Presidential candidates on the second amendment
Over at The Volokh Conpsiracy.
3 Responses to “Presidential candidates on the second amendment”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:24 pm
The 2nd Amendment is a huge factor because tyrants always want to disarm the people. Another huge issue for me is whether a Presidential candidate intends to enforce the laws of the United States pursuant to (Artilce IV, Section 4) the Constitution and STOP THE INVASION of our country. One who refuses to “protect the States against invasion” is a traitor.
January 23rd, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Ron W:
Dude, you’re citing Article IV, Section 4 in response to illegal immigration? That seems paper-friggin-thin to me. Time to send up the Xrlq signal. Call Commissioner Gordon.
On the subject of illegal immigration, I can get behind just about any reform that starts with stiff penalties for companies who hire them. But I’m not sure even that would be effective unless you closed the inevitable Wal-Mart loophole (“We didn’t hire them! It was El Cheapo Subcontractors, Inc. Blame them!”).
January 24th, 2007 at 8:20 am
TGirsch, I agree. The only reason I didn’t respond to his frivolous Art. IV, Sec. 4 argument initially was because it struck me as too dumb to fisk. It’s one thing to yell cat calls at mediocre athletes who pull a boner on the field. It’s quite another to do so at the Special Olympics. As to what acts do or do not make someone a traitor under the Constitution, see Art. III, Sec. 3. The standard is a tad more exacting than “doesn’t do as good of a job enforcing a particular law as I wish that S.O.B. would.”