#45923
Profile photo of
Anonymous
Survivalist

This president, more than any other single factor, I believe will be the functional downfall of the 2nd Amendment. It can remain in the Constitution as originally written, and not even be challenged through constitutional amendment. The Administration is doing an end run around the Constitution on so many issues through the use of agency directives by appointed and employed government officials, executive orders, presidential directives that aren’t formally challenged other than through rhetoric by various congressmen and “news” people. People can scream and yell and protest all they want, but without formal challenges with legal decisions as to the rightness or wrongness of presidential directives (or agency policies), we have de facto changes in “law.” And when agencies attach penalties to the violation of their policies, we have enforced “law.” It doesn’t matter whether it’s EPA policies, ATF policies, ICE policies, or whatever – if it’s a policy from within the rule-writing “capabilities” of the various agencies, and it has statements of penalty attached, and those penalties are carried out, we have “laws.” And we have a president that is so comfortable and confident in his ability to carry out such things, that he publicly brags about having a “cell phone and a pen.”

Sledjockey, “public safety” is very much the false “justification” being used in public – it attaches to the “gut” of America, just as a former public health czar used, “It’s for the chillren!”, to gain public support. Then the “rules” are acceptable, just like the ban on tommy guns way back before any of our memories. It sounded good in the days of gangsters and a very different society, and people didn’t generally have a sense of need to arm themselves as we do today. Doors weren’t locked much of the time, handshakes were solemn promises that people could count on as much or more than a written contract, etc. It doesn’t matter what the era or the political climate – the argument will be made to emotions, not reason. And we’ve been educated not to respond to reason but to emotion. The latest push toward that, which could have everlasting and devastating consequences, is the new push to give the vote to 16 year olds (if you haven’t seen it – don’t laugh – they’re dead serious, including Nancy Pelosi). Read through this and see the emotional arguments made, with very little hint of any logical, scientific (i.e. neurological/social maturity) evidence to the contrary. And note the influential source: NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/us/politics/campaign-to-lower-voting-age-to-16-in-local-races-ignites-a-debate.html?_r=0

This is how it’s done. Appeal to emotion, hammer that point. Alinsky’s “Rules” truly do rule. The brilliance of the so-called “left” is not to be dismissed or simply laughed at. While we laugh or shake our heads, they make great strides.