I wish I was making it up: The second panel of this strip is a direct quote.
Yes. She really said, first off, that Congress swears to uphold the Constitution (PSSST! THEY DON’T). [EDIT: I stand corrected. It appears the oath I found online was incomplete.] Secondly, she said that in order to uphold the Constitution, we need to pass laws that directly oppose the 2nd Amendment.
Do these chucklefucks in Congress even understand that their approval rating is at a record breaking low? Are they ignorant of this fact? Or do they just not give a fuck? I honestly can’t figure out. Either way… fuck ’em.
STILL recovering from CCSD. Ugh. I didn’t take this video, but this is where we were.
Dunno man, the actual oath says:
“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,”
At a certain point we’re splitting hella hairs.
I know that’s the oath I took (twice!) in Uncle Sam’s Aerial Fleacircus, but I doubt like hell congresscritters have anything about DEFENDING the Constitution in their oath of office. If it is in there, they violate it every fucking day, so it obviously has no relevance to them.
From SENATE.GOV:
Oath of Office
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God
The key point is that she seems to have left off and/or forgotten (probably forgotten) the key to that line, as Pete shows in his post:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC;
Therefore, when members of Congress chose to forget, ignore and walk on the Constitution, not only are they violating the rights of Americans, they have made themselves Domestic Enemies of the Constitution… by virtue of their own oath. An oath that they are well aware of and had to swear in order to serve.
I’ll also add that the First line of the Oath of (Re-)Enlistment for the United States Armed Forces is exactly the same:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces_oath_of_enlistment
I had to clean my screan after the “It’s like 9/11, or thinking of children.”
Thanks.
But in answer to your question, no, they don’t care. Since no matter how low their approval rating gets, the American people keep them in office, they have no reason to care. 217 representatives voted FOR the NSA continuing to have the power to spy on the American people without even mere suspicion yesterday. They’re not so blind as to believe that their constituents are ok with that, but they know that they’re safe in their ivory towers, and will continue to expand the powers of the federal government accross the board. Yeah, the NSA scandal may cost the Dems some seats, but the establishment GOPers will cast the same big government votes.
Personally I think it’s time term limits were placed on how long they can ride the gravy train. Some of these fuckers seem to do nothing except sit on committees that accomplish nothing while the people they are supposed to represent sink further in the shit. Lets face it if they were on performance related pay most of them would be collecting very much. Pension and benefits for life even if they only serve one or two terms, WTF is that all about?
The benefits for life thing isn’t actually true, they have to serve like ten years at least or something. Don’t have the factoid handy right now though…
Hi Ro, I just looked it up buddy and it’s five years of service. Pretty good benefits as well.
It’s a pension just like the rest of Federal service gets. It starts small with short service. They vest at five years, but don’t get much. They also pay into Social Security.
@Snakedriver761, you’re right in thinking that they don’t care. But the reason they don’t care is because election laws are tremendously anticompetitive. Every campaign finance law ever passed in my lifetime has had the net effect of protecting incumbents. And since they are always passed by incumbents, that should hardly be surprising. The re-election rate among those Representatives which seek re-election is over 98%. About the only ways to unseat an incumbent representative are:
1. They go to jail (which doesn’t happen anywhere NEAR enough)
2. They decide to retire
3. The majority party in their state legislature changes, and redraws their district to change its majority.
So why should they care what we want or think?
@Blu3220, not gonna happen. Incumbents do not pass laws that threaten their job security.
Whoops that should have read “wouldn’t be collecting very much”. Apologies for the typo.
How do universal background checks infringe upon your rights? Heck, up until 1999 the NRA supported them! We do agree that there are people that can legitimately and Constitutionally be prevented from having guns, don’t we?
If anyone thinks there isn’t a record of those NICS checks kept somewhere, law to the contrary notwithstanding, they are naive as all get-out.
And knowing who has the guns is indispensable to confiscating them, if we ever get around to that.
You know that the tinfoil only serves to focus the mind-control beams, not deflect them, right?
Wow. Really? Thinking that the Gov’t might collect info to use inappropriately on its citizens is “tinfoil hat thinking” to you?
Really? You honestly think that the Government would never, ever collect data to use inappropriately on its own citizenry?
You best be trollin’, cuz if not, you’re pretty stupid.
However, the possibility does not mean they will. After all, they already have been doing background checks for 20 years, and yet they haven’t tried to take away our guns using that info. So I still ask, how does it infringe on your rights, when it is already done at dealers?
I also disagree with the Form 4473.
You can consider me insane if you like, but I do not believe that the legal sale of firearms should be prohibited to anyone. Felons, the mentally ill, etc. It’s just as much security theater as TSA’s horseshit.
According to the constitution, I have the right to bear arms. Period. No regulation. And this right is not to be infringed upon by my government. Regulation DOES infringe upon this right. I am against such regulation.
That’s kind of an overly rigid interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, isn’t it? The 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and religion, but the government restricts you from yelling fire in a crowded theater, inciting people to violence, and human sacrifice. We usually use the strict scrutiny standard to determine whether those rights guaranteed by the Constitution can be infringed upon – shouldn’t that be the standard with the 2nd as well?
Those regulations exist to keep a citizen from causing harm to another through a direct action.
A felon in possession of a firearm is not harming anyone by the mere act of possession.
Yes, my interpretation is fairly rigid, mostly because I’ve read up on a lot more than just the Constitution. The framers overwhelmingly wanted an armed populace. They worded the 2nd in a concise manner, using extreme language, because for the time period, they figured it would not be ambiguous. Compare the first ten amendments to the rest – note that their language was pretty absolute.
But numerous other exceptions exist to the other amendments. Police don’t need warrants to seize something in plain view, search an open field or curtilage, dying declarations are allowed despite the right to confront witnesses… and none of those are to keep a citizen from harming another through direct action. Hell, there’s almost two dozen hearsay exceptions alone.
They have absolute language, yes, but there ARE multiple exceptions to those first ten amendments. To me, the question is whether the threat of violence from recidivist offenders is sufficient to qualify as a compelling state interest. I’ll admit, I shifted somewhat on the issue as a result of researching this – I thought violent recidivism rates were a lot higher than they actually are. The rates aren’t so low that I think it’s an entirely moot argument, however – I’d want to see any data out there on the impact of gun control laws on recidivism.
“But numerous other exceptions exist to the other amendments. Police don’t need warrants to seize something in plain view”
Because “plain view” is not private ownership. It’s public display. And they would still need a warrant to seize it if it was private property (which it would be).
“search an open field or curtilage”
Also public property, not private. Unless that was private property, then they would be trespassing and anything obtained would be inadmissible in a court of law vis a vis a violation of the 4th and 6th amendment.
“and none of those are to keep a citizen from harming another through direct action”
You can make all of the laws you want to try and prevent citizens from harming others through direct action. But people will still break them. That’s why we have a judicial system.
“They have absolute language, yes, but there ARE multiple exceptions to those first ten amendments. To me, the question is whether the threat of violence from recidivist offenders is sufficient to qualify as a compelling state interest.”
Wrong. The second very clearly states “shall not be infringed”. That means there are no exceptions to what it says.
The 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and religion, but the government restricts you from yelling fire in a crowded theater
Only, not so much ….
There is NO restriction on shouting “FIRE” in a crowded theater – if you think there is, tell me the last time that you were GAGGED before taking your seat to watch a movie at the cineplex.
There is a PENALTY AFTER THE FACT if you yell “FIRE”, and there isn’t one.
I was using ‘restriction’ in the sense of the penalty after the fact. I am aware that you are not gagged before taking your seat. And if your actions incite an unlawful riot, then yes, you will face a penalty – free speech does not extend to imminent incitement of unlawful action. But that aside, I don’t think that really addresses my overall point. The government can and does penalize actions that a strict reading of the Constitution would seem to prohibit.
No, you’re missing the point.
A penalty after the fact for an ACTION is fundamentally different than a PRIOR RESTRAINT on a right for a POTENTIAL action.
For it to be analagous:
1. A penalty exists after the fact for inappropriately using your first amendment right of free speech by yelling “FIRE”, when there isn’t one, in a crowded theater.
2. A penalty exists after the fact for inappropriately using your second amendment right to keep and bear arms by shooting someone, not in self-defense.
Preventing you from shooting someone by preventing you from having a firearm in the first place, either by banning “keeping” or by banning “bearing” is, per se, an infringement on the second amendment.
Since I can’t reply to your newest comment, I’ll just reply one last time here – I didn’t miss your distinction, I just don’t think it’s relevant here. A law that applies a prior restraint on a potential action and a law that penalizes an action after the fact are both subject to the same format of judicial review. For a constitutional right, both the prior restraint and the penalty would be analyzed under strict scrutiny. The two aren’t fundamentally different for the purposes of review.
And you are very much mistaken. The Constitution does NOT enumerate a completely unfettered, unregulated right to bear arms. And frankly, the history of firearms law litigation and court decisions over the last century really ought to have you thinking that you might be wrong. NO court has ever said the right is completely unregulated. NO court has ever held that withholding the right from convicted felons violates the Constitution; check out the 5th, among other things it also says that rights (“liberty”) may be restricted with due process of law. So while you are free to hold your opinion, the law and the Constitution says you’re wrong.
Chacun a son gout. You asked. That was my answer. If you’re looking for an argument here, I have to wonder… why?
> However, the possibility does not mean they will.
I’d like to point at this statement in the future as an example of incredible naiivety
And pigs may fly out of my butt, but that isn’t likely either. I think it is paranoia to declare that it WILL happen, particularly as it hasn’t in the 20 years they’ve been running these checks (as opposed to the old system where they really did keep records).
You keep saying it hasn’t happened. But it has happened in New York, it has happened in California, and it happened to all formerly-legal owners of Street Sweeper, USAS-12. and Striker shotguns in 1994.
Few things are more annoying that some lackwit who keeps repeating “nobody’s coming to take your guns” AFTER they’ve ALREADY come to take your guns.
Didn’t read your link but it also happened under AG Dan Lungren and the California SKS confiscation. Legally registered SKS owners were forced to turn in or face felony charges, even though the rifles were AWB registered.
And my answer is the same. “Well, it hasn’t happened yet” is not a rebuttal. It’s a bit like the guy who fell off the top of the Empire State Building and as he passed the 22nd floor thought to himself “So far so good”.
I invite you to consider the experience of the UK in this regard. How many decades the British were able to own handguns before they weren’t? All those years of “hasn’t happened” wasn’t very relevant when the orders went out to turn them in.
1. I really don’t give a handful of owl crap what the NRA supports now, has supported in the past, or will support in the future. I am not a member.
2. What part of “shall not be infringed” is hard for people to understand?
You forget, the ‘NRA/Gun Lobby’ controls anything and everything even remotely related to firearms. Every gathering, every blog post, every comment made is pre-arranged and approved by Wayne LaPierre personally.
How does it infringe? Also please note, “regulation”/=”infringement”.
Ah, OK, cool. Tell you what – the next time you want to speak your mind, you need to fill out a Form 1708A and call it in to the FBI first, so that we can decide if it’s legal for you to speak in public.
That’s not infringement of your 1st amendment rights. It’s regulation. Right?
This is what is called a Red Herring. Completely unrelated, and not very analogous either. Among other things, the two amendments do not place the same restrictions upon the government. But just to play along, I do need a permit if I want to hold a large rally in a public space.
Ah. I see you like your sign (what do you think of the middle? )
Brief story: Setting, a truck stop in Wyoming.
While we were looking at the sign, and saying “J has to have this”, a large white man–okay, archtypical Wyoming truck stop store clerk– came up, and said to us, “Some liberals saw my signs, and got offended, and said they wouldn’t buy from here any more….liberals!” [said with disgust]
I turned around and grinned at him. “I’m a liberal, and I like your signs! In fact we’re going to buy..this one!”
He turned his back to us, as soon as I said I was a liberal (I’m not, entirely, although far more so than “conservative”.
What I really am is an anti-label-ist.)
I continued on, merrily. “We’re gun-owners ourselves! Ever heard the phrase,’gun-totin liberals’? ”
Man kept his back to us, and I could see by the set of his shoulders that he was irate. He refused to say another word.
Too bad, I thought.
I repeated my cheerily obnoxious spiel at the counter, to a much more agreeable sales clerk. At least he smiled, genially even. Said good, and he didn’t care what we were, and shouldn’t care.
I still don’t understand the reaction of the first guy.
ok, Owen, seriously. We’ve had this discussion before. We’ve had it at least twice. At this point, you’ve lost any right to claim ignorance and have moved on to blatant trolling.
Now, for the benefit of others just joining the discussion, the key points are, first, USC 18 section 926(a), which disallows government agencies passing rules or regulations to require recording Form 4473 and similar data or allow using such data for registering firearms or firearms transactions; and second, eTrace, which is a system run by ATF which records Form 4473 and similar data. (Incidentally, ATF asserts that eTrace predates the passage of FOPA and is therefore exempted under USC 18 § 926(a); they sidestep the fact that they’ve enacted regulations to revise the system since then and increase the scope of data collected and change the method of storage to allow faster retrieval.)
Very simply, ATF is creating a database for registering firearms owners, and they’re doing it in violation of Federal law. Registration systems have, historically, always led to gun confiscation. This is why the NRA changed their position on universal background checks, and this is why universal background checks infringe on your rights.
You’ve never demonstrated that you are correct. That would be a nice start.
Are you seriously camping out on a comics site’s comment section in hopes that someone will say you’re right? A comic that involves penises flying out of a man’s computer, and other such nonsense?
Something that occurred to me during Comic Con this year was that a bunch of y’all motherfuckers need to get some perspective.
No, I am a fan of the comic and a gun owner. I was unaware you wanted that to be only people that agree with you.
Sadly, it seems that even though you open this to comments, you only want affirmation; you want US to tell YOU that YOU are right. I will amend my behavior to reflect that.
Let me get this straight – because I don’t agree with you, I must only be looking for affirmation?
Is that what you’re saying?
I just gave you the exact part of the Code of Laws of the United States of America that’s being violated, and a specific action that’s violating them. If that’s insufficient for you, your standards for a proper demonstration would seem to be unreachably high.
Does anyone consider that Congress’ low rating might be due to the Republicans and their actions (and inactions)?
Actually, this low approval rating is probably the only truly bipartisan thing about Congress. American’s are sick of Congress however, since the only way a significant change in how we create a congressional body would require Congress to change the rules we are not going to get a significant change.
Owen, so, requiring specific ID for voting shouldn’t be a problem either, right?
I’ve always had to identify myself when voting. The issue was restricting the accepted ID is such a fashion that it disproportionately disenfranchises certain demographics, and in fact here in PA they even admitted that the point was to reduce Democratic voting. In any case, red herring.
Actually, the replies you’ve put here show me that you must have incredibly muscular arms. Your Goalpost Moving game is absolutely top notch.
What did I move? I pointed out that in fact under the law we have always had to ID ourselves in this state. It was how that changed. In fact, it is more restrictive than the ID requirements for the NICS.
Owen, I don’t believe you quite understand what a ‘red herring’ is. The term would not accurately describe any post in this informal little debate, that I can see.
(And I have judged quite a few intercollegiate Parliamentary debate tournaments, by invitation, so I am versed in these terms, in case of your wondering)
I understand what it is: IT’S A FISH!
After forty years I’ve finally made my high school English teacher smile. Yes Mrs Thornton, I really was paying attention in your class, and I do know what a double entendre is! 🙂
I really don’t want to see what’s under that robe.
This is EXACTLY like “ObamaScare I and II”, lots of paranoia, but nothing actually happens.
You ARE funny, but yes, you are crazy as hell. The very idea that we should allow people in and out of prison over and over again for violent crime free access to handguns is pretty nuts.
Ah, but there’s the rub:
The #2 parole violation for felons in the USA is possession of an illegal firearm. This does not match up with the recidivism rate. They already have these guns. I’d rather they were allowed to buy them legally, and allowed to keep them.
Felon in possession laws made more sense when felonies more often involved a violent assault on another. Martha Stewart may be a bitch but lying about -not-committing a crime barring her from possession is asinine. I’m not “okay” with permanent disarmament for felonies (morality and Justice demand Congress needs to fund, and force the ATF to operate in the most rights-friendly manner, the existing process for restoration of the Right) but at the least the disabling felony should be for a crime involving violence, not some bullshit paperwork offense, to have any connection to rationality.
Worse — Martha Stewart lied about not having done something that WASN’T a crime in the first place.
Well, I picked a good day to buckle and read the comments again.
The 2nd Amendment is crystal clear despite all the efforts to obfuscate. It’s just damned stupid to argue FOR gun control. They may not have been all-knowing, but those fellows who argued and fought and finally wrote the Declaration of Independence, then the Constitution, and then the Bill of Rights – they foresaw a LOT of this.
If we trust a person to be free in a free society, he should enjoy all the rights, privileges and responsibilities of other free folks. If we as a society do NOT trust that EX-felon or mentally ill individual, then it is incumbent upon us to remove him from free society AND PROVIDE FOR HIS SECURITY, since we are placing him at a tremendous disadvantage by denying him the ability o exercise a natural right.
It’s so simple, and yet the politicians wanted to be able to say to their non-ex-felon constituents “See I DID something about crime! 99.9% of you don’t have to worry about having you Natural Rights removed!”
A natural right exists whether a government “allows” it’s citizens to exercise it or not.
Thee and me, we agree.