Monday, October 1, 2012

Paul Ryan Predicts

CBS News reports

Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan courted the votes of hunters on Saturday in a speech to a sportsmen's group, suggesting that President Obama would seek to strip gun owners of their rights by appointing judges hostile to a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment.

"I shudder as a gun owner ... what would he do if he never has to face the voters ever again?" Ryan asked aloud during a speech to the National U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance's 16th Annual Save Our Heritage Banquet here.

"The next president is going to pick a lot of judges. The next president will appoint a lot of different judges and these are lifetime appointments. If you want to make sure that judges respect our Second Amendment rights, you need a president who respects those rights as well," he said.
Unlike Wayne, who actually says Obama will come after your guns, Paul Ryan is saying it in a slightly more nuanced way, focusing on the appointing of judges.  This makes it quite a bit more truthful.  We all know politicians will say anything, but in this case I think he's got a point.

I'm hoping it turns out to be true that Obama has the opportunity to appoint good judges.  I'm also hoping La Pierre's prediction turns out to be true, not that I believe for a minute that his motives are anything but mercenary.


  1. Obama is not going to nominate any judge who is not a total tool of the Corporatist elite. He is definitely is not going nominate anyone who will upset the 2nd Amendment extremists of the NRA or their toadies in the Senate (both Democratic and Republican.)

    1. I don't know about that. I'm hoping for a better showing out of him in the second term, gun-control-wise.

  2. If Obama machine where truly original, they would appoint justices who would interpret the constitution to Prohibit Firearm Possession by civilians, based on the right to disarmament which can be derived from mandates in the preamble to "promote the general welfare" and to "ensure domestic tranquility" as well as (my) theory that the Second Amendment gives congress and the executive (President, OIRA, Justice Department, who interpret congresses's laws) sole power to regulate the possession and use of arms, which are reserved for use in a congressionally appropriated militia. The constitution therefore reserves the right to "keep and bear arms" is reserved to the militia, which congress may commission, and prohibits any other entity from possessing any object intended to be used as a weapon, as is necessary to "promote the general welfare" and "ensure domestic tranquility", as provided in the preamble. Under this interpretation, any weapon which lies within U.S. territory, is Federal property, and unconstitutional for anyone to possess, unless acting as part of a Congressionally authorized militia, congress maintains all authority to regulate or delegate authority regulating the militia, and congress has the moral, practical and legal obligation to enforce this constitutional "right to civilian disarmament" with appropriate legislation.

    I challenge you to disagree.

    For the next century will be gun-free, from sea to shining sea.

    1. I disagree. E.N., you're either an agent for a foreign tyranny or a fool--probably both. There is no right to disarmament. That's the kind of right that a dictator wants, the right to have no choice at all.

      You do realize that your "interpretation" is solely your own, right? You'd fit right in with the wackos who discuss which particular kind of alien crashed at Roswell. (It was the Ferengi, in case you're curious.)

    2. EN said: "For the next century will be gun-free, from sea to shining sea."

      You wanna bet? Put your money where your mouth is. Give me the starting date and I'll bet you any amount of money you are willing to put up that you are not only wrong, but have fallen off of some wagon and hit your head - very hard.
      orlin sellers

    3. The Ministery of Truth (Yours truly, E.N.)October 2, 2012 at 4:53 AM

      WOW! You have managed to gather (a whopping) 3 people who oppose what I say.

      Go ahead and link some of my diatribes to your criminal/anarchist (gun-owner) cites.

      Your deranged cause might just garner some sympathy (from other, like minded crazies)

  3. "I challenge you to disagree."

    I disagree.