So much for fear mongering about guns

My thought on hearing that the Supreme Court has pretty much shot down the idea that individuals can’t own guns was “Gosh, I wish Obama would say that out loud and cut the NRA off at the knees.”

I wasn’t alone. Apparently the Democratic Party is, ever so quietly, cheering the decision. By settling the decision the Supreme court not only handed gun owners a decision, but shot down one of the key rants about Obama and the Democrats in general, that “they want to take away our guns!”

Sorry. Now they can’t. The activist judges on the Supreme Court said so.

The NRA raises most of its money telling people it is protecting their guns. Obama has never said he wants to take them away, there is no legislation under consideration or even proposed to take them away, as a practical matter it would be completely impossible for anyone to take them away, and yet the NRA has raised millions, if not billions, protecting the darn things.

Now it can quit worrying. There’s still questions about what type of regulations to have for situations where even an insane idiot would not want someone to have a gun — maybe now we can discuss opposition to terrorists being prohibited from getting them? — but that’s all nit-picking. The Supreme Court settled it. It’s a basic individual right. Battle won!

And I hope the NRA, which long ago quit being a responsible gun safety organization and turned into a right wing fear-mongering political action committee bent on keeping itself rich,  goes broke.

Share
This entry was posted in Blogging the Rambler and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to So much for fear mongering about guns

  1. Doug Gibson says:

    The Supreme Court largely settled the issue of whether cities and states can deny law-abiding citizens the right to own a handgun to protect themselves. While it’s never been a big problem in Utah, despite some of the “message bills” we see annually, that right was denied in the District of Columbia and Chicago before the high court made two recent decisions.

  2. Willbike says:

    “Obama has never said he wants to take them away.” Exactly what I’ve said all along!

    Republicans make up issues to be upset about. They get this type of stuff in forwarded emails, and of course they believe it. Yet another reason why I quit the republican party. This just goes along with all of the other lies they peddle. Simple people like the excitement of being mad about something, untruths will do just fine.

  3. Dovie says:

    The fear mongering is not over and neither are the lawsuits….

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june10/guns2_06-28.html

    Here to explain why are Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association of America.

    ……..ban. It was Washington, D.C. Then it was Chicago. So, there’s nobody else that’s directly affected by this.

    But the crucial part, it’s really a narrow scope for the Second Amendment that they talked about. ….. repeated the language from Heller that says this right is not unlimited and that you can have restrictions on who gets guns, of where they take the guns, how the guns are sold, how the guns are carried, how the guns are stored, and even what kinds of guns there are.

    WAYNE LAPIERRE: … and all of these restrictions and rules. Next thing, we will be bringing back the poll tax or the literacy test. This is a freedom for all.

    GWEN IFILL: Paul Helmke?

    PAUL HELMKE: The court, first in the Heller case — and they repeated the language here — they mentioned that the First Amendment right is not unlimited. You can’t libel someone. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. You can’t have pornography in public……..

    WAYNE LAPIERRE: And because of those activist judges he’s talking about that I said are still going to be a problem, when the glass breaks in Washington, D.C., in the middle of the night, and some family is sitting there, and some criminal is coming at them, they’re still alone and defenseless against violent criminals.

    PAUL HELMKE: You’re allowed to have a gun in the home for self-defense.

    WAYNE LAPIERRE: That was not the — not the intent of the Supreme Court.

  4. Bob Becker says:

    And over on the SLT site, someone is warning that the current Obama nominee for the Supreme Court is part of a liberal plot to take over the supreme court so that a couple of decades down the road it will “vote” to confiscate all guns from Americans. No, he was not kidding.

  5. ctrentelman says:

    Interesting how the popular take on the powers of the supreme court has changed. Remember Andrew Jackson telling the court, on its ruling about a national bank, to take its decision and stick it sideways.

    “Where is their army?” he said, or words to that effect.

    I am sure the NRA will find a bogeyman to fear.

  6. Mark Shenefelt says:

    The only thing that will change is that political campaigns based on “save our guns” planks will have even less credibility. But they’ll be no less effective.

    Don’t you know? My sister-in-law’s brother-in-law just sent me an e-mail disclosing that the same administration officials who are stockpiling all those FEMA plastic coffins where we’ll all be disposed of are now working secretly on gun-control pills that they’re going to sneak into all school lunches. Grab your gun, they must be stopped!

  7. laytonian says:

    Thanks for the chuckles, everyone!

    For once, I have nothing to add.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>