http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_GUNS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-03-09-04-23-02
One of the best ways to not involve ones self in an argument is to not participate.... Pretty simple when the argument is between those in which you have no vested interest. BUT....
The POTUS is the "leader of the United States of America" and "the free world", should you lend yourself to that second point of view. So why wouldn't the leader of our country not be inserting himself into the middle of this debate???
Just from my point of view.... The POTUS can't allow himself to have his name directly linked to challenges to the "...right of the people to keep and bear arms...".
Notice this statement.... There is no specific application to the previous mention of the militia keeping and bearing arms. The statement is meant for the general populace to be allowed to keep and bear arms in that a militia is derived from that same populace.
Sure, we now have a National Guard for the various branches of the military. This is for the purpose of the government to call those members into action. A militia is the citizen soldier that is called into service by the desire to stand against an aggressive government or foreign invader that the government could not stop.
There is where the argument gets blurred by those that scream for the control and removal of firearms from the private citizen. A fear driven by the abuse of the right to posses a firearm. Not that the firearm is responsible for the lunacy we currently see, but that the justice system has failed in the application of the law.
But for a leader of a country, and indeed that of the United States, to stand by and allow the debate to rage without openly inserting influence in either direction or facilitating an equitable result is for but one reason. Deniability. Bubba taught us that slick move....
There will always be those that abuse the freedoms of any society. That abuse exist even in the environment of Socialist / Totalitarian governments where freedoms are restricted to the lowest oppressive level. But in the Socialist society it's the abuse of all citizens except the elite, which would still exist despite the claims of total equality for all.
But this is not to say the POTUS doesn't already have the personal agenda in action, even behind the scenes. Assuredly there are movements throughout the nation that are reflective of the position and desires of the current administration. Those can be seen in the parade of police chiefs that claim to support the removal of "assault weapons" and tightening of the type of other weapons available for just one example.
With such a vocal outcry by those that support gun ownership it's no wonder the POTUS wants to 'appear' silent on the motions and maneuverings of the front line debate. But the lack of open involvement is only a classic move that is used to allow the massive number of easily distracted Americans (see ADHD) and just plain ignorant Americans (involuntary and otherwise) to think of their lord and savior Obama as nothing less than the demigod he presents himself to be.
Those Americans have already forgotten the liberal dusting of pointless executive orders, that amount to basically a restating of the already in place laws of the land. Yet another move to distract the general public into thinking, because of their astute ignorance, that something new has been presented for the salvation of us all.
If there be blood for the cost of the cause of freedom, then on this one subject that could be brought to fruition in that regard. And in this stands another reason that the POTUS would distance himself as an innocent bystander forced into coming to the rescue of the poor citizens threatened by the "national emergency" of an uprising.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/09/us-hungary-protest-idUSBRE9280EO20130309
People of Hungary rising up against a leader that finds the constitution of that country inadequate to meet the restrictions required to maintain control. Interesting.
Causes one to reflect on the statements of our own leader over many years in seeing our own Constitution as flawed and inadequate. There are always reasons for review of laws and the modification of some to fit the current need. And in that we have the Bill Of Rights.
But a constitution is a foundation on which a country is built. The grounding principles that are not changed by time. It's a statement of basic belief and the banner under which a people gather to be protected by those beliefs.
Changing those founding principles with a new constitution are only required if the country no longer exists as it's founders intended.
Have our basic beliefs changed or our country ceased to exist as it was intended??? Not for the United States of America that existed only a few years ago. But for those that support the current administration, the America of even my younger years is an enemy to be driven from existence.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/09/23/why-the-fuss-obama-has-long-been-on-record-in-favor-of-redistribution/
One of the best ways to not involve ones self in an argument is to not participate.... Pretty simple when the argument is between those in which you have no vested interest. BUT....
The POTUS is the "leader of the United States of America" and "the free world", should you lend yourself to that second point of view. So why wouldn't the leader of our country not be inserting himself into the middle of this debate???
Just from my point of view.... The POTUS can't allow himself to have his name directly linked to challenges to the "...right of the people to keep and bear arms...".
Notice this statement.... There is no specific application to the previous mention of the militia keeping and bearing arms. The statement is meant for the general populace to be allowed to keep and bear arms in that a militia is derived from that same populace.
Sure, we now have a National Guard for the various branches of the military. This is for the purpose of the government to call those members into action. A militia is the citizen soldier that is called into service by the desire to stand against an aggressive government or foreign invader that the government could not stop.
There is where the argument gets blurred by those that scream for the control and removal of firearms from the private citizen. A fear driven by the abuse of the right to posses a firearm. Not that the firearm is responsible for the lunacy we currently see, but that the justice system has failed in the application of the law.
But for a leader of a country, and indeed that of the United States, to stand by and allow the debate to rage without openly inserting influence in either direction or facilitating an equitable result is for but one reason. Deniability. Bubba taught us that slick move....
There will always be those that abuse the freedoms of any society. That abuse exist even in the environment of Socialist / Totalitarian governments where freedoms are restricted to the lowest oppressive level. But in the Socialist society it's the abuse of all citizens except the elite, which would still exist despite the claims of total equality for all.
But this is not to say the POTUS doesn't already have the personal agenda in action, even behind the scenes. Assuredly there are movements throughout the nation that are reflective of the position and desires of the current administration. Those can be seen in the parade of police chiefs that claim to support the removal of "assault weapons" and tightening of the type of other weapons available for just one example.
With such a vocal outcry by those that support gun ownership it's no wonder the POTUS wants to 'appear' silent on the motions and maneuverings of the front line debate. But the lack of open involvement is only a classic move that is used to allow the massive number of easily distracted Americans (see ADHD) and just plain ignorant Americans (involuntary and otherwise) to think of their lord and savior Obama as nothing less than the demigod he presents himself to be.
Those Americans have already forgotten the liberal dusting of pointless executive orders, that amount to basically a restating of the already in place laws of the land. Yet another move to distract the general public into thinking, because of their astute ignorance, that something new has been presented for the salvation of us all.
If there be blood for the cost of the cause of freedom, then on this one subject that could be brought to fruition in that regard. And in this stands another reason that the POTUS would distance himself as an innocent bystander forced into coming to the rescue of the poor citizens threatened by the "national emergency" of an uprising.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/09/us-hungary-protest-idUSBRE9280EO20130309
People of Hungary rising up against a leader that finds the constitution of that country inadequate to meet the restrictions required to maintain control. Interesting.
Causes one to reflect on the statements of our own leader over many years in seeing our own Constitution as flawed and inadequate. There are always reasons for review of laws and the modification of some to fit the current need. And in that we have the Bill Of Rights.
But a constitution is a foundation on which a country is built. The grounding principles that are not changed by time. It's a statement of basic belief and the banner under which a people gather to be protected by those beliefs.
Changing those founding principles with a new constitution are only required if the country no longer exists as it's founders intended.
Have our basic beliefs changed or our country ceased to exist as it was intended??? Not for the United States of America that existed only a few years ago. But for those that support the current administration, the America of even my younger years is an enemy to be driven from existence.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/09/23/why-the-fuss-obama-has-long-been-on-record-in-favor-of-redistribution/
Check out the link and see what other nations have seen and are most likely shocked that a country that has so long been the glue that held the world together could actually elect an individual that sees it as a flawed and inadequate failure.
Our nation has failed. It's failed to stand for the foundation laid so many years ago and has brought a light to world otherwise dark from the oppressiveness of evil.
We've allowed a heretic to take control and to wield the sword of perceived limitless power across a sleeping and naive people. Our reward will be of our own making, and the taste will be bitter....
Either Stand Up And Defend Freedom When It's Challenged, Or Sit Down And Shut Up When That Freedom Disappears Because You Did Nothing....
Hope My Rage Is Your Rage.... If Not.... I Welcome Your View....
Either Stand Up And Defend Freedom When It's Challenged, Or Sit Down And Shut Up When That Freedom Disappears Because You Did Nothing....
No comments:
Post a Comment
What you think about what I think......