught but the left assumed it had to be a right winger. It was weak at best though it was at least a half hearted attempt to counter my claim that all the violence has come from the left. Clearly I should have avoided the absolute word “all” and stated a more accurate claim and that is most of the violence has come from the left. Just about (if not) all of the US presidential assassinations and attempted assassinations have been perpetrated by people on the left.
The so called violent right wing talk the left claims incites these things pales in comparison to the threats of violence and violent talk coming from the left. I don’t recall any right wing people saying that they wanted to shoot everyone who did not believe the same thing as they (James Cameron and global warming deniers). I do not recall any right wing politician saying he wanted to line a candidate form the opposing party up against a wall and shoot him. I do not recall Rush, Beck, Hannity or any others doing this or ever calling for violence against others. Plenty of left wing commentators do though.
Here is a list of the 7 violent left wingers that the liberals want us to forget about. They are fairly recent and they are violent but I do not believe that harsh talk by the left caused them to commit (or threaten) acts of violence. They did it because they are violent people.
But they are left wing lunatics who committed violence and whose acts were never blamed on the violent talk of the left. The right knows they are responsible for their own actions. The left believes they must be a victim of something (usually Bush is to blame).
I have been to plenty of rallies in DC when all kinds of groups were there and I have never seen an act of violence perpetrated by the right wing supporters (I have seen some commit violence in their own defense) but I have seen a number of threats from left wing groups (usually the cowardly anarchists). The DC police always told us they knew what side would be causing the problems and at several events told us that there were no arrests of people from our groups but that dozens from the other sides were taken into custody. Yep, I remember watching the left wing lunatics try to “invade” the Capitol after the police said that anyone who trespassed would be arrested.
There are violent people on both sides of the debate but those people are responsible for their own actions. The problem is that the left wing media hardly reports on any act of violence involving left wingers and will often ignore or overlook it while pointing fingers at the right.
Case in point. How much have you heard about the attempted assassination of a Democrat Governor by a left wing nut job this past September? If you heard anything it was not much. It was certainly not as hyped as the shooting in Tuscon and there was no finger pointing.
That does not fit the narrative or the agenda.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: agenda, left wing, lies, propaganda, violence
Pelosi Is Planning A Party
Nov 9, 2010 Political
I bet it is not a TEA Party!
Nancy Pelosi is clueless. She bears a great deal of responsibility for the total beat down her party took in the last election. I know the apologizers will claim it was about anti incumbency and in a small way that is true. Most parties in power lose seats in the midterm (Bush gained in his first) but the scope of this beat down is historic. Not only did the Democrats lose more than 60 House seats and about 6 Senate seats, they lost over 600 seats in state and local elections. They lost the State House in many key states.
This was a complete repudiation of the way the Democrats drove the economy into the ditch since they took control in 2007. Up to that time the numbers were pretty good with low unemployment and low inflation. Since they have been in charge they have wrecked things and we are seeing the increase in prices that is showing before we hit massive inflation.
Given all this one would think that Democrats, and Pelosi in particular, would get the message. And if you are wondering, it is not that it was not sold the right way, it is that the polices were bad. Democrats wrecked things and it was time for change we could really believe in.
But Pelosi did not get the memo. The Botox must have numbed her brain. She is having a party:
Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the United States House of Representatives requests the pleasure of your company at a reception honoring the Accomplishments of the 111th Congress on Wednesday, the tenth day of November, two thousand ten at three thirty in the afternoon Cannon Caucus Room 345 Cannon House Office Building. Drudge
I wonder if that party will celebrate the accomplishment of losing more House seats in over 60 years or losing more state and local seats in at least that long or if they will celebrate the stupid things they did that led up to that historic defeat.
Pelosi was an effective Speaker. Her job was to push Obama’s agenda and that she did. She bribed, beat, and harassed people into doing what she wanted while they were being assured they would be rewarded for their stances on tough legislation that the people wanted.
Seems to me if they had actually spent time doing the people’s business and leaving the private sector alone the economy would have rebounded (like it is in other places) and more of them might not be adding to the unemployment numbers.
Ah yes, it is strange what Democrats tout as success…
If being slaughtered is success to them please keep them from running our military. To them General Custer was successful…
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: agenda, clueless, historic defeat, lies, party, Pelosi
Obama’s Acorn Ties; They Will Help Shape His Agenda
Oct 18, 2008 Political
Barack Obama has been downplaying his association with ACORN, the group that he paid to commit voter fraud. He claims only to have represented them in litigation but the evidence shows his ties run deeper. In this video, he tells them that they will help shape his agenda:
The same people who helped bring us the housing crisis and are now committing acts of fraud in states across this country, acts paid for by Obama, will help shape his agenda.
Nice…
UPDATE: Democrats do steal votes
Tags: acorn, agenda, corruption, Obama, ties