The following New York Times opinion piece by the editorial board appeared on the front page of the newspaper on Saturday, December 5. It is the first time an opinion has appeared on page 1 since 1920.
End the Gun Epidemic in America
It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.
All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question of how the murderers might have been connected to international terrorism. That is right and proper.
But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.
It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.
Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.
But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.
It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.
Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.
What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?
There it is, folks. Absolutely something to think about.
I think my biggest resentment is that I do support 2nd amendment rights and I also agree for the most part with this opinion piece. Somehow, I am caught in the crossfire, if I might be so bold as to use that term, between supporting Americans’ right to bear arms and thinking that it is absolutely unconscionable that the average citizen can own guns that can blow away buildings and gut a full grown man like a fish in a matter of seconds.
Somewhere there has to be some sanity. Not everyone has what it takes to be able to use weapons of mass destruction in a safe way. Not everyone should qualify. I go back to my tiered system of gun ownership. Tier 1: Some people are excluded from gun ownership. Tier 2: All those who aren’t excluded will have access to these guns. Tier 3: There are certain guns that are deemed so dangerous in the wrong hands that Americans will have to qualify to own them.
Lastly, I believe its time to stop marginalizing those of us who aren’t in lock step with the NRA’s political machine. 37% of Americans own guns. Not all of us are in tune with the NRA. The more crap that comes out of the mouth of that organization by the likes of Ted Nugent and others like him, the further way the moderate gun owns will become.
At some point, Americans will get sick of these incidents and will start taking this issue to the polls. They haven’t yet but when they do, there will be a real problem.
So, in other words, this fascist wants to disarm Americans, infringe upon inalienable rights, and do so for our “own good,” which is the reasoning behind every dictator. And he’s willing to kill people to do so, because that will be what happens when citizen’s are “required Ato give them up.”
This forced confiscation is his idea of “reasonable?” Molon Labe.
Put him in the first position, of the stack coming through the door. Let him put his life where his mouth is. Let HIM be the first one shot in the head when he comes to infringe on a human right.
As for your idea, Moon…. we already have people not allowed to own weaponry. We already have access to weaponry. Your idea turns a right into a privilege. You,at least, are not advocating for mass confiscations by force.
No right is subject to polling. That is what you don’t get. You cannot get rid of inalienable rights by voting. The right to keep and bear arms is an inherent, inalienable right, like the right to free speech. Like the right to not be enslaved.
Period.
However, rights are not free from regulation. I don’t see you running around with nuclear weapons. The right is to bear arms. It doesn’t state which ones or what kind. That can clearly be regulated and is. I don’t see myself being able to go on TV and drop the F bomb. I can’t scream FIRE in a crowded theater.
You know, reasonable….
Do you want irresponsible bubbas to be able to have extreme military weapons? Answer in all honesty.
Tier one is already built in. Some people don’t have rights. I guess that was decided at the ballot box.
What if I don’t wish to comply? What then?
Will he send people with guns after me? To kill me for not acquiescing? In other words, he’s fine with people being killed, when its for his purposes.
As Michael Z Williamson, an author, writes in response to this edictorial:
No, I will not give up my guns. Now, what are you going to do about it?
If you say you’ll send someone to take them, then you’re admitting to a belief in using pre-emptive state sanctioned violence for political ends. The state can use that same violence against any other group it disagrees with, and you’ve endorsed the concept. Congratulations. You’ve just justified my reason for having guns. You’re also a coward, unwilling to act on your own behalf. You’re only comfortable with contract violence.
If you’re not going to do anything, then you’re just a whining, bleating sheep, and a moral coward I can safely ignore. This results in no harm to you. You have every right to be a bleating sheep. But, the bleating sheep don’t get to herd the sheepdog, and do get eaten by wolves.
So are you a coward or a fascist?
Either way, I am unswayed by your impotent bleating, and choose to ignore it.
We already have the other elements of your tiered system, and we have since 1934.
Leaving aside the nonsense spewed from the mouths of various media jackasses, to own any NFA category involves a background investigation from both local law enforcement and the BATF in most cases. These investigations usually take between 7-9 months to complete, and in some cases up to a year, so they’re not the run-of-the mill background checks one goes through to buy a revolver. Pass these and pay a number of fees and taxes and you are allowed to possess automatic weapons, suppressors, short barreled rifles, etc. i.e. you are in a higher “tier” than the average Harry gunowner. In sum it’s exactly the system you describe.
That’s good to know. Maybe some tweaking needs to be done.
Who is “he?”
What if the American people decide that people will not be allowed to buy bullets that will go through walls, just as an example. You either believe in rule of law or you don’t.
I actually don’t see how that compromises 2nd amendment.
I don’t know. I see a lot of paranoia and lawlessness being proposed. The 2nd amendment doesn’t say which guns and I don’t want to hear crap about founding fathers. They had no clue what kinds of weapons would be available.
I have to be honest. Sometimes when I hear some of you all speak, I become less moderate.
Frankly, some people do need their weapons taken away because they are headed down a road that spells death and destruction. right now we wait until they do something. Is that the best way?
Do you wait until Cujo attacks someone?
@ Cargo: to which “fascist” do you refer?
The Times editorial didn’t advocate anything inconsistent with the Second Amendment. There is, according to recent Supreme Court rulings, a personal (as opposed to National Guard) right to bear arms. However, it is a right subject to reasonable regulation. If the citizens of a state or municipality elect to limit that right to single shot muzzle loaders of a type common at the Founding, I would think that a very conservative, strict constructionist action. I also never miss a chance to argue that we should outlaw concealed carry (nothing antithetical to the Second Amendment in that) and require those single shot blunderbusses to be carried outside where we all can see them in luminescent pink holsters.
PS: if the San Bernardino shooters had been able to find no arms available other than 18th Century technology muzzle loaders, the butcher’s bill would have been considerably lower.
That’s rather comical. Some Mexican cartel or the Mexican Mafia or other similar criminal enterprises will always be out there to provide the bad guys with guns for a profit. Prohibition couldn’t keep out booze. The War on Drugs can’t keep out the drugs. Our national borders can’t keep out anything.
But, now, if we only had the sense to build a comprehensive border wall and man it in a truly effective way, we just might be able to put a bit of a dent in all kinds of illegal traffic……maybe………
I have the right to keep and bear any arm that defend me, mine, or my freedom.
The compromise at the moment is that all arms, in common lawful use, suitable for a militia are protected by the 2nd amendment. That includes ammo, magazines, and any other accessory needed to make that weapon effective.
All people have rights. Who gets to decide who the “irresponsible bubbas” are? Bloomberg? Obama? You? No rights have been removed by the ballot box. The courts have stated that even illegal aliens have the right to keep and bear arms, and that they are not breaking the law by mere possession. If you are adjudicated to be a felon or a danger, you have your rights restricted via due process. ALL of your rights.
“Extreme weapons” What do you mean by that? People have the right to keep and bear the arms that I described. They are also able to legally buy anything that they can afford as long as they jump through the ATF hoops and bring a lot of money. That includes automatic weapons, anti-tank guns, cannon, WORKING tanks, etc.
You cannot go on the TV and drop the F-Bomb because, according to current law, the TV airwaves don’t belong to you. However you are not prevented from doing so, but merely penalized for breaking the law. And you most certainly can yell “Fire” in a crowded theater. No law prevents you from speaking out. You are penalized if you do so fraudulently. If you can prove that you even THOUGHT that there was fire and you did it to save lives….you are fine.
That’s what you want it to be. That isn’t what the 2nd amendment says.
Try putting up a big-ass catapult in your yard, aimed at traffic. How about pots of boiling oil all around the perimeter of your property line? The point is, not, you don’t have the right to keep or bear any arm.
Who gets to decide who criminals are? The voters. We, as a society, get to decide what laws we want and don’t want. Felons don’t lose all their rights. Felon’s rights aren’t lost equally in all 50 states either. But who decides? Ultimately, the voters do. Sometimes governors make that decision since voter rights have been returned by both McDonnell and McAuliffe.
The point is, you don’t have fully free speech. I can’t think of a single right that isn’t regulated in some form.
As for the extreme weapons…I don’t think civilians need these kinds of weapons. Perhaps that might be a place to start. If someone needs that kind of weapon, let them apply for it.
I think an individual owning a tommy gun, a working tank or anything like that is simply outrageous in 99% of the cases. Are there reasons? Sure. Those are exceptions.
Yes.. we’ve seen your silly ideas. Even the SCOTUS makes fun of that argument about muskets in Heller.
The fascist that promotes the confiscation of weapons and infringes on human rights.
Since you seem to feel that his editorial proposed reasonable ideas for controlling the populace, the shoes seem to fit you too.
Right…. apparently you missed the pipe bombs. Or the fact that 9/11 was committed with box cutters. Or McVeigh used fertilizer.
I think the pertinent part of the NY Times editorial is this:
These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection.
It aptly describes those who don’t believe in the ballot box but are willing to considering overthrowing a government that doesn’t support their own agenda.
That attitude is making a lot of moderate Americans ill-at-ease. They can also no longer use the law-abiding citizen argument.
That would be people like Bill Ayers, the President’s close friend.
The rest of us merely want to exercise our protected civil liberties. Your quote is nonsense and bigotry. Funny how you agree with it…oh…wait…no its not.
Bill Ayers is not the President’s close friend. Get over that one.
It reminds me of that dude who wanted to let his cattle herd roam all over public lands then he refused to pay his taxes. He had a stand off and even closed down the interstate. Now that would be my idea of a dude who wanted to overthrow the government.
If you say that if law x, y, or z is passed, you simply won’t obey it, what exactly does that mean?
Most law-abiding people will make statements like they will do everything in their power so it doesn’t happen…not that they will disregard it. Rule of Law, anyone?
Complete baldersdash.
The “attitude” is a false narrative, created by idiots like the NY Times writer.
If an American is ill at ease because of the exercise of a civil liberty, then get educated on the purpose of the 2nd amendment.
It is there to protect an individual right. That right is there for a citizen to use force in defense of life and liberty.
You have a problem with having the tools to defend life and liberty?
I have a problem with an average job owning military grade weapons who hasn’t shown a need to own them…yea, pretty much.
If someone wants to go to war, join the military.
If laws are passed and you say you wont obey them, well…what do we call that?
Hmmmmm…..I feel the A word forming in my mouth.
@Cargosquid
Who even thinks of Bill Ayers except Obama haters?
You need to step back from your computer and go outdoors with your family and have a bit of fun. You’ve named called all over the internet. You’re better than that. Go relax.
Does that include cities and localities that refuse to enforce immigration laws (more commonly known as sanctuary cities)? Just wondering…
It isn’t the job of cities and municipalities to enforce federal law. Sanctuary city is a dog whistle.
Cities by all means should cooperate with apprehending criminals.
Military grade?
No one is using military weapons in crimes.
No one “needs” to own them. They have a right to own them.
If someone wants to go to war? Who is saying “war?”
Not obeying unconstitutional laws is a hallowed tradition. Its called civil disobedience. If pushed far enough, it becomes civil unrest.
For example…. NY has the SAFE Act that mandates registration of all rifles and confiscation or removal of “unapproved rifles.” 95% non compliance. And the Sheriffs are not willing to enforce it.
So the sheriffs don’t believe in rule of law either? Ok. so when does that become anachry? Can we pick and choose our own laws?
You think you have a right to have whatever weapon you want. Many people feel the opposite. It is possible to satisfy both conditions. In fact, we are doing that now. Perhaps we just need to move the needle a little further to the left.
I bet you would throw the same back at me if I started that same song about abortion, wouldn’t you?
In that case, Federal law should not be enforced by ANY law enforcement units outside of the feds. No drug laws. No firearm laws. Nothing.
In fact, the states should not cooperate at all, since it isn’t their “job.”
Btw….illegally entering the country makes you a criminal by definition. See the word…”illegal.”
Not really. Once they are here, their mere presence isn’t illegal.
Its like speeding…that caliber of law-breaking.
Most states have drug laws that model federal laws.
I wouldn’t scoff at asking the cities and states to do the job of the feds. You want to pay for it? I do not.
I am hoping that most people who hold views like Cargosquid’s are old and uneducated and that people like that will just eventually die off and our society can change for the better. Whenever all this entire blather about gun rights and the right to bear arms against the possible tyrannical government started, it represented the beginning of a slow decline in America that will hopefully someday be righted. I can only hope and pray that people who believe things like this get marginalized for the kooks that they really are.
Enough. I have had enough and I am no longer willing to have patience with this type of rhetoric.
The last thing I want to do is to defend Cargo or those of his ilk, however, he is an American citizen who has a right to hold his own personal views and advocate for those views. He certainly will die off but others will take his place. Liberals cannot just dismiss the Cargos of this world. Cargo’s views must be taken into consideration.
Currently, what is getting in our way to find a solution to mass killings is our inability to compromise. The answer can’t be “everyone turn in their guns” or “everyone arm themselves to the teeth”. There is middle ground that can reduce mass killings and, at the same time, protect the average citizens right to have guns. It seems to me that we have to dismiss those on both sides that are unwilling to seek this solution as adults.
Second amendments from God and pink holsters do not cut it.
Common ground is how we move forward. Not everyone will get his or her own way totally.
So, basically, I agree, Mr. BS.
@bsinva I disagree. I don’t think I need to give any credence to the pro gun anti-government rhetoric and I think mostly it preys on people’s fear. I think it’s gone on too long and I have had Enough. I am not saying he can’t say it, I’m just saying I think it’s a bunch of bull crap rhetoric and I’m hoping these old uneducated people will eventually fade into history. They are on the wrong side of history, just like others who try to scream the loudest because most sane people aren’t biting. I have had enough. The silent majority is on the middle and it’s time to be heard.
Remove ammunition from the marketplace and sell it only through licensed dealers. Make possession of more than 25 rounds per gun a felony. Gun ranges would have ammunition and collect the empty shells after a session. Hunters would need to add devices to collect spent shells so they could be recycled. Add a serial number to every cartridge and track it. You still would have gun violence but it will be harder for terrorist of any ilk to amass the killing power that they do now. Just to be clear, we aren’t taking the guns, just excessive bullets. An Andy Griffin sort of compromise for people who can’t control their emotions around firearms. (Then terrorists will start making bombs again but that is an easier problem to defend against than guns.) If someone complains that they need 1,000 bullets to defend themselves we know they are a terrorist in waiting.
You don’t need to kill people to disarm them. If someone has guns and refuses to give them up just drive up to them with a robotic tank and either incapacitate the person or the gun. Without an operating gun the arrest should be possible without deadly violence.
If gun owners amass as a militia that is treasonous insurrection and a declaration of civil war; a spectre or a cobra gunship will end that pretty quickly.
I can imagine an invention that uses a modulated high frequency sound or a laser to cause bullets to explode. That device would make a stockpile of weapons a liability and not an asset to an insurrectionist. No one has invented this because there has not been a need, but if gun owners become terrorists, such devices would be invented and guns would be neutralized as terrorist’s go to device.
The blather to which you refer was present from the earliest days of our Republic. Federalist Paper 28 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed28.asp) by Alexander Hamilton includes such blather. Clearly those who started this blather have died off, but those of us who have seen how quickly the constraints of civilization and government can break down (in places like the Middle East) will not let this blather fade into history.
Perhaps it is people like Watching that need to be educated.
Kelly, we are both southerners–you and I. Let’s look at what our ancestors considered a tyrannical government. How did that work out for us?
I don’t think we can consider ourselves anything like the middle east. It isn’t guns preventing that from happening either.
Here is what it is going to come to. there are just too many crackpots out there armed to the teeth. You non crackpots who enjoy your arms are going to have to figure out a way to keep the crackpots from having free access to huge quantities of weapons that can kill multiple people in a matter of seconds.
Its really ridiculous that we are having to have this conversation. why do you want some complete A-H to have access to a freaking arsenal? I just don’t get it!!!!
Cargo — You old, uneducated, insane, and evil terrorist enabler you! It appears that some are hoping that you will soon die and fade away. Isn’t that so generous of them?
Damned shame I say. You’ve always seemed like an o.k., stand up guy to me.
@ Cargo (#12) I was under the impression that the San Bernardino deaths were as a result of gunshot wounds. If the weapons used by the murderers had been single shot muzzle loaders, I feel fairly confident in my speculation (and it is that, of course) that the death toll would have been lower.
Justice Scalia’s opinion in Heller made a particular point of saying that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on the longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualification on the commercial sale of arms.” Justice Alito repeated those assurances in McDonald. Scalia also noted that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons “were lawful under the Second Amendment. . . .”
There have been several petitions to the Supreme Court since 2010 seeking review lower court support for local regulations regulating firearms. The Court has refused every single one. They have declined to hear challenges to a San Francisco requirement that handguns have trigger locks or be stored in safes when not in use (remember Heller?). They batted down two cases brought by the NRA challenging age restrictions on gun sales. In 2013, they rejected an appeal of a challenge to New York State regulations on carriage outside the home. Today (thanks, Supreme Court, for helping me with my Moonhowlings positions), they rejected a municipal ban on sales of semiautomatic weapons.
The point is that state and local governments have considerable leeway to regulate sales, types, and carriage of weapons. My mandatory open carriage requirement would be well within the repeatedly recognized reasonable regulation acknowledgement that the Court always takes pains to extend. My single shot muzzle loader requirement might require more advocacy energy, but I think it worth a proffer for purposes of stimulating healthy debate.
BTW, Cargo, just what “ilk” are you anyway?
@Kelly-3406 The founding fathers are rolling over in their graves and would be disgusted by the twisted interpretation of the constitution they created and where it has led us to today. I am so sick of that argument it rings so hollow. Let’s start debating about what a well REGULATED militia would look like. In addition while you are blathering, if you can’t see that economic turmoil is the underpinning of most government failure in the Middle East then I can’t educate you. I don’t believe we are at risk for that in the US at the moment. I’ve had enough. But this is all just my opinion so it really doesn’t matter. BTW, I read Hamilton’s piece and I find it funny that you are interpreting someone who believed in strong central government and led the first national “army” to support your position. I also find it ironic you would use Hamilton since he was killed by a gun, lol. The founding fathers were not gods, their opinion’s are quite fallible. Especially since they all didn’t agree.
Gun smugglers don’t sell single-shot muzzle loaders anymore. No market for them except a few collectors and museums. Now, if you want to acquire very quietly an AK-47 and 1000 rounds, I don’t doubt that there are people out there who can readily accommodate you. Probably the same guys bringing in the meth and heroin for the school kids and the illegal immigrants for some of our employers.
Can you imagine cops going around PWC with some sort of “modulated high frequency sound or laser” trying to blow up hidden caches of bullets? Holy cow.
I think the “founding fathers” are probably rolling over in disgust in their graves because of what they see in the Oval Office in 2015.
@wolve Really, is that the best you can do? Lower yourself to mudslinging at a highly educated, moderately tempered, president who was the first president in over 5 decades to win at least 51 percent of the national vote twice? Who saw us through a massive recession that has led to record all time corporate profits? That oversaw the extrication of the US from two major conflicts? What am I missing here, why the disgust? I think they would see a man who has served without some hidden agenda except to make this a better country for all Americans.
If single shot muzzle loaders were the only permitted personal carry weapons (open, not concealed, mind you), Wolve, I’m sure the gun manufacturers would rise to the occasion and turn out enough copies out to satisfy demand. I’d be willing to stipulate that, while they should be of 18th century design, they could be manufactured in the 21st Century.
Now, if #38 isn’t a prime example of a praise song for The Leader. Sounds like something out of Pyongyang.
But…..Wait just a cotton picking minute here! Who around this place started off using founding fathers rolling over in graves and being disgusted? And then there was “old” and “uneducated” and hoping people die and fade away. Yeesh. These mudslinging Alinskyite libs can’t even remember what nasty stuff they’ve said from one post to the next.
I have noticed a tendency for some of our contributors to act like the current president hi-jacked the White House and no one voted for him. Such is not the case. He won the election, fair and square, without help from the Supreme Court. He even won the popular vote.
This is like some sort of slut shaming or something. vote shaming?
@Scout
Better be a crack shot…cause one is all you’re gonna get.
Good…. If you don’t have patience with this type of rhetoric….shut up and go away. It is people like yourself that I truly do hope die soon and end this downslide of the US.
Started the same song about abortion? No one is threatening to arrest anyone because they exercised a human right.
Abortion is legal. It entails the legal ending of an innocent human life. Thus the controversy.
The right to keep and bear arms harms no one. Shooting is strictly regulated and murder is illegal.
Thank you, BS.
@Watching
“The silent majority is on the middle and it’s time to be heard.”
Check the sale of firearms on Black Friday in response to the gun control bigots calls for “discussion” over Thanksgiving.
The silent majority is arming itself. 210 million NICS checks since 1998. That means that at least ONE new gun was sold. Ownership and carry is skyrocketing. Polls asking about more gun control even on liberal sites or by liberal news media are overwhelmingly replying “NO.”
You are the one that is on the wrong side of history. Fade away.
Why thanks! Back at’cha! We terrorist enablers have to stick together. We must plot some evil together over good whiskey.
“What am I missing here, why the disgust?”
The ongoing recession and stagnation.
The dishonesty
The lying
The incompetence
The putting of party and himself over country
The corruption
The unconstitutionality
“That oversaw the extrication of the US from two major conflicts?”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
His desire to leave Iraq resulted in his failure to negotiate with Malik for a new agreement, so we left on Bush’s timetable.
That failure has him putting boots on the ground in Iraq now.
We are STILL in Afghanistan for unknown reasons.
We illegally attacked Libya, a nation assisting us in the war on terror.
He comically threatened a sovereign nation, Syria. He then involved us in their civil war, arming the rebels without congressional authorization. Those rebels defected to ISIS, thus, Obama armed ISIS.
His incompetence has him ignoring the threat of ISIS….”They are the JV.”
When you get a clue, get back to us. I hope this “rhetoric” isn’t too harsh for you.
@Moon-howler
Oh no…. we know that people voted for Obama.
Thus, intelligent people have lost all respect for the US voter. The fact that the US voter re-elected this inept, incompetent, corrupt, dishonest narcissist in the face of the worst economic disaster since Carter, is proof that our media and education system has completely and utter failed us.
Now, with the rise of the even MORE corrupt and more incompetent Hillary Clinton as a possible candidate…… the fact that she’s even being considered, is an indictment of the Democrats and a judgement on their sanity and values.
But, my dear blogmeister, the fellow was never properly vetted. They locked all his personal records away. Everybody in the country became one of those “low information voters,” whether they favored the guy or not. All we got was hope and change and never mind anything on his background. It took a long fight just to get a birth certificate. Ya just gotta believe!!
Sort of reminds of the kind of visa vetting job done on that now-deceased Pakistani lady from San Bernardino.
Properly vetted? What exactly do you mean by that?
I don’t think his election was any different than anyone else’s in recent history. There were those who liked him and those who didn’t. Sort of like George W. Bush.
The last I heard, we don’t “vet” our presidents.
I never saw Geroge Bush’s birth certificate. Should I be concerned? I also never saw his service record.
@Moon-howler
Well, let’s see now. An example. When Elena Kagan was nominated to the Supreme Court, I and everyone else was able to read her entire undergraduate thesis from Columbia. I thought that was a good thing to do, even though I didn’t support her appointment. The thesis was very informative and well done in my estimation.
I don’t even know the title of Obama’s Columbia undergrad thesis or even if he wrote one because everything of his has been tightly under wraps from the get-go. Why is that? Ashamed of it? Something in the file that he didn’t want the public to see?
That example is only a small part of the missing Obama file. If I am vetting you and you tell me I cannot have access to such records, I threaten to throw your application in the trash can. Simple as that, blogmeister.
Supreme Court nominees are appointed. I don’t think we vet elected people. We can ask for things. They can say no, its done of our business. It really is up to the voters.
Do you remember how hard it was to get Bush’s military record? It was still up to him to release it or not.
Darn funny thing about vetting. This POTUS won his first election in Illinois against a heavily favored Republican candidate when someone just happened to get access to the closed court divorce record of the latter. The contents of that record seemed to turn the election right around. Imagine that. The strangest things can happen in life. Maybe that’s why the Obama files are verboten to us. You think? Maybe? Perhaps?
It doesn’t matter to me. He is the duly elected president. If he got an F in chemistry, who really cares. I got one in math and one in Italian.
Yup. That’s the idea, Wolve (@#44). One’s not great, but it’s better than 4 or or 9 or 14 or 24 or 33.
Why are you so interested in someone’s undergraduate thesis? I wrote some dreadful stuff as an undergraduate that would give no indication of my current brilliance. I suspect that might be true of a lot of folks. There’s no 20 year old that I would vote for as President of the United States.
No, Scoutie, that’s not the idea. Sigh.
Attention: I said: “example.” (You can get out your dictionary if you need to at this point.) I pulled out the Obama dossier in 2008 to get a good look at the whole man, including his “autobiographies.” I got virtually zero. Apparently locked in a vault somewhere. Now, maybe liberals like yourself feel comfortable voting for blank slates and then crossing your fingers and toes…….myself, no. To each his own.
Well, we all know that you were going to vote for Obama and then changed your mind at the last minute. [best serious poker face]
I have been a long-time McCain supporter, Wolve, and voted for Romney in 2012. I didn’t find either of to be a blank slates or particularly “liberal” by any measure. I thought Romney to be one of the most qualified candidates we have fielded in many years. Any reservations I had about McCain were related to his age (I would have preferred for him to have been the 2000 candidate) and his choice of running mates. In any event, both of these candidates were a considerable cut above most of the current crop.
I would have liked Romney if he had stayed his Massachusetts self. His conservative make over did him no favors and he wasn’t wearing someone else’s clothes well.
McCain–his choice of running mates was a deal breaker.
That certainly gives me pause. One of those blank slate voters then, are you, blogmeister? You weren’t even the least bit curious in 2008 about what Obama was hiding in all the data which was placed (and still is) off limits to us and the media? You? Nah, I can’t believe it.
McCain. Good Lord. The man should have retired long ago. 2008 was a miserable political year.
I am asking why you care now. what are you gong to do about it now? what wasn’t released? I have forgotten. The birth certificate is simply stupid. No other president has been asked for one.
I just don’t want it to become a bad national habit. That’s a part of “Hope and Change” which was absolutely not good — as demonstrated by the seven subsequent years.
You are aware that not everyone agrees with you?
@Watching
A well-regulated militia referred to the appointment of officers and the equipment/weapons that the militia was required to have on hand.
My point about the founding fathers is not that they were infallible or that they all agreed, but rather that the same arguments about force to remove a tyrannical government were made from the very beginning. Your earlier post stated that those supporting “the right to bear arms against the possible tyrannical government … represented the beginning of the slow decline of America.” If you are right, then America must have been in slow decline since 1787.
You should also be aware that the present rate of gun violence is reduced by a factor of two compared to the 1990s. This reduction was achieved even as the number of guns in America increased dramatically over the same period. So it is not clear that stricter gun control would reduce the rate of violence in the US.
Based on what we have seen in Europe, strict gun control would not reduce terrorism. If anything, it may increase the number of victims, because the terrorists would not have to worry about anyone shooting at them. Disarmed citizens would allow the terrorists more time to leisurely pick out targets.
Yes, I am aware. There is no accounting for taste. But I think the number is growing smaller. There’s some hope for the country in that.