Andrea Mitchell Argues Gov’t Can Infringe Upon Americans’ ‘Inalienable Rights’ — Hear Pro-Gun Advocate’s Epic Response
Andrea Mitchell (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images for Meet the Press)
MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell on Wednesday argued that even Americans’ “inalienable rights” may be infringed upon by the federal government, including our freedom of speech and Second Amendment rights.
The claim may seem outrageous, but here’s how Mitchell defended her stance after her guest claimed the Obama administration can’t infringe upon Americans’ inalienable rights:
“Well, they can be infringed, because the First Amendment is infringed, I have to obey all sorts of regulations from the FCC, there are things we can’t say in a crowded theater, so every right also carries with it responsibilities and obligations.”
In response, Eric Pratt, of Gun Owners for America, provided a well thought out analogy that seemingly dismantled Mitchell’s argument.
“What’s interesting about that, though, is we don’t gag people before they go into the theater, we punish the lawbreakers,” he said. “And in the same way, we would argue punish those who abuse the right, but don’t gag law-abiding citizens before they exercise their right. We shouldn’t be registering them like sex offenders, like they are in New York. We shouldn’t be in any way impeding them if they have not committed a crime.”
Watch the segment via MSNBC below:
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Who do you think won the “inalienable rights” debate?
In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isnβt really about controlling guns at all; itβs about controlling us. Find out more HERE.
Popular Stories
The Scathing Speech That Just Got a Standing Ovation During the IRS Hearing 368 Comments
Was It Against Uniform Protocol for the Marine to Hold Obama’s Umbrella? 360 Comments
S.E. Cupp vs. Michael Moore on Guns: ‘I Just Happen to Be Informed’ 337 Comments
Obama Suggests IRS, Benghazi, AP Phone Scandal Are Just ‘Politics’ 213 Comments
Mom Loses Job for Posting This Message About Cops to her Facebook Page 211 Comments
Faith
-
Congressman: IRS Demanded to Know Content of Pro-Life Group's Prayers
Read More
-
You Criticized Obama: Famed Christian Radio Host Alleges Outrageous IRS Intimidation
173 Comments
-
Network Releases Statement on Pat Robertson's Controversial Advice to Cheated-On Women
140 Comments
-
'Blasphemy': Prominent Faith Leader Calls Obama Out Over His 'God Bless You' During Planned Parenthood Speech
186 Comments
-
Graphic New Details About Gosnell's Filthy and Flea-Ridden Home and Clinic Emerge: 'The Smells Were Just Unbearable'
Read More
Business
- This Map Shows the 'Riskiest' Places in the World Read More
-
Krauthammer's Impressed With Obama's IRS Answers: He Makes Bill Clintonâs Parsing Look Unsophisticated
Read More
-
Congressman: IRS Demanded to Know Content of Pro-Life Group's Prayers
Read More
- America off Limits: Soviet Tourists Were Banned from Visiting These Areas During the Cold War Read More
-
These Are the 4 Most Important Takeaways from Today's IRS Hearing
142 Comments
Technology
-
Woman Who Lost All Limbs to Flesh-Eating Bacteria Gets $200K Bionic Arms
Read More
-
Why Are These Zoo Keepers Baffled by This Anteaterâs Babies?
Read More
-
Largest Lunar Explosion in NASA History Caught on Video
112 Comments
-
Ever Wonder How It'd Look to Have Your Face Eaten by a Bear? Here's Your Answer
Read More
-
New Energy Secretary Named With Unanimous Confirmation
148 Comments
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (355)
bigbear_awake
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:18pmpersonal Responsibility dont think she GEts OR ANY ONE ONE THE LEFT GETS “PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY “
civilwarcometh
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:23pmhttp://weaselzippers.us/2013/01/16/new-nra-ad-the-msm-speaks-for-elites-america-speaks-for-itself/
Report this comment
NewMedia
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 9:51pmAndrea has always been a hackβ¦.at best. The liberal media is the biggest threat to our freedom. Forget about Obama for a minute. It was Goebbels who drove the propaganda machine that made the holocaust possible. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUHPoLKDWKM
Report this comment
DeOppressoLiber
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 9:53pmDear Leader is in good company
It is from a wild site but look at who used kids as props to consolidate power.
http://www.infowars.com/other-tyrants-who-have-used-children-as-props/
Report this comment
SendTheMeteors
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 10:00pmActually the “unalienable rights” he talks about are not in the Constitution, they’re in the Declaration of Independence. And those are, and I quote, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Nothing about guns there.
And the Constitution has no references to any god, such as Zeus or Athena or Mbombo of Bakuba mythology, who vomited out the world upon feeling a little sick to his stomach. The Founders were smart (and diests), who did not try to justify the Constitution on the basis of religion. There’s a reason for that.
The Constitution and the initial Amendments were deliberately meant to be based on logic, and what was best for the country, and deliberately written so they were not based on beliefs in Zeus. Or any other deity.
The Founders did not say that owning a semi-automatic gun with a 100 round magazine was an unalienable right given by Zeus or the Muslim god or the Aztec god or the Nordic god or any other god. That’s why the word “god” is not in the Constitution, and why none of the Constitution is justified on the basis of Hinduism. Or Buddhism for that matter.
lawrench
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 10:17pmNotice how this person is willing to let the government take her rights? Is it any wonder why so many people think like her when this is how she “reports” the events of the day? I say let these people lose their rights and see how long it is before they change their thought process.
Report this comment
seeker9
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 10:26pmIs shouting “fire” in a theater when there IS a fire illegal? Or is it abuse of rights that is is the problem and that is what is infringed. AMONG those inalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. msnbc hosts constantly spin, lie, and mislead. In my opinion, that needs to be infringed upon. BHO’s claim that Republicans have a gun at the head of the American people- isn’t THAT irresponsible? msnbc is trash tv, a waste of time.
Report this comment
Zipit
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 10:40pmMETEORS! That was exhaustingly boring! Did you by chance O.D. On MdDoubles during your shift today down at Wack Arnold’s!
Report this comment
techengineer11
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 10:47pmNewMedia:
You’re getting warm.
Does the fact that Andre is Jewish have anything to do with her disgust with our Constitution? I say yes indeed.
Liberal Media? True but more accurately stated would be Marxist Jewish Media.
Finally while Goebbels did use propaganda in Germany he was at least upfront about it and told the German people that propaganda would be used to further the cause of the State.
Unfortunately the father of modern propaganda was Jewish American Edward Bernays. The only difference between Bernays and Goebbels was at least the German people knew they were being fed propaganda while about 85-90% of Americans are too damn ignorant to even understand that their entire World View has been molded by radical and manical marxist Jews with the sole intent to destroy their Republic and to reign over them..
Personally I prefer the candidness and the truth…
Report this comment
lawrench
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 10:49pmWhat irritates me the most about this article is that Mrs. Greenspan is a reporter, she makes the claim she is a reporter, she make the claim that she is reporting news, but everything that comes out of her mouth is opinion. All of the news coming out of all of the networks is less news and more opinions. I miss the days of real news at 5pm from the networks.
Report this comment
rc30
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:03pmNot for hunting hmmm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVlrSVsAdpI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=webs9YRcqog
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqBLoTSLQO0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fui_DsYLotM
How many more you LIBS need me too post. Not for hunting my ass. LIBS do the normal people fall for that crap.
Report this comment
Unix
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:06pmAh but meteor, God is mentioned in the DOI, so give me your shuck and jive, or is that racist of me? pitiful you, who has no argument, yet bloviates all over the blog here with your superior knowledge…makes me want to throw up! Get real someday will ya.
Report this comment
lwoot
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:20pmWell SendTheMeteors the founders didn’t say it doesn’t allow for it either. I am reading crime and punishment and I think it makes a very good point about reading something like say the second amendment which is self explanatory and then do something like say interpret it. “Laws receive
their force and authority from an oath of fidelity, either tacit or expressed, which living subjects
have sworn to their sovereign, in order to restrain the intestine fermentation of the private
interests of individuals. From hence springs their true and natural authority. Who then is their
lawful interpreter? The sovereign, that is, the representative of society, and not the judge, whose
office is only to examine, if a man have or have not, committed an action contrary to the laws.”
Report this comment
jhrusky
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:22pm@ sendthemeteors
“And those are, and I quote, βlife, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.β Nothing about guns there.”
Does not the inalienable right of life allow me a valid means to defend that life? If so, then what I use to defend will evolve along with technology; a rock 25,000 years ago, a sword 1000 years ago, a gun today, perhaps a hi-powered laser tomorrow.
Report this comment
right field
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:32pmMitchell is a huge political hack whose anti-free markets husband, Alan Greenspan, dismantled our economy as Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987 – 2006. These people are self-absorbed elitist who despise the “common man” and hold every community except NYC in contempt. Both big Marxist Dems who long ago made it clear that they have no use for the Constitution.
Report this comment
Thatsitivehadenough
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:39pmThere isn’t a liberal media hack who understand either Americans or the US Constitution. Trying to discuss this with them is like trying to have a conversation with a wall. Dense.
Report this comment
SUNTZU
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:50pmSENDTHEMEAT
Up your asstroid
urfunnie
Report this comment
Mil-Dot
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:58pmAnother fake Jew. Real Jewish folks kick ass and take names. These Americanized Jews are phoney. . They believe in the almighty dollar instead of virtue. They are evil. It is amazing that they actually advocate the same policies that lead millions of their brethren to the gas chambers. It truly is a mental defect. They have some kind of DNA error.
Report this comment
banjarmon
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 12:38amWould ms mitchell put a sign in her yard stating it is a GUN FREE HOUSE???
Report this comment
phil1765
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 5:09amSendTheMeteors
You really are a freaking moron. I usually don’t do a lot of name calling but you are the biggest sheep I have ever seen on this site. Your comments rarely have any basis in truth and quite often aren’t even on the subject being discussed.
Report this comment
BehindBlueEyes
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 7:03am@BIGBEAR
Progressives are commies and commies are control freaks. That’s why they don’t believe in personal responsibility. They think they know better and they’re determined to force or manipulate/nudge you to make you do what they deem necessary for their agenda. It’s all about control and is the antitheses of freedom and the Constitution.
Report this comment
MittensKittens
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 7:22amWhen this b!tch dies it will be a glorious day in America!
Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 7:22amSo because she doesn’t have a spine and accepts infringements on her rights, she then demands that we accept them on our end?
Sorry, Mitchell, you coward, not everybody is a submissive twit like you.
Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 7:31amIf I have the inalienable right to life, and given as no other entity can be here to defend my life at any given time, then logic clearly dictates that I have the right to defend my right to life since my life is, well, my right. Pretty easy logic there Meteors. Try a bit harder next time. :)
Report this comment
ONLY4UANDME
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 7:35amI can’t believe college educated people can be so stupid. Well of course that explains most of it but what about common sense. Good thing she’s not a firefighter because most people’s common sense kicks in the first time they touch a hot stove.
Report this comment
Wolf
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 8:09am‘Inalienable rights’… how difficult is it for people to understand that these are the rights of every person on the planet- regardless of country of origin? Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness are just the beginning of ‘unalienable rights’.
Report this comment
rangerskippy
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 8:32amhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyyWMoHOQPY
“Had the displeasure of watching our chief executive conduct a propaganda conference yesterday. Why our own president feels the need to grimace and make faces anytime he mentions the Constitution, Founding Fathers, or the Second Amendment, and feels the need to try and cover his mouth when he says he “doesn’t want to take your guns”, intrigues me.
If you have the opportunity to re-watch it, pay heed to the body language clearly displayed throughout. I would absolutely love to play some high-stakes poker with this fool. I would send his lying butt home with his pockets turned out……”
Notice that he says people can own guns for hunting, for sport, for collection, and protection, but never actually recognizes that the founding fathers recognized our right to bear arms, to protect us from a government gone out of control
Notice that he never mentions that he is going after rifles, and rifles were only used in 311 murders last year. More people committed murder with knives, clubs, and hammers, than they did with rifles.
Notice that he says nothing about the fact that 12.5% of the population in America is black, and that they currently do 1/2 of all murders. If we can lower black murder rates to the same as whites, we drop the national murder per capita rate by 40%, and save a whole lot of black lives.
Notice that 70% of our gun violence is gang related. Obama’s DOJ put “assault weapons” in the hands o
Report this comment
jblaze
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 8:50amObama and this women are breaking the ninth commandment! Whether you lie through deception or you are the deceiver, you are guilty of the same thing; lying or bearing false witness. A death penalty in the eyes of God, barring repentance.
.
Each one of us is accountable, ignorance is not a defense because ignorance is just a lazy and or cowardly choice.
Report this comment
lefty5005
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 9:17am“Sendthemeteors” haven’t you died of AIDS yet?
Report this comment
tommytruck
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 9:20am@SENDTHEMETEORS
Why did you take the time to write something that is patently untrue? “Endowed by their Creator…” What they were careful to articulate was that all men are endowed by their CREATOR with inalienable rights and having been endowed by someone greater than man, they are not to be infringed by any other man or implement of man’s will – such as a government.
I also find it quite telling that you studiously avoided mentioning God, the God of Christians and Jews. Of course, they did not mention any of the pagan gods as they did not recognize them as valid in any way. And for your edification, since you purport to be dedicated to LOGIC, I direct you to one of the Western fathers of logic – Socrates – specifically, read Euthypro. It is arguably the BEST argument for monotheism and a single creator/god, from the direction of logic. The Greeks knew this.
What the Founding Fathers did was this – meticulously defend your right to worship God or your idea of a god in any way you so choose. They defend your right to defend your right to do so, against any man or organ thereof. It just so happens that if you happen to worship the Aztec god, you’re not allowed to take my family and I hostage, cut out, and immolate our hearts in your desire to propitiate his “anger” or obtain some water and sunshine for your crops.
Report this comment
Dismayed Veteran
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 9:34amMeteor
If you like intellectual arguments, please read Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. The needs are in a pyramid. To move to each level, the needs of the lower level must be satisfied.
The bottom of the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is Physiological. It is composed of breathing, food, water, sex, sleep, homeostais and exertion.
The next level is Safety. It is composed of security of body, employment, resources, family, health and property
Level 3 is Love/Belonging. Level 4 is Esteem. Level 5 is Self-Actualization.
Study this. It explains why Life and the fundamental need to preserve it is a basic human need. As far back as archeologists can obtain samples, weapons have been present. Protecting yourself, your family and others is natural. If you believe the Founders were Deists, then the Declaration of Independence and the Constituion are contain the recognition that right to life, the protection of life and the capability to engage in violence isn natural, proper and unalienable. If you are a Theist, then the Creator has made these rights unalienable.
That is why the 2nd Amendment is important and can’t be infringed.
I don’t know if you have ever been in true danger of death. Many of us have and understand life can snuffed out in the blink of an eye. Most of us tend to take the 2nd Amendment seriously. For some, the horror of violence makes them want eliminate the means of violence. It doesn’t work that way. Maslow is correct. Liberals ar
Report this comment
IndyGuy
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 9:40am“Andrea Mitchell Argues Govβt Can Infringe Upon Americansβ βInalienable Rightsβ “…Was Andrea saying this when Bush was Prez???
Report this comment
mersey
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 9:59amTake it easy on the Meteorite. This clown comes here to dazzle us with his Psychology 101 indocrinated world view. There is a word for this nonsense………pychobabble! I’ll admit, there are a lot of topics I know nothing about, but this guy is an expert on everything. I’m sure he’s a straight A student in psychology, but at the end of day, it’s a useless degree and he’ll be flipping burgers for a living.
Report this comment
Crazyotto
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 10:17amAside from horrible skin she has no grasp of the concept of inalienable rights. She is simply a leftist political shill masquerading as a journalist. She extremely difficult to listen to and even more so to watch. Larry Pratt should head up the RNC … He is the first clear voice I have heard on this issue.
Report this comment
Lordchamp
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 10:18amActually how are you going to maintain “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” without being able to defend yourself against whatever the threat be it personal or government threat? Guns actually are not mention anywhere in either the Constitution or the Declaration. It’s very evident what they meant also by reading their own words.
Even Federalist like Madison who wanted a central government acknowledged that the people MUST remain armed to protect themselves from tyranny and he said so many times.
The term arms is used because the Founders were wise enough to know that they could not predict the future and so they used a broad term that could describe ANYTHING a citizenry chose to use to protect itself. It could just have easily been clubs or swords.
Report this comment
stage9
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 10:30amSendTheMeteors,
Hey dumb dumb. There would be no Constitution without the Declaration genius! The Declaration was not made void just because the Constitution was written. It is still the foundation of our civilization. It still guarantees us inalienable rights by GOD OUR CREATOR. (And that’s really why godless liberals hate the Declaration so much isn’t it? They can’t stomach the implication of a Creator.)
If they’d stop teaching you idiot liberals how to put on condoms and how to sodomize each other, and start teaching foundational American history you might actually be useful to society.
Report this comment
encinom
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 10:31amPratt is a good little demon for the merchants of death, protect their profits from reasonable and sensible regulations. Selling fear and paranoia to mindless, compound dwelling sheep of the dying, racist, white America, still clutching to their security blankets, their guns and bibles.
Its amazing just how populated with cowards, needing their guns to prove they are men. Blazers are doing nothing more than ******* on the tiny caskets.
Report this comment
pdw
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 10:50amIf she believes this so much they why have her rights not been infringed upon? It sure might help seeing as she love to see this country enslaved by fools that cannot even seem to run their own lives without criminal acts. Our government has more people who have broken our laws than our entertainers and they are bad enough.
Report this comment
turkey13
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 11:05am“There are only two things that grow in the dark with a steady diet of B.S.: Good mushrooms & Bad Government. It”s wrong & its in dire need of fresh air & sunshine. Fresh air & sunshine equel TERM LIMITS.” – Will Rogers.
“The constituition was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.”- Daniel Webster
Report this comment
Silvertruth
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 11:26amSendthemeteors-
You are very mistaken about the founders. They were not deists, only one was. One was also what we would call an ‘atheist’ today. Every other one was a practicing Christian at least in form.
You are also confusing inalienable with natural rights theory. Inalienable means that even if you take “God” out of the picture, you are still born with the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. Natural rights places God in the picture, but it doesn’t remove any emphasis of the rights that are inalienable to us.
The Constitution defines what “Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness” is by creating a set of rules for a government that would ensure those criteria are met. The Declaration of Independence is inexorably linked with the Constitution as the Constitution is an extension of it, defining the role of goverment by consent of the governed.
To try and make this about ‘God’ is disingenuous at best and complete delusion at worst. You are creating a Strawman argument, setting up a false position then attacking it. Both the position and the argument are deeply flawed.
The Second Amendment is WHAT protects our Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness. Without it as the keystone of the protection against Tyranny, the Constitution is meaningless. As many dictators have said before, authority comes at the end of a gun. When the people have the guns, they have the authority.
Report this comment
SONOFNANYE-HI
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 11:27amSendinthemeatheads – The founders second amendment does say “the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed”. The definition of an “arm” in the 1700′s is “an IMPLIMENT OF WAR”. That means M16′s not AR-15′s so our rights are already being infringed without the correct processes being performed to amend the constitution in the correct manner. The arms in those days were muskets, cannons, etc. Today it is high power rifles with large capacity magazines as well as bazookas, howitzers, tanks etc. I still don’t see any amendments to the constitution to restrict those items from Americans owning them. Until the Constitution is amended in the correct manner all other laws regarding arms are unconstitutional.
Report this comment
techengineer11
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 11:32amSendTheMeteors: I’m jealous that you get more hate than even me.. Nice job.
Unfortunately I’ve got to lean against you as well. The Founders of this Nation were without question overwhelmingly Christian. Extremely devout Christian unlike what we witness in Christendom today. Even the more secular Jefferson and Franklin and those were about the only two deists in the entire bunch were very fond of true Christianity.
While like many I have my issues with what passes as Christianity today, denying that our Founders had a Christian worldview is extremely disingenuous.
On another note I heard Beck ranting this morning about how the βprogressiveβ Media wants to shred the Constitution and they are entirely off the chainβ¦
Havenβt I been saying that for two straight years nonstop? Is Beck just now realizing that this is an organized Cabal? Of course I donβt call them progressive because that is far too general of a term.
We all know who these haters of Liberty are donβt we? Of course we do. Even a moron could see it.
Report this comment
Bloody Sam
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 11:37amNo one infringes on Andrea’s 1st amendment protect right of free speech.
The FCC has regulations, sure. But as was stated, the FCC does not gag people.
We are free to speak as we like. That is protected.
However, THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES when we do.
Andrea makes asinine statements on TV. The consequences can be a loss of viewers.
Someone shouts “Fire!” in a crowded theater. The consequences are arrest and possible jail time.
Until Andrea and her ilk understand this, they are irrelevant to any conversation concerning constitutionally protected rights.
Do not preemptively ‘gag’ gun owners. Punish those who abuse the right. Simple.
Report this comment
dublinthewagons
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 12:17pm@meters do you think anrea will let you ride on her broom?
I think she would sodum**e you with it. You are both hacks
Report this comment
Jwdent222
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 12:38pmTo use the irrational rationalization…”there is no reason for xyz” Then the same argument can be used to ban backyard swimming pools. There is NO need for them and if just one live can be saved. The same argument can thus be used to BAN muscle cars and any vehicle capable of travelling in excess of the posted speed limits, ergo BAN almost all cars. Subsequently since the concern is “if just one life can be saved we should ban the object, then to prevent drunk driving we should ban all automobiles. The lunacy can be extended to ANYTHING a self centered person personally has no use for therefore YOU shouldn’t need or have it either. BTW the NEED is to prevent rabid self absorbed individuals from foisting their blind ideology off on the rest of the population i.e. taking this nation back from corrupt government that tries to do just that. Read the Federalist papers. It has nothing to do with hunting.
Report this comment
lordjosh
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 12:38pmFirst off. I can yell “fire” in a movie theater all I damn well please. Who is goig to tell me I can’t? Did I sign a contract agreeing not to yell “fire” in a movie theater?
The 2nd amendment and constitution et al means nothing and protects nothing. Facts supporting this; people actually except the fact that by some strangers dictate, they can’t yell “fire” in a movie theater.
My rights do not come from 4 pieces of 230 year old parchment. I didn’t write it, agree to it or swear to it. I do agree with the premises set forth in the declaration. Specifically, being created equal with every other and that authority is only derived only from consent(for which I give zero).
@ Meteor and Enicom, you must believe that somehow, you have the authority to tell me what I can and cannot posses. Please take a few minutes and tell us where you get such authority.
Report this comment
Xiccarph
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 12:41pmIt appears that @sendthemeteors has been, sadly, struck by a meteorite.
Your assignment, should you be willing enough to complete it, is to take a long weekend look at the writings of the Founders, not only the Federalist papers, but also the Anti-Federalist papers, and at the multitude comments, letters, and opinions of those who were widely discussing the reasons and concepts of what they were trying to create. Then, if you truly are a sentient being and not just a Progressive Drone, come back and repeat your simplex minded reasoning of …’well, if it doesn’t say something specifically, then it must not mean it’.
Report this comment
jmresler
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 12:58pm@SendTheMeteors
We know that the applications of the law from the founding have in many ways been interpreted from their rightings. The writings of ‘Publius’ (aka Alexander Hamilton) were used to explain the logic behind the Constitution. The letter to the Danbury Baptists by Jefferson was used literally to add the text “Wall between Church and State”. As for inalienable rights, the second amendment is the only right that specifically states it “shall not be infringed”. The attempts to disqualify this as an individual right have been discredited by the Heller and McDonald supreme court decisions, making them incorporated at the state level. The rest of your comments regarding Zeus, Athena or your own personal leap of faith, atheism do not deserve a response.
Report this comment
michaelmoron
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 1:14pmThe Founding Fathers made it very clear that this inalienable right was NOT to be infringed.
BUT….. Andrea Mitchell says it CAN be INFRINGED.
So I guess, since the American People don’t believe anything unless they see it on television,
Andrea’s word is the TRUTH !!!!!
She was, or is married to a FEDERAL RESERVE PRIVATE BANK EXECUTIVE, if I am not mistaken.
Report this comment
techengineer11
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 1:17pmMil-Dot: Oh boy.. I know. You want to straddle that fence that don’t you? Your eyes are being opened to the truth all around you but you’ve been told and taught some all of your life completely antithetical to what we are seeing…
I understand. This was where I was about 5-6 years ago.. Got your good ones and these bad ones so let’s all hope for the best..
Now that people’s eyes are beginning to be opened they’ll begin to see more and more of what we are dealing with and I can assure you that it’s not going to be pretty. As a matter of fact it’s so diabolical that it’s really beyond comprehension but in the meantime as you work things out I think it’s sort of funny that you are riding the proverbial fence..
Let’s see where you’re at by the end of 2013. ;)
Report this comment
Mr. Smarty
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 2:13pmI noticed that the “SendTheMeteors” critter who is posing as a female drifted into a discussion of gods. He, she, or it failed to mention an important god in my area. That god is me. I am the god, lord high master, and terrible tyrant of my domain. I determine the proper defensive weaponry that I have in my kingdom. I do not recognize the authority of any L.G.B.T.Q. type such as the “SendTheMeteors” critter supports and associates with, especially “The First Gay President” that is pictured on the cover of the May 21, 2012 issue of Newsweek Magazine.
Report this comment
AmericanFightingMan1
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 3:10pm@Meteor, you are wrong.
In the Declaration of Independence, the unalienable rights our Creator granted us are not limited to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”. That is why the DOI has the language, “among these” rights. It is not an exhaustive list. And to have life, liberty and the ability to pursue happiness, there must necessarily be a means to insist on those rights.
Next, the Constitution does reference God since the Constitution was signed and sealed with men who signed it on “the seventeenth Day of Sepember in the YEAR OF OUR LORD one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven”.
The right to bear arms, as recognized (not granted) in the 2nd Amendment is to fight tyranny. Learn your history. This law review article is great: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf
Report this comment
SLAPTHELEFT
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 3:27pmonly a good liberal would applaud as their God given rights were trampled.
Report this comment
LeoNine
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 3:28pmFrom my 3 decades of law enforcement experience, I will say that anyone over the age of 26,(that again is,twenty six), who does not understand personal responsibility, and that the Golden Rule is, “You get back what you’ve taken the effort to put into”. (well ,except for shipping and handling charges. Also knbown as Entropy). 26 is a pivotal, phyisically and mentally, age for male human maturity,a nybody who has not achieved, and passed this barrier, will be the enemy of individual freedom.
Report this comment
valiant1776
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 3:45pm@SendTheMeteorsToLiberalHomes Actually you’re still a self righteous moron who knows nothing. The Constitution says “to secure the Blessings of Liberty”. Liberty, among other things, encompasses the means of acquiring and possessing property.
The Constitution makes a reference to God by stating the “Blessings of Liberty”. These blessings were those God given Rights stated in the Declaration of Independence. The Founders were not Deists. Deists in that time believed that there was a Creator but that he did not now or ever did intervene in human affairs or protect anyone in the course of history. All our founders believed in the blessings and providence of God and prayed to God for such benefits. Deists didn’t accept that God had an active role in their lives, much less in the destiny of a nation. BTW, our Constitution does say ” in the Year of our Lord”, which rejects all your pathetic attempts to try to revise history and portray our founders as neutral or indifferent to world religions. “In the Year of our Lord” was a Christian tradition, and not one based on Roman gods or sacred stick figures.
Our God given Rights “precede all human legislation, and are superior to it… it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place… Each of us has a natural right β from God β to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.” Frederick Bastiat
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
Report this comment
blarman
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 4:52pmSendtheMeteors -
Are you really that naive or are you just a troll looking to play devil’s advocate? Have you ever read the 2nd Amendment or studied the reason behind the way it was written? If not, I’ll help you. Just prior to the writing of the Declaration of Independence, British troops were allowed to enter your home at will and you were forced to put them up, providing room and board. They also seized and confiscated town stores of firearms – muskets, gunpowder and ball. The “Shot Heard Round the World” actually took place because the towns of Lexington and Concord were warned by concerned citizens that the British were coming – also to confiscate their arms and prevent revolt by the citizenry against a tyrannical government.
The real threat the 2nd Amendment was meant to address was encroachment on individual freedoms and liberties BY GOVERNMENT. Self defense counts defense against mobs, thieves, etc., but also includes the government itself!!! Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness don’t fall under the “when controlled by government” clause.
Report this comment
WATER-THE-TREE
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 7:10pmEveryone seems to misunderstand the freedom of speech, it is not so much about yelling in a movie theater or screaming obscenities at a soldiers funeral, BUT, it is about being able to speak out against the government should they do wrong, or to blow the whistle on corruption in government or business. to point out that Bammy trying to set himself up as a tyrant dictator.
It is about being able to fight back against abuse of powers. To not disappear when you disagree with the government authorities. Get it?
Report this comment
Rollo2
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 8:27pm@ sendinthemetiors. The direct quote is “among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Hmmm,… What could that “among these” thing mean? Could it mean that Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are not the sole residents of this list? That the list is not exclusive of other rights to be named at a later date?
Why don’t you go get your hair done and leave all this heavy thing to those of us who are equipped for it?
Report this comment
dmerwin
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 9:37pmThe old “fire” in the theatre canard is getting kind of old, especially in the light of the blatant lies the press tells to support “that guy” and to tear down any opponents of the “agenda”.
Report this comment
dmerwin
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 10:15pmMr-Ms meteor, you claim to be a conservative but based on the responses to your post you seem to be very much alone. May I suggest that you tweet on the Maddow or Schultz show where the audience can appreciate your razor wit?
Report this comment
LaBelle
Posted on January 18, 2013 at 9:24amMrs Alan Greenspan is a member of the CFR just as Katie Couric is and Tom Brokaw and a slew of others, Peter Jennings also was a member up to the day he died. These people only HAVE their positions because they are willing mouth pieces of the CFR and their propaganda BS..CFR, Federal Reserve may as well be the same organization.
Report this comment
texastommy
Posted on January 18, 2013 at 11:30am@Meteors. The DOI says that were are endowed with “certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” It does not say that those three are the exhaustive list. The Constitution delineated a few of those rights, and among those it specifies is the right to bear arms. The founders knew that an armed population was the only way to guarantee freedom. Like most libs, you throw out canards to show how smart you are. Keep it up. It’s entertaining. I’ve got to go clean my guns now.
Report this comment
josex
Posted on January 19, 2013 at 3:27amPersonal responsibility: allow people to use their body parts.
For example, don’t gag people.
For example, don’t tie people’s arms and trigger fingers.
As an aside, let’s make something clear first. The Constitution makes the judiciary the judge of constitutional debates, and they have ruled that the right to bear arms isn’t an unlimited license, eg, to arm yourself with “nuclear” rifles. Anyone who goes against the SCOTUS is not adhearing to the Constitution (so then you have no leverage to claim 2A protection).
Back to personal responsibility and the argument…
No one is saying that you can’t have many types of arms. You are allowed to have many arms (including those used in 1800). There is no effort to remove personal responsibility from the picture except in limited ways (eg, think of a nuclear gun example).
So the analogy with gagging someone so they can’t speak certain particular things — or, for that matter, binding them up in celophane so that they can’t use any arms to utilize their assault rifle — fails entirely. A ban (for better or worse) would be restricting some external objects from common usage; it would not be about binding any part of anyone. It would not be binding anyone up so that they can’t use any arms or their arms (or mouths) for any other use.
As another aside, the damage one is likely to do solely with one’s mouth in a crowded room as unprotected speech is much less than the damage one can do solely with an assaul
Report this comment
itsnotconspiracy
Posted on February 15, 2013 at 7:47pmHave any of you actually read the constitution? The first amendment in a nutshell states that there can be no law that can impede the free exercise of religion abridge the right to freedom of speech and impeed the freedom of press. The supreme court never ruled on free speech until the 20th century. In summation if I wanna say screw you to a judge I should be able to. The 1st amendment did not limit the free speech and was supposed to protect against further legislation that would. Yet somehow free speech has been legislated with the addition of the legal idea that free speech is not absolute and has retricions. Yet restrictions logically speaking infringe upon the 1st the way it was written. As for the second amendment, it has become a complete joke. I have the right to “keep and bear arms” not ” I have the right to keep and bear what arms the government says so” without addidtive words given to “keep and bear” the must be viewed as all reaching. Tanks choppers bazookas etc. Arms is a weapon and refers to ALL weapons. The amendment does not say “keep and bear SMALL arms” or “keep and bear NON AUTOMATED ARMS WITH LOW CAPACITY CLIPS”. the government of today is a joke and the common people only know what there told. The rights of the people are dictated to us by snakes with slimy tongues spouting twisted words.
Report this comment
FISH_BONE
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:16pmAndrea Mitchell is as stupid as a post. I think we have found the real DORA / VOICE OF TREASON / CHARLES116.
Report this comment
RJJinGadsden
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:19pmFISH_BONE, You present an excellent point. Poor Alan Greenspan has to go home to all of them every evening.
Report this comment
BODYBAG
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:21pmMrs Alan Greenspan
Report this comment
OldSurfRat
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:25pmI understand why she wants gun control. Just look at her picture. At some point in her life someone peppered her face with bird shot.
Am I right or am I right :)
CatB
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:38pmI thought she was beat with an UGLY stick .. but either way … that is one miserable looking woman .. why are liberals always so miserable … even when they are winning?
FISH_BONE
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:41pmBirdshot? Probably not. More likely she received a severe beating with an ugly stick.
FISH_BONE
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:43pmCAT: Great minds think alike.
Report this comment
Uncurable wound
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:58pmCat and Fish your both off on this one..
A whole Forest of Ugly TREES fell on that thing!
and she smells…
OldSurfRat
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 9:02pmok an ugly stick but one with spikes. Look at that face. If you can bear too look at it.
FISH_BONE
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 9:12pmI think we can all agree that the source of the problem was most likely a forest of spiked ugly sticks with a bird shot finale. Yes?
Report this comment
OldSurfRat
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 9:23pmLOL Fish
Looks like she went down that path twice.
Report this comment
Zipit
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 10:52pmIndeed BONE! She could scare fly’s off a Fish_Bone wagon!
Report this comment
drs1969
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:30pmShe’s not stupid, she’s running interference for Team Obama regarding Benghazi.
Report this comment
Mil-Dot
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 12:08amIt is good to see the SurfRat again. He is a patriot. But, all jokes aside. These New York Jewish monsters must be stopped. Did you see the look on her face? I have posited in the past that it is the hatred of Christians that drives these atheist Jews to their logic. I was quickly advised by REAL Jewish folks that I was wrong, and that REAL Jews love their Christian brothers and sisters. As I do them. They are our ancient warrior brothers and sisters. I have worked with and met many, and they were, to a man and a women, top shelf exemplary human beings. These American Jews are creatures unknown to humanity as I see it. They are truly evil, despicable incarnations.
Report this comment
Uechi
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:11pmIf bull crap was Gold she’d have more then Fort Knox. A leftist shemale political hack with a Marxist agenda, enough said.
Report this comment
YAHSHUARULES
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:16pmDo you know who the Fabians (with logo of wolf in sheep’s clothing); SDS,
Frankfurt School and Willi Munzenberg, Herbert Markusa and Franz Noima; John
Dewey, Antonio Gramsci, Mattechine Society, Saul Alinski (who dedicated his
book which Obama taught for years in Chicago βRules for Radicalsβ to Lucifer)
was a disciple of Gramsci used to train at the rifle range with Leon Despres
preparing for the revolution to take down America, later became a mentor to
Obama and.Committees of Correspondence are? Connect all the dots that
allowed Obama to waltz into the White House..
https://vimeo.com/52009124
All part of the Agenda to create an America so corrupt it stinks; use public policy to subvert America from inside, infiltrate and influence our culture to break down basic rules of morality driving us in a direction designed to destroy us. . No conspiracy β just verifiable facts! If you donβt know all thisyou need to find out!
This is the most comprehensive, best movie I have seen pulling all this together. I have watched it 12X to absorb all that is in it…
give it 5 minutes and you won’t be able to walk away
Watch it. Share it. Arrange a showing in church, groups, clubs, with friends or family. Everyone who loves America needs to see this movie,
It is free on line for the moment
https://vimeo.com/52009124
If America goes down, the free world will go down with it and it will be finished for a very, very long time…
Report this comment
PROUD_2B_American
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:10pmI’ve gone hunting with an AR
A LOT of people do……… they’re also commonly used as protection on many ranches and farms.
It’s chambered the same as a .223 Remington model 700. Only difference, the AR is lighter, and you don’t have to keep re-chambering a round. Very nice weapon…….
MUCH safer to carry if you’re alone.
An AR is a fantastic weapon. You can do almost anything with it, plus, women and kids can even fire one safely in an emergency.
If you can only afford one weapon, as an all around hunting, protection, target shooting, plinking weapon, then the AR is it. They can easily and quickly be converted to almost any need.
They’re simple to clean and keep in perfect condition. easy to repair………
AND I can assure the libs on here, if you’re in a disaster, like Hurricane Andrew or Katrina, you’ll be running for the friends house that has one. A 30 round magazine, doesn’t seem BIG ENOUGH, when you’re all alone in the dark protecting your loved ones.
The national guard doesn’t come for days………. so, unless you have a better idea for protection, I suggest you become friends with someone that has one.
Hey Prez, what about the Saturday night specials. All the cheapo throw away man killers? How about going after weapon with no other purpose, but to kill someone and toss.
Or just maybe, go after the CRIMINALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And give the public less reason to WANT OR NEED a weapon for protection!!!!
Report this comment
RJJinGadsden
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:23pmThe .223 cal round has been okayed for deer hunting here in Alabama. Many of the deer are rather small anyway. Although I have a .30-06 and a .303 Enfield for deer hunting my son still uses an AR15 with a five round mag for deer. He just prefers it.
Report this comment
OldSurfRat
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:48pmRJJ
Now I know why we get along. Your a bama boy.
I think all is ok for now in the south. I live in FL and just today I was talking to some guys where I was working. We were a mix of white black dems and reps but all agreed that they will not give up their guns and then to my suprise all pulled out their CW permits and I have to admit it made me feel like all is not lost yet.
Report this comment
skyguy51
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 9:11pmIf you reside in the Duchy of New York run by Baron Bloomberg, when the national Guard does show up Bloomberg doesn’t even allow them to carry firearms. Only trusts his own Praetorian Guard, much less the civilian minions.
Report this comment
Lt_Scrounge
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 10:28pmI would agree on most of what you say. An AR is easy to clean if you know how. I was an Army arms room officer and it took some of those guys a few hours to get their weapons as clean as I did mine in a few minutes. It took a few tools that weren’t issued and they wouldn’t spend $5 to avoid sitting there for hours as I would inspect their weapons and hand them back. I wish they had done 30 years ago what they are planning in the near future. They are planning on going to a gas piston operating system. It will keep the receiver cleaner and cooler. The interchangeable uppers make the AR very versatile.
Since I can’t afford a gas piston AR, I have to stick with the lower cost AK.
Report this comment
tajloc
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 8:26amThe tragedy is in chicago where 63 kids were killed last year in their gun free zon. We are arming the teachers in our area. No mas
Report this comment
vendingdude
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 1:05pmbrilliantly explained. I should be putting one on my shopping list.
Report this comment
okredstate
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:10pmThat thing is married to Alan Greenspan (former FED chief). Which one got the raw end of the deal?
Report this comment
CatB
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:31pmSounds like a real brain teaser … I would be hard to pick the winner or loser .. I would say both won because they deserve each other … or both lost for the same reason!
Report this comment
Carlinpa
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:10pmWhy do liberals ALWAYS bring up hunting? The amendment doesn’t mention hunting NOR is that a typical rebuttal from gun rights activists
Report this comment
CatB
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:40pmBecause they don’t want to ADMIT that they are in favor of TYRANNY … as long as they are the ones dishing it out. Yes the founders were quite clear they did not trust “government” FOR GOOD REASON.
Report this comment
oldduffer
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:08pmSo I guess this dummy would be willing to have an executive order rescind the first Amendment and any others that the media want the Obama Government to control?
Report this comment
DoOrDie
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:07pmThat’s because the American people have been quite for to long. The govt. has been passing unconstitutional law because we let them. It’s time for it to stop. The US govt thinks we a sheep. That we don’t have the balls to protect our freedoms. I hope their wrong.
Report this comment
Canada_Goose
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:03pmMs. Mitchell is of course correct. You don’t have to look any further than the Heller case, the majority opinion for which was penned by Justice Scalia.
Although the Supreme Court’s decision adopted the broader, individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Court also made it clear that the right to own a gun continues to have a number of significant qualifications or restrictions, including:
Not everyone can own a gun. The right does not extend to felons or the mentally ill.
Guns cannot be carried everywhere. Laws forbidding individuals from carrying firearms in “sensitive” places, such as schools and government buildings, will probably stand.
Certain restrictions on the sale of guns are allowed. Laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms will most likely stand.
Individuals do not have the right to carry certain types of guns. The right does not protect guns that are not generally owned for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. Just what kind of handguns may be possessed is not explicitly set forth in the opinion (apart from the one specific reference to sawed-off shotguns, which are not allowed).
The Court did endorse the “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons,’” but did not state whether such weapons include assault weapons or semi-automatic weapons.
Report this comment
Canada_Goose
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:08pmConcealed weapons. Laws forbidding people to carry concealed weapons on their person (or in a place close at hand, such as the glove compartment of a car) probably remain valid.
Sentence enhancements. A variety of criminal laws provide for increased punishment of offenders who use weapons when committing a crime. Heller does not affect the validity of these laws.
Report this comment
Stelex
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:11pmThe right does not extend to felons or the mentally ill.
Obviously you are gun free. Go away tool
Report this comment
progressiveslayer
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:15pmAt one time the SCOTUS said slavery was okay to so they got it wrong then just like they got it wrong now. Just because the SCOTUS is the final arbiter doesn’t mean they get it right.
Report this comment
RJJinGadsden
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:17pmGOOSE, did you bother to read the Heller Case? Essentially, the city of Washington DC essentially lost the case regarding their severe restrictions. Furthermore the point that the courts of this nation do not muzzle theater goers as they enter the theater. They hold responsible those who do violate the law. Not assume that all American Citizens who are capable of speech are not stopped from the practice in advance until they jump through certain federal hoops before going out in public. I suggest that you dislodge your head from the your fourth point of contact and try reading all of the Bill Of Rights. Practice some word comprehension while you’re at it.
Report this comment
Walkabout
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:40pmCanada Goose,
You are awfully concerned about the U.S. for a person who is from Canada. You have restricted gun rights & free healthcare you should be fat dumb 7& happy in Canada. Or maybe the 1st Nations are driving you crazy with their roadblocks in Ontario? Hoping to flee to a socialist paradise? Better top flee right than to fight back?
Report this comment
Canada_Goose
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:58pmRJJINGADSDEN
The question raised by this article is not whether the constitution protects the right of individuals to keep guns in their homes for personal use, a question which Heller decided in favour of gun owners, but whether there are restrictions on that right. Clearly justice Scalia wanted to maintain restrictions. Guns are dangerous enough that these restrictions are necessary in advance of an actual crime being committed.
Report this comment
ANTISOCIAL-IST
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 9:20pman unConstitutional law is no law at all.
“No Freeman Shall Ever Be Debarred the Use of Arms” TJ author of BOR. i’m sure he understood more the purpose of the Constitution/BOR than some political hack lawyer 230 yrs after the fact. it says what it says. it is what it is. where does this lifetime post originate? if scotus was the “final arbiter” ha of interpretation, then why are scotus appointments more important than the election of the prez? 230 yrs later we still need some lawyer to tell us what the Founders intent was? hooey.
Report this comment
drs1969
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 10:30pmThere is no end to their desire to confiscate. I was a felon for several years because the Dem’s passed a law here making it a felony to possess a gun within 1000 feet of a school and I live about 500 feet away. Before that, I was a felon for carrying a gun in my car. Those felony laws are now gone and so is the Dem. control of the state capitol.
Report this comment
Walkabout
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:04pmGun restriction solve the problem
Gun restriction would have prevented Klebold from using bombs to kill people.
If Klebold had been unable to procure guns would he have spent more time on testing & building bombs? The answer is yes.
A well placed bomb would have killed more people than a rifle with banana clip could. But we don’t expect wisdom form liberals.
Report this comment
elderbat
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:35pmyou’re trying to argue based on precedent, not on the 2nd amendment itself. better find a new method of disagreement because precedent in a court decision is NOT any formal repeal of an amendment. it still stands and you just can’t stand that, can you?
Report this comment
Walkabout
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 9:25amelderbat
youβre trying to argue based on precedent, not on the 2nd amendment itself
***
Liberals & lawyers love arguments based on precedence. It shows that they do not understand logic. I could have starting assumptions, argue logically for a while, make 1 illogical argument perfect logical statements. At the end of all that I may or may not have proved my conclusion.
Lawyers can be so blind.
Report this comment
hades3
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:00pmFor those who think that Mitchell might be a fool, every time she opens her mouth, she removes any doubts anyone might have.
Report this comment
neverwaiver
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:58pmYou have to be able to read first in order to understand the constitution!!!!!!!
Report this comment
YAHSHUARULES
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:14pmPeople demonstrating against our government in 60βs and throwing bombs are now tenured professsors writing books, teaching the teachers, running the teacherβs colleges,
Average patriotic America underestimates the importance and influence of education in our schools thatβs how the large majority we had to elect Reagan in a landslide in 1980 has been lost. Not because the left has lots of children β they abort theirs β they capture ours through the propaganda they teach them 7 hours a day for 13 years and even longer if they attend college. Losing most of our children to the other side because of the anti-God, anti-America, anti-capitalism they are being taught in government schools.
Not teaching basic reasoning processes, not teaching logic. If your education is limited, inclined to believe government solution to your problems – education/indoctrination to socialize child to be a tool of the state β to dumb down not teach to critically think. Once there is control of teacherβs unions, education colleges this becomes self perpetuating you remake the country in the schools rather then by throwing bombs.
Based on Identity politics teaching about tolerance, diversity, multi-culturalism – produce a collective, dependency mindset. Less then 10% of children in a poll believe in absolute right and wrong. Training them for a collective and dependency mindset.
If you have not watched…give this 5 minutes – you won’t walk away
https://vimeo.com/52009124
Report this comment
seemsew
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:57pmTwo big bruisers break into my house carrying AK’s. I have a sling shot with 7 pebbles. I lose. I suppose our lawmakers would say that this was “an unfortunate incident. Too bad…nothing we could do.
Report this comment
GoodStuff
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:18pmSling shots are not allowed to have magazines more than 6 pebbles.
Report this comment
The Giver
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:18pmIt worked for David vs Goliath.
Report this comment
CathyvanDyke
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:55pmIn response, Eric Pratt, of Gun Owners for America, provided a well thought out analogy that seemingly dismantled Mitchellβs argument.
βWhatβs interesting about that, though, is we donβt gag people before they go into the theater, we punish the lawbreakers,β he said. βAnd in the same way, we would argue punish those who abuse the right, but donβt gag law-abiding citizens before they exercise their right. We shouldnβt be registering them like sex offenders, like they are in New York. We shouldnβt be in any way impeding them if they have not committed a crime.β
++++++
YES!!!
Report this comment
decendentof56
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:07pmCathyVD…..
You will never change the mind of this “wicked witch of the left.” I cannot even look at this woman. I place her right up there with Behar, Fonda, Streisand, Maddow, and any other high-visibility woman on the Communist left.
She kept coming with the usual talking points of the radicals, and Pratt kept her at bay. Great job, Eric!
Report this comment
TIMEBOMB
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:55pmDear loyal subject Andrea I see you know your place and you’re working hard for me your supreme Marxist gay ruler. Keep up the good work you lesser than being and I might allow you to be in my presence and allow you to kiss my ring.
Report this comment
FISH_BONE
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:42pmAnd when she does, you can close your eyes and imagine she’s Bawney Fwank.
Report this comment
garbagecanlogic
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:53pmThis poor woman gets uglier everytime she appers on television. Perhaps it is the lights. She sould be retiring soon – she’s what, 80-85 now?
Praise Be To Obama. Psalm 109:8
The U.S. Out Of The U.N.
The U.N. Out Of The U.S.
Report this comment
Stelex
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:09pmYou are truly a generous man
Report this comment
ErinLindsey
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:52pmWhat part of “Inalienable” does she not understand???
Definition of “inalienable”:
inΒ·alΒ·ienΒ·aΒ·ble
/inΛΔlΔΙnΙbΙl/
Adjective
Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor: “inalienable human rights”.
Report this comment
PIGSWILLNEVERFLY
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 9:28pmunable to be bought or sold.
Report this comment
Stelex
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:50pmI still say the media is the one we need to target and correct, the media needs to be “corrected” Until we “correct” the media nothing will change. To many sheeple watch the MSM and most really don’t give a rats a$$. And those that do get nothing but misinformation and propaganda. The media needs to feel some heat.
Report this comment
progressiveslayer
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:49pmMitchell is an idiot and the perfect example of why nobody watches Barry’s propagandists. She says she has to obey the FCC,that’s a good little sheep for ya your dictator appreciates your spineless candy@ss position. The government can’t take away a right it never granted,you are a fool and an embarrassment to the human species. As much as I detest Barry’s propagandists of which you are one I would fight for your first amendment right to go on national television and prove your idiocy every night.
Report this comment
MN NICE
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:01pmI agree with you Slayer… But that woman’s mouth can flap like a ducks ass and there are times she should just drink a big ol’ cup of STFU
Report this comment
progressiveslayer
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:07pmLol I know what you mean but the first amendment is for all of us. ;)
Report this comment
YankeeDelta68
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:45pmjust a network of losers .
Report this comment
DadRocked
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:53pmMark Levin just said that Dennis Kucinich has joined Fox News…
What MSDNC didn’t want him?
Report this comment
Stelex
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:06pmDennis is an idiot no doubt. But will someone explain to me his wife……please. What has this little troll got, money no doubt but I still don’t think thats it. This guy’s got a secret side that Caligula would envy.
Just sayin, not judging, just an observation. Ok I’m damn jealous.
Report this comment
RJJinGadsden
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:26pmDADROCKED, Yeah, afraid that is true. Saw a spot earlier on Fox about that. I guess that he and Alan Colmes can have their personal little love fest. Hehehe, Kucinich is a rather small guy anyway.
Report this comment
DadRocked
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:57pmRJJ – “Kucinich is a rather small guy anyway.”
Short story…
Mid-90s – Was in Bay Village just west of Cleveland.
Crossed paths with him.
He reached into his pocket, took out a football card, signed it and gave it to me.
Front has his high school football team (St John Catius Jayhowks) with him wearing #26 and dwarfed by the other guys.
On the back says at 4’9″ and 97lbs that he was the 3rd string QB.
Bottom reads Elect Dennis J Kucinich State Senator.
I keep it because when I need a good chuckle I snag it from the back of my desk drawer.
My a maroon that guy was and he has never changed.
Report this comment
matinva
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:44pmLiberals are obviously products of the ‘public education system’. They simply cannot read. Let me spell it out; “…s h a l l n o t b e i n f r i n g e d.” Note the period at the end of the sentence.
What is it about the US Constitution that liberals don’t understand?
Report this comment
neverwaiver
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:54pmYou have to know how to read before you can understand the constitution
Report this comment
BODYBAG
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:04pm@MATINVA
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:44pm
Liberals are obviously products of the βpublic education systemβ. They simply cannot read. Let me spell it out; ββ¦s h a l l n o t b e i n f r i n g e d.β Note the period at the end of the sentence.
What is it about the US Constitution that liberals donβt understand?
——————————————————-
They understand it. They just dont like it.
This is a fundamental element of the liberal/progressive mind —
they’re elitist intellectuals — they’re Ivy League grads with big important accomplishments and big important careers. They have big important ideas and big important plans.
They’re smarter and more important than you. They have pure pedigrees and a destiny that you could not possibly fathom.
They are more important and know better than anyone else what is best. They trump the founding fathers and they even trump God himself.
They demand absolute complete authority because they’re important and they know best.
What you are witnessing right now is Progressivism in FULL BLOOM. They are GODS. They WON the election.
Conservatives submit themselves to founding principles —- to the Constitution & BORs. Christians submit themselves to GOD.
Progressives submit to nothing. They are GODS.
[remember ---- "We are the ones we've been waiting for", "The clouds will part, the waters will rise, and the land will heal"] ????
Report this comment
BODYBAG
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:27pm@BODYBAG
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:04pm
Progressives submit to nothing. They are GODS.
——————————————————–
This is what makes them dangerous.
This is why throughout history they become mass murdering dictators and tyrants.
Report this comment
taxpro4u03
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 9:38pmWords are mere lexiconic ‘symbols,’ arbitrary and subject to change without notice — (penalty ‘means’ tax) It’s modus operandi since the ‘conquest’ — see article of amendment #14 enacted July 28, 1868 for clarification – ‘immunites and privileges,’ a ‘voluntary’ exchange for RIGHTS — you may also ‘notice’ that the 2nd Organic Acts (‘new’ Constitution) took 9 years to be effected… A lamb’s tail is STILL not a leg even if it is ‘legal.’ PERIOD. No wonder Jeffy Davis’ Treason Trial was removed from jurisdiction via ‘presidential pardon…’ Hm.
Report this comment
drs1969
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 10:19pmThey’re Jewish Bolsheviks, the same people who brought down Czar Nicholas, killed millions of Russians and enslaved the Russian people for over 70 years. The saddest part is, 50 yrs. ago Alan Greenspan was for freedom and sound money.
Report this comment
salvawhoray
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:44pmShe talked to gun owners and they agreed with her. What BS.
Then she goes right into using the words “Hunting” & “Mag”
We need to put up all the people’s address that watch all these liberal news shows. It should help when the civil war starts.
Report this comment
RLTW
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:58pmI find it telling that this admin & the MSM are going after the one weapon that puts us anywhere near a level playing field with our own Rogue Gov.
Report this comment
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:44pmTalking philosophy to a Horses A$$ gets you no where, and soon, no one can tell who the A$$ is, that’s my analogy for talking to MSNBC Hosts.
Report this comment
Witness1974
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:51pmWhy is it that there are more horses asses than their are horses?
Report this comment
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:56pmWitness:
After someone becomes a Democrat, and after full indoctriantion, the lobotomy only leaves the A$$.
Report this comment
RJJinGadsden
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:59pmWITNESS1974, LOL, well that is where Mr Ed works, along with Niles Crane evil twin. Then there are the two biggest jackass asses there too, Miss Chrissy Matthews, and Martin Bashir. Oh yeah, there is that bovine member too, Rachel Madcow.
Report this comment
DIR
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 9:00pm@DARMOK: “After someone becomes a Democrat, and after full indoctriantion, the lobotomy only leaves the A$$.”
You are only half correct. It not only leaves the horses a$$, but the incredible stink that goes a long with it. not to mention those nasty things that don’t fall far from the horses rear.
It’s obvious that Andrea is concerned about gun ownership because she’s affraid that some day there will be declaired ‘open season on media a.h.s.’ She’s so full of it, she thinks that her head would make nice trophy on someone’s wall. Maybe if she had a fishing hook in her mouth and she could be accompanied by a trophy sturgeon .
Report this comment
Twinspeedr
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:42pmWhy are publicizing a show that no one watches? Do we feel sorry for people like Andrea Mitchell?
Report this comment
DeVain
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:40pmGawd…another liberal idiot.
What in the blue hell does Greenspan see in her? He used to be a smart guy but I think she ruined him.
Anyway….has the so-called left/right lines ever been so clearly defined? It is obvious both sides believe absolute total opposite of each other.
Report this comment
Red Meat
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:47pmEverything’s ok! No need to panic. Hannity is having Karl Rove on tonight to set us all straight on this issue.
LOL
What a pack of chumps on FNC.
Report this comment
1TrueOne55
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:51pmIt has been that way from the days of the Revolution when you had the Whigs and Democrat-Republicans. It is always that way with the number Two it shows division of ideas or whatever you have to delineate between.
I believe we should go to a more robust Political system maybe more like Israel or even England now. Where you have to create a coalition to govern, it might make partisanship harder to push among the people and would avert violence between political ideologies.
If she believes that you can infringe on the Second because of the first then maybe we should take all rules off of society and see if she likes that way better. So that anybody that does not like her speech can violently attack her physically and there would be no legal responsibility since there is no victim.
There is a Society that is like that, it is called Anarchy!
Report this comment
DoOrDie
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:52pmFor God’s sake, I hope she can suck a golf ball thru a garden hose.
Report this comment
RJJinGadsden
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:10pmDOORDIE, I shudder just thinking about that, but I guess you could ask Alan Greenspan if she can.
Report this comment
M13
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:14pmRedmeat, unless you are watching Fox News how on earth did you know Karl Rove is going to be on Hannity? You watch Fox News then whine about the chumps they are.
Report this comment
eat-more-bacon-USA
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:40pmNo one has ever accused Andrea Bitchell of being smart.
Report this comment
gyro
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:56pmall posts after this are copys of this with more words
Report this comment
Walkabout
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:42pmAndrea Mitchell grew up Jewish in the North east in a liberal home. She has no concept of the American Revolution, hunting as a tradition or anything that is nonsocialist.,
Report this comment