“I taught constitutional law, I know a little bit about this,” President Obama lectures us. And then he says: “We understand there are some constraints on our freedom in order to protect innocent people.”
And the best way to protect innocent people is to assume that gun owners as a group are guilty.
I think I missed the middle step in his syllogism. And I don’t think he was crying because of the cruel necessity of trampling the Second Amendment.
I tossed out a few tweets on his speech today –
Obama justifies new gun regs by comparing to airport "metal detectors" but Obama imposed far more intrusive TSA Whole Body Scanners on us
— James Bovard (@JimBovard) January 6, 2016
How many tears has Obama publicly shed since 2009 when federally-funded police gunned down innocent Americans? #StopGunViolence
— James Bovard (@JimBovard) January 5, 2016
So Obama will end mass shootings by cracking down on gun sellers who have business cards? HOOT! #tellusatoday
— James Bovard (@JimBovard) January 5, 2016
Obama wants smart guns for Pentagon but still no requirement that presidents use brains to deploy US troops abroad #tellusatoday
— James Bovard (@JimBovard) January 5, 2016
When Obama tallies mass shootings of Americans, he omits U.S. soldiers killed because of his idiotic foreign interventions #tellusatoday
— James Bovard (@JimBovard) January 5, 2016
He needs to lead the way and have the courage of his convictions (courage being an essential part of leadership, after all) and disarm all his armed protectors. I’d also point out that teaching something doesn’t mean “got it right.” I’d like to see where this alleged Constitutional Law Professor can point to, in the Constitution, to where it’s okay to have “constraints on our freedom in order to protect innocent people.” That sounds more to me like something out of my history classes, and a gentleman by the name of Ben Franklin, IIRC, had something to say about trading liberty for security.
Or maybe the Constitution in my ConLaw class was a different Constitution than the one he taught.
But he cried, so he deserves the power. Or so some people seem to think.
It’s the Orwell Era. Weakness is Strength. So crying people must be stronger. And stronger people should have power – they’ll be happy to tell you that.
You could be a New York Times columnist. A NYT piece on guns, tears, & Republicans is trending on Twitter –
https://twitter.com/search?q=%22Tears%20and%20Republicans%22&src=tren
His claim that he is a “Constitutional Law Professor” is bogus. He was a guest lecturer at a constitution law class and he was never offered a position there. (Gee, I wonder why?)
If I have a private pilots license and have flown a 2 seat light plane like a Cessna 152 then do I have the right to call my self an “airline pilot” because I once carried a passenger?