During the Democratic Debates Beto O’Rourke reacted to a mass shooting in his hometown of El Paso by calling for the abolition and confiscation of assault rifles like the AR-15 and AK-47. Now Democrats are freaking out that Republicans might accuse them of wanting to take away people’s guns, which of course they’re going to say anyway.
God Forbid a Democrat Should Have Any Balls
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication and WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a contributor to Centerclip and co-host of "The Final Countdown" talk show on Radio Sputnik. He is a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "2024: Revisited."
16 Comments. Leave new
Not only are we going to take away your AR-15s and your AK-47s, we’re going to excise that part of your anatomy which dingles before your legs ! Or are these entities one and the same ? No wonder there’s a reaction !…
Henri
Apparently Colt Corp will no longer sell their ARxx’s to the public. I assume this means they
feel they have securel obcured their distribution channels.
On another note, “God-forbid” that Democrats should know the law of the land.
In the Heller decision SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd Amendment allowed possession of arms for the purpose of “self-defense WITHIN THE HOME.” (my emphasis,See Heller, below )
This required breathtakingly contorted and idiotic “mental” gyrations to ignore the clear refrences to the “the militia” in the body of the constitution … the part to which the amendments are attached for clarification, not complete revision as Heller achieved.
DESPITE this, here are the actual words of the decision as written by Scalia himself, the court’s historic, all-time #1, legal contortionist that apparently are too much of a bother for Dem candidiates to know or understand or even write down on a 3×5 card for quick reference: “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those ‘in common use at the time’ finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”
The following is the complete text of the case: Heller link
Indeed, God forbid any Dem politico should know the law of the land.
The Heller case from SCOTUS ruled that arms may be possessed for
purposes of “self-defense WITHIN THE HOME.” (my emphasis, see Heller link below.)
This interpretation, to be sure, required a great deal of legal contortion but A. Scalia was,
unsurprisingly, more than qualified for that task.
DESPITE this, in the assenting opinion, Scalia surprised those who had insisted for years that he didn’t amount to a carbuncle on the ass of a real jurist, to come up with the following proviso that is unknown, ignored, not understood or is simply too much trouble for Dem politicos to jot down on a 3×5 card for handy reference: “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is NOT unlimited. It is NOT a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or LAWS IMPOSING CONDITIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS ON THE COMMERCIAL SALE OF ARMS.”
(my emphasis)
Heller link
Ted, I’m surprised you fell for it.
In current U.S. politics, there are two main cash cows: guns and abortion. (I’ll leave abortion for another day. I think my lengthy posts are triggering moderator-approval flags.)
Gun confiscation is impossible. There is, literally, not one possible way to confiscate all the guns or even most of the guns. And most of the gun owners are responsible and law-abiding. They’re the ones who’ll turn them in; but it won’t address the problem of dangerous lunatics with high-power weapons. Ronald Wilson Reagan (good old 666 himself) showed us, when you declare war on something, it simply becomes a way for people to make a fortune illegally while giving the cops a reason to take away what few protections we still have under the Bill of Rights.
Beto talked tough on an issue that all the tough talk in the world won’t fix. He did it because it’s one of two ways for his 4% approval campaign to get a surge of money and support. His balls weren’t involved; his scheming heart was.
Seems to be a whole lotta moderation going on here, lately. Not sure what triggers it, usta be ‘too many links in one post’
I ‘spect Ted’s the moderator & wonder why he signed up for more work for himself; especially given his stand on free speech. (and making sure you own it.) Seems awfully random, but replies don’t seem to get moderated as often.
“Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks.” – Robert Heinlein.
[EDIT] This reply was not moderated. Go figure.
Hi CH,
>replies don’t seem to get moderated as often.
I haven’t been able to post for a week (no messages explaining why). Let’s try a reply.
a5
@ A5 > Nope, can’t see your post.
😀
test
Democrats choose to be led by leaders who lead by example in the proper way to submit to power.
Al Gore did not call for his supporters to come out and demand that Florida votes be counted in 2000.
And Obama did not call for his supporters to come out and support his right to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice.
Democrat leaders lead by their example of submission to Republicans, all in the name of civility and propriety.
Several things (but I don’t want to post separate entries for each point).
1. Obama and the Supremes. I think RBG didn’t want Obama to appoint her successor because she saw him for what he is: a Reagan Democrat who sucks up to Big Bidness. Megamerger friendly (on “Adam Ruins Everything” — a show I highly recommend — they pointed out that the Obama administration allowed Live Nation and Ticketmaster to merge, thus screwing over music fans even more).
2. I don’t get the same display of comments on my laptop as on my smartphone. I suspect there’s a software boo-boo.
3. I doubt Ted moderates in the sense of “checking” comments and only letting through those he deems meritorious. Here, I’ll prove it: Ted’s a lowborn guttersnipe who wouldn’t know a white wine glass from a red one. And he’s got bony little girl arms. There. Other than calling him a Yalie, there’s no greater offenses in my book.
As pointed out, it’s more work for him. I think Ted’s one of those people who groks that a First Amendment that only comes through some times out of 10 isn’t really a First Amendment.
(Edit: And it’s awaiting moderation. I guess Ted took the red wine comment to heart. That cheese-eating surrender monkey. …)
Yeh, “Take your guns away” is a death knell for any politician in today’s world, no wonder the D’s are askeert of being accused of such an unthinkable act.
What the gun nuts don’t understand is that is exactly what’s gonna happen if they keep refusing to compromise. People will get fed up to the point that they will insist on complete disarmament.
“When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will accidentally shoot their families”
[EDIT] This comment also was not moderated, while I’ve got one waiting on another column.
(Note: if this finally posts it will be without the promised link which may have been the reason it was not previously accepted.)
Indeed, God forbid any Dem politico should know the law of the land … much less
speak it loudly and often to the voters.
The Heller case from SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd Amendment allows arms to be
possessed for purpose of “self-defense WITHIN THE HOME.”
(my emphasis, see Heller link below.)
This interpretation, to be sure, required a great deal of legal contortion but A. Scalia was,
unsurprisingly, more than qualified for that task.
DESPITE this, in the assenting opinion, Scalia surprised those who had insisted for years that he didn’t amount to a carbuncle on the ass of a real jurist, to come up with the following proviso that is unknown, ignored, not understood or is simply too much trouble for Dem politicos to jot down on a 3×5 card for handy reference: “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is NOT unlimited. It is NOT a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or LAWS IMPOSING CONDITIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS ON THE COMMERCIAL SALE OF ARMS.”
(my emphasis)
Indeed, God forbid any Dem politico should know the law of the land … much less
speak it loudly and often to the voters.
The Heller case from SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd Amendment allows arms to be
possessed for purpose of “self-defense WITHIN THE HOME.”
(my emphasis, see Heller link below.)
This interpretation, to be sure, required a great deal of legal contortion but A. Scalia was,
unsurprisingly, more than qualified for that task.
DESPITE this, in the assenting opinion, Scalia surprised those who had insisted for years that he didn’t amount to a carbuncle on the (backside) of a real jurist, to come up with the following proviso that is unknown, ignored, not understood or is simply too much trouble for Dem politicos to jot down on a 3×5 card for handy reference: “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is NOT unlimited. It is NOT a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or LAWS IMPOSING CONDITIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS ON THE COMMERCIAL SALE OF ARMS.”
(my emphasis)
Heller link
i wish we could think of a way to say “have courage” without perpetuating the ridiculous (and sexist) idea that one needs testicles to have courage. i mean it’s 2019 for pork’s sake.
Ted – It’s not a question of balls, it’s a question of stupidity. “There is always a well-known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.” — H. L. Mencken.
Indeed, God forbid any Dem politico should know the law of the land … much less
speak it loudly and often to the voters.
The Heller case from SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd Amendment allows arms to be
possessed for purpose of “self-defense WITHIN THE HOME.”
(my emphasis, see Heller link below.)
This interpretation, to be sure, required a great deal of legal contortion but A. Scalia was,
unsurprisingly, more than qualified for that task.
DESPITE this, in the assenting opinion, Scalia surprised those who had insisted for years that he didn’t amount to a carbuncle on the ass of a real jurist, to come up with the following proviso that is unknown, ignored, not understood or is simply too much trouble for Dem politicos to jot down on a 3×5 card for handy reference: “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is NOT unlimited. It is NOT a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or LAWS IMPOSING CONDITIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS ON THE COMMERCIAL SALE OF ARMS.”
(my emphasis)
Heller link