|Boots and Sabers Blog|
|Hot Air Blog|
|Jim Ott's Hot Air Report|
|Media Research Center|
|Real Clear Politics|
|Wall Street Journal|
|WisPolitics Budget Blog|
What is the Constitution but some document drafted hundreds of years ago by a bunch of rich white guys? Useless, no? Why are we so beholden to it?
Because those principles have made this a great nation.
That is not how Ed Schultz feels, however. From his radio show, captured by Newsbusters:
CALLER: From a legal point of view, I'm pro-Second Amendment and the reason why is one of the legacies of our founding fathers is the Second Amendment and we cannot go and do a full-scale overhaul on it because it will let the cat out of the bag, we can now tear into the First Amendment, you know, all the other amendments ...
SCHULTZ (interrupting): OK, all right, let me, let me back up a little bit. Respectfully, the founding fathers aren't here anymore. We are the founding fathers of this country now. Things change in America. Social mores change, attitudes change, habits change, the way we think change (sic), technology is changing. The idea that we need to be stuck in the mud of a different generation because some dead people think that's the way we oughta live 200 and some odd years later, I'm not there. I'm not there.
Societal behavior in this country has gotten to the point where we need to do something. We can still be free and we can still be a great nation and we can love, you know, ice cream and apple pie and our next-door neighbor and our family members and we can still prosper as a nation, but dammit, it's the guns. Period!
Of course Mr. Schultz makes his comments thanks to the First Amendment. That dirty, despicable clause written by those dead people. He goes on to say that the Second Amendment doesn't apply today. While we are safer today, that does not mean that we should become complacent.
Stalin, Hitler and Mao Tse Tung all disarmed their people before engaging in genocide. While I don't see Mr. Obama going down that path it does not mean that we should let down our guard.
The irony? Mr. Schultz is a gun owner who refuses to lead by example:
We've all heard of the Buffett Rule, named for the billionaire tax avoider who wants the wealthy to pay higher taxes. Here's to the Schultz Rule, named for the liberal gun-owner who wants other people to relinquish their guns while his remain stubbornly immune from confiscation.
Meanwhile, I'm in the camp of GOP Rep. Tim Scott from South Carolina. Captured by CNS News:
“The Constitution grants all law-abiding Americans the right to bear arms, regardless of what some would lead you to believe,” Scott says in a statement posted on his congressional website. “Our Second Amendment right is a fundamental freedom and a cornerstone of our democracy.
"As Americans, we have the right to defend ourselves, our families and our property, and the federal government should never interfere with this right,” says Scott.
“I remain steadfast in my commitment to uphold our Second Amendment rights,” he says.
“I regard all life as sacred, and am proud of our values and traditions,” Scott says in another statement on his congressional website. “For this reason I will remain steadfast in my commitment to protect the unborn and continue to take a stand in defending traditional and religious values."
Evil will always find a way. It's best of the good are able to protect themselves.