Who cares about the constitution??
-
WHO CARES ABOUT BEING UNCONSTITUTIONAL?"
By
Neal Boortz
@ November 26, 2008 8:18 AM Permalink | Comments (48) | TrackBacks (0)
That question comes from an elected official in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. That person would be Tonya Payne, a Democrat member of the Pittsburgh City Council. Apparently there has been brouhaha in Pittsburgh concerning the right to bear arms. It would be a little thing called the Second Amendment ... not that this woman has heard of it. I wonder what she would score on that little civics quiz we talked about yesterday?
Anyway, Tonya and her fellow council members approved legislation that would require anyone to report a lost or stolen firearm within 24 hours. If not reported, the person would face a fine. You see, right now in Pennsylvania there is a state ban on local laws on "the transfer, ownership, transportation or possession" of guns. The question is whether that extends to reporting lost or stolen firearms.
So that's when Tonya, who can't seem to wrap her bureaucratic head around the concept, comes up with this line: "Who really cares about it being unconstitutional?"
She goes on to say, "This is what's right to do, and if this means that we have to go out and have a court battle, then that's fine ... We have plenty of dead bodies coming up in our streets every single day, and that is unacceptable."
So according to Tonya, it is okay to defy the Constitution if your city councilwoman thinks that "it is the right thing to do." Is this the type of respect for the Constitutional law that we can expect from a Barack Obama administration? Remember, under an Obama administration with Obama appointed judges ... the Constitution is just a formality, what really matters is making sure that judges rule the way they feel is "right."
-
I don't have any problem with automatic weapons being off the allowed list.
But if that turns into semi-automatic, that even includes 22's, for goodness sake.
And semi auto shotguns are common.
It's been a plan in the past, that some of those who want to ban all guns, to get
a bit of control going, and expand on it later.
And that is the biggest problem with common sense gun control.
A big example, is Obama's vote to charge $500 for registering/owning a gun... though I haven't
read the bill.
And his vote to ban ammo. That's pretty telling right there.
And Obama thinks our Constituion is a flawed document. When you think that, ya can't blame
folks for wondering what is behind some of his votes and statements.
Obama's votes on guns has incredibly boosted gun sales.
I don't think the "Fairness Doctrine" coincides with our free speech guarantee,either.
-
I don't have any problem with automatic weapons being off the allowed list.
But if that turns into semi-automatic, that even includes 22's, for goodness sake.
And semi auto shotguns are common.
It's been a plan in the past, that some of those who want to ban all guns, to get
a bit of control going, and expand on it later.
And that is the biggest problem with common sense gun control.
A big example, is Obama's vote to charge $500 for registering/owning a gun... though I haven't
read the bill.
And his vote to ban ammo. That's pretty telling right there.
And Obama thinks our Constituion is a flawed document. When you think that, ya can't blame
folks for wondering what is behind some of his votes and statements.
Obama's votes on guns has incredibly boosted gun sales.
I don't think the "Fairness Doctrine" coincides with our free speech guarantee,either.
And Obama thinks our Constituion is a flawed document. When you think that, ya can't blame
folks for wondering what is behind some of his votes and statements.
I don't remember reading or hearing that. Do you have a link to a statement or clip in which he says that?
I'm assuming you're referring to his speech on race, in which he said this:
Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.
The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.
Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution - a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.
And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.
Do you think that means the Constitution is "flawed"? And do you disagree with his account?
-
No, I was referring to his radio broadcast information in which he says that the Constitution was a brilliant political document, but
was flawed, it represents the flaw of civil rights...
Well, it's been a long while since I listened to it.
If I'm wrong, let me know. I am paraphrasing his saying what he said, by simply "The Constitution is a flawed document"...
Here's the link:
(I actually found it again)
-
You know what, Cal? You're right. He did say it.
However, his focus was on the text ratified in 1789. And that one definitely was "deeply flawed".
-
Yes, he was, Al. But he clearly says that the flawed aspect he speaks about, "continues to this day", which
refers to our current Constitution.
Am I listening to it wrong? I end up with the same appraisal every time, just like I did before.
-
You know what, Cal? You're right. He did say it.
However, his focus was on the text ratified in 1789. And that one definitely was "deeply flawed".
Aloysius said:
You know what, Cal? You're right. He did say it.However, his focus was on the text ratified in 1789. And that one definitely was "deeply flawed".
I can't list many freedoms the "constitution" guarantees us that haven't been watered down to the point of parody.
And even those anemic few that remain can be wiped away on the whim of five memebers of the supreme court.
Less than sit on the Politburo.
It's time we quit pretending it means anything today.
WSS
-
I am against the banning of any weapons. If I want and can afford a warthog gatling gun, I should be able to buy it.
The Constitution was written with no designation between military weapons and civilian weapons....mainly because civilian weapons were military weapons, yet the framers are widly praised as forward thinkers. If they had wanted the military and police to be better armed than it's citizens, I am confident they would have made such a designation.
I don't think they got it right on everything else, but somehow had a brain fart on this matter.
I am against the tracking of who owns weapons, and really, testing of any kind as that is a way to track who owns a weapon.
What I am for is the vigorous prosecution of criminals and putting them away on prison farms.
Just work them to death or to the point they don't have anything left when they finally get out.
-
Ballpeen so you endorse Warren Buffett buying his own Boomer Submarine fully equipped with 200+ nuclear warheads and using it if he wishes???? Maybe just a F-22 raptor and one B-2 stealth bomber for his airfield in Omaha. Like you said the right to bear arms has no boundaries...........
Going back be rational and reality. Neal Boortz is just another right wing talking head nut case. So quoting him and his bellowing about about Obama shredding the constitution is hilariously funny...........
WHEN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION RIPPED THE CONSTITUTION TO SHREDS FOR EIGHT YEARS IN THE MOST DISPICABLE WAYS............and Boortz fully endorsed that shredding
-
Ballpeen so you endorse Warren Buffett buying his own Boomer Submarine fully equipped with 200+ nuclear warheads and using it if he wishes???? Maybe just a F-22 raptor and one B-2 stealth bomber for his airfield in Omaha. Like you said the right to bear arms has no boundaries...........
Going back be rational and reality. Neal Boortz is just another right wing talking head nut case. So quoting him and his bellowing about about Obama shredding the constitution is hilariously funny...........
WHEN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION RIPPED THE CONSTITUTION TO SHREDS FOR EIGHT YEARS IN THE MOST DISPICABLE WAYS............and Boortz fully endorsed that shredding
Ballpeen so you endorse Warren Buffett buying his own Boomer Submarine fully equipped with 200+ nuclear warheads and using it if he wishes???? Maybe just a F-22 raptor and one B-2 stealth bomber for his airfield in Omaha. Like you said the right to bear arms has no boundaries...........
Going back be rational and reality. Neal Boortz is just another right wing talking head nut case. So quoting him and his bellowing about about Obama shredding the constitution is hilariously funny...........
WHEN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION RIPPED THE CONSTITUTION TO SHREDS FOR EIGHT YEARS IN THE MOST DISPICABLE WAYS............and Boortz fully endorsed that shredding
Rich, you gotta start staying on topic. Name calling is no longer tolerated and reverting everything and everything to Bush is old.
Not sure if even the lefties on this board read this stuff.
"God is great. Beer is good. People are crazy." -
@danamal said:
I am against the banning of any weapons. If I want and can afford a warthog gatling gun, I should be able to buy it.Peen I ask this in a serious manner,
Why would anyone need such a weapon?
The reason this is asked is because most of this gang banging shit going on is being done with ak-47s,uzi's and weapons of these kinds and I dont understand where they have a place in a civilized world.
I dont get it,I really dont......
Help me out here.
Blowing pumpkins to pieces with a shotgun is a lot of fun. Imagine the fun it would be to rip up some old scrapped car with the nose of a Warthog. That would make for a fun afternoon.
Really
Dan.....in a civilized world, I might agree....I guess I don't think it is as civilized as some.
Bombs and delivery systems are a different deal Rich.
-
Ballpeen so you endorse Warren Buffett buying his own Boomer Submarine fully equipped with 200+ nuclear warheads and using it if he wishes???? Maybe just a F-22 raptor and one B-2 stealth bomber for his airfield in Omaha. Like you said the right to bear arms has no boundaries...........
Going back be rational and reality. Neal Boortz is just another right wing talking head nut case. So quoting him and his bellowing about about Obama shredding the constitution is hilariously funny...........
WHEN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION RIPPED THE CONSTITUTION TO SHREDS FOR EIGHT YEARS IN THE MOST DISPICABLE WAYS............and Boortz fully endorsed that shredding
Rich, you gotta start staying on topic. Name calling is no longer tolerated and reverting everything and everything to Bush is old.
Not sure if even the lefties on this board read this stuff.
Rich, you gotta start staying on topic. Name calling is no longer tolerated and reverting everything and everything to Bush is old.
Not sure if even the lefties on this board read this stuff.
John, you gotta stay objective. There was nothing I said that was off topic. The topic was the constitution I addressed whom has been shredding the constitution and it has been the Bush regime. Somewhere along the line the idea of having assault weapons as being a right came into the discussion and I addressed that as well. Neil Boortz is what he is so noone called him names and he is not here anyway. And yes the damage the Bush Admin has done is not old news it is unfolding news because some perhaps you are in denial about just how much damage has and is being done.
So John all I did was reinforce the view of those who understand the damage and idea that we need to start changing our way of thinking to progress this country.
If you choose to make s such views OFF TOPIC and OLD and call it name calling and make that view the enemy, you are not attempting discussion and debate you are fostering singlularity of thought and stifling debate.
The Constitution has been shredded and Obama has not served a day in office! The off topic and old crap was slingling mud about one who has yet to perform act one and then defend the mess we have now. SO please do not say I am off topic when a right wing hater like Boortz makes claims such as his. Hopefully, there are enough folks that it gets rejected for being over the top and totally hypocritical in light of the current situation and perhaps someday his moronic views will be more silenced than you are attempting to silence me while supporting AK 47's.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login