First, a sorta’ mea culpa. I admit that I have liked N.J. Gov. Chris Christie’s style in many posts here in the past. I still do. I have cast doubts about him in regards to gun rights. Bethatasitmay, I have to agree with Glenn Reynolds in his brief post here:
CHRIS CHRISTIE: Top dog in New Jersey and in 2016? [link to a WaPo story] [Glenn then writes:] Christie has some chops, but I think that Republicans are going to take some persuading before they nominate another northeastern governor of dubious conservative bona fides.
Unfortunately, I believe that Biden is right and (hopefully facing a hostile House) Obama will then (unfortunately) issue Executive Orders for drastic gun control. It’s not that easy for Congress to undo one. As for the courts? We’ve seen that Justice Roberts turned out to be a fake, phony, fraud as a ‘conservative’ and with the likelihood that Obama will get to appoint at least one more liberal to the SCOTUS bench, we won’t see any relief, there.
In 2016, Republicans need to “put their balls in their pocket” and nominate someone who really is conservative in regards The Constitution. He or she MUST believe that the Second Amendment means — not what liberal scholars parse it as, today, but, — what the Founding Fathers and authors of it intended it to mean and, any of their collateral writings prove that they believed that all law-abiding (you wouldn’t be in the citizen ‘militia’ if you weren’t) citizens should have the right to own and carry firearms for any purpose.
Why do we need such a nominee? Because it’s much easier for a sitting president to issue an Executive Order rescinding a previous president’s Executive Order.
Gun rights aren’t a “social issue.” Not only are they written into the original Bill of Rights but, they are the NATURAL RIGHT of every living creature on Earth and elsewhere.
10 Responses to “Christie for 2016? Hell No!”
Leave a Reply
(Be sure to answer the anti-spam question!)
on 10 Jan 2013 at 7:17 pm # m m good
Whatever the 2nd amendment may have once meant, in this country at this moment it does not mean that you and I have the right to armaments of any type. The nation (the people and their elected representatives) will not tolerate you driving up to an airport with a mobile anti-aircraft battery, whether or not you have otherwise shown yourself to be a law-abiding citizen. No supreme court of any political composition would ever interpret the 2nd amendment as giving you that right. So that means in principal there are and will be restrictions on private possession of armaments. The question is what those restrictions shall be.
I don’t expect any great changes from the compromises currently in force, as opinions in the country are sharply divided.
on 10 Jan 2013 at 9:38 pm # comatus
Congrats, Jeff. You have a troll!
on 11 Jan 2013 at 7:55 am # Lazarus Long
M&M: please don’t confuse “arms” with “ordnance”.
on 11 Jan 2013 at 10:24 am # guffaw
“every living creature on Earth and elsewhere.”
I respectfully disagree.
I don’t think lions, tigers and bears have a Natural right to be armed.
Humans, of course!
On which planet or dimension they are located is not of my concern.
:-)
gfa
on 11 Jan 2013 at 12:11 pm # m m good
L L: thanks, and please explain the distinction. I’m not sure that you, I, and James Madison all use the same dictionary.
I think in raising the distinction, you are suggesting that it will be useful to discover where the lines must be drawn, i.e. what are the legally permissible restrictions on weapons.
In case the distinction lies in the wheel carriage, feel free to substitute shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles for artillery.
on 11 Jan 2013 at 3:52 pm # comatus
Guff, lions and tigers and bears? You are at variance with the framers, old man. They were all het up for the “bear arms” thing.
Bet you could keep Biden up all afternoon debating that point.
on 11 Jan 2013 at 4:51 pm # Jeff
Lions, tigers, and bears have their own, natural, built-in defenses in the form of claws and fangs.
Humans don’t have those so we have to invent our own defenses and I want a defense at least equal to what bad humans (i.e. criminals) have for offense.
All academic of course. The natural right of defending yourself, your family, friends, and property is not - or should not - ever be infringed by a government supposedly of, by, and for the people.
on 11 Jan 2013 at 8:38 pm # emdfl
Jeff,
why don’t you suggest that your troll come back after it has managed to undo some of its incredible ignorance regarding armaments that were OWNED by various private individuals at the time of the First Revolution.
on 12 Jan 2013 at 11:36 am # socrates
Hello emdfl and comatatus, Can you offer any instance in which mm good has failed to be polite and respectful? I cannot find any instance of provocative or disrespectful commentary. How people of good will should join together to form a government capable of keeping order while respecting rights is no simple matter. Do you believe that taunts or name calling promote understanding difficult matters?
on 13 Jan 2013 at 11:16 am # SDN
So, between “m m Good”, “guffaw”, and “socrates”, sounds like you’ve hit the trifecta….