At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I think it's safe to say that being a "Gun Owner for Obama" in this day and age is not unlike being a "Jew for Hitler" in about 1931. Probably even less sensical, for as far as I can tell, before Hitler got to power all he was able to do was rant about what he perceived to be the "Jewish menace." Obama's been in a position of power for a few years now and his record vis-a-vis the RKBA should more or less speak for itself by now. Would that only the folks who vote for that socialist bastard had their guns taken from them, as opposed to all of us being disarmed.
Also, I see that Anthony has this to say, in comments to an earlier post:
"What does the Constitution do?"
That should also be the question given to every politicians who takes office and then ask them again once a year, in conjunction they should have to be able to show how they have followed it.
Yes, indeed. What I'd like to see is the sponsors of bills explain, in detail on the floor, where the aims of their respective bills are authorized -- or at least not prohibited -- by the Constitution. It's probably safe to say that no gun control law since NFA '34, at least, would have passed muster.
|