EDITORIAL: “Do Your Job!

32

THE “TIMES ARE CHANGING”!


The City-County Observer finds the sit-in staged by Democrats in the House of Representatives to be an interesting historical development. What makes that worth noting is that members our staff are divided on the subject of the Second Amendment, and we know that CCO readers are also divided on the issue.  Our staff, however, is in agreement that the American people deserve a vote, whichever way it goes.

The obvious courage and resolve of the sit-in leader, civil rights icon and United States Rep. John Lewis and the other Democrats who joined him apparently impressed a lot of DC-area residents, too. With short notice, many hundreds showed up to chant “DO YOUR JOB”‘ at the exiting Republican House members. The fact that many ordinary people left their dinner tables or cocktail hour to rush to the Capitol to vent their frustrations with the obstructionist Congress tells us a lot about the mood of our county.

Speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan tried to use his gavel to shutdown the demonstration, but thanks to Facebook and apps like “Periscope” the main stream media got to cover the entire event. It is one more case of modern technology trumping the old rules.

Let us be perfectly clear that we are not endorsing the proposed gun control legislation, nor are we suggesting it should not be passed. We were happy to see the passion and dedication displayed by the Congressmen occupying the well of the House and the chanting of the supportive citizens. We just want to see if the U S Congress has the backbone to do something of significance before the upcoming general election!

We feel that by bringing this and other important, controversial bills to the floor, for full debate and a vote, Congress will give voters something to base their votes on. in the upcoming general election.  Some feel that this may be very true of our own U S Representative, Dr. Larry Bucshon,  because so far he hasn’t given the electorate something to hang their hats on to vote for him during this re-election cycle. Maybe the issue of Second Amendment rights could be just that issue.

We, The People deserve far better than we have gotten so far from our “do nothing” Congress.  We hope it isn’t too late to make up for the last several years of our “do-nothing Congress.“   We feel that it isn’t too late for Congress to let the voters know they’ve finally heard the message and are trying to do the will of the people.

We predict if, when they returns to session, the Congress doesn’t show that they have awakened, that there will be busloads of citizens from throughout the country chanting “DO YOUR JOB” outside the Capitol everyday until they do. We also won’t be surprised to see mass protests staged in every major city similar to what we experience saw in the 60’s. The “Time Are Indeed Changing”!

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

32 COMMENTS

  1. Dear Editor: Did you ever think that members of Congress did “do their job”? The Second Amendment isn’t broken; why “fix” it? Those whiny-ass, left-wing, socialist Democrats were acting like the spoiled brat sociopaths they are. “Waa-waa, I didn’t get my way so now I’m going to throw a temper tantrum.” Reminds me of a bunch of Indiana Democratic legislators who took off running to Illinois because they didn’t like that the voters (the people whom they represent) had elected a majority of Republicans to the State Legislature.

    • Kind of like the Republicans wah wah about voting on a supreme court nominee?

      • I don’t think they have held a sit-in yet, but if it comes to that I agree that they will have joined the group of dems who are staging a sit-in. Romper Room for them too if that happens. Neither party holds and exclusive license on acting like spoiled brats and showboating. They both do that from time to time.

    • We’ll see how all of this comes out in November. I agree that the Second Amendment isn’t broken. The right to tote a muzzle-loading musket shall not be infringed. Modern firearms are another matter, though.

      • I guess you’re still writing with a feather quill pen and getting your eMail delivered by a rider on horseback?

      • I didn’t see the word muzzle loader in the Second. I kind of always thought that the founders were visionary and knew that change was the only certainty. Guess they missed on this one by writings “arms” rather than muzzle loaders. Especially since breech loaders. and rifled barrels already existed.

      • My uncle was driving in Illinois and attempted to light his cigarette with a ZIppo lighter. Unfortunately the lighter leaked fluid and caught his sleeve on fire, so he hung his arm out the window in an attempt to put out the flames. A state trooper saw him and arrested my uncle for an illegal display of a firearm. It was the only personal firearm not protected by the 2ND.

  2. Highjacking the congressional chambers by sitting on the floor in protest is not the job. Our voice matters also and by preventing those we elected from proceeding because you want a different result steals our votes. It was one thing and a good thing to protest civil rights in the street with this style of protest, but now you are in a different realm with a constitutional structure and rules of order you swore on an oath to uphold. So quit being a holdup and start upholding.

  3. I agree with PCD and Enoch. The members of congress who staged a sit in on the floor of congress would be more at home on the set of Romper Room than serving in congress. They need to be forced to suck on pacifiers fit for big babies for the same amount of time they obstruct congressional business. This was nothing but showboating and a waste of taxpayer dollars. They are free to write and propose a bill to require background check, extend waiting times, and whatever else they wish to propose to do about the 2nd amendment. Until them:

    Romper stomper bumper boo
    We thought we elected people better than you

  4. Wow. Let’s rename the CCO a forum for about 5 or 6 angry old get off my lawn white guys. This piece of crap is dying quickly.

    • Can’t your doctor treat your self loathing issues? You should be happier being white or at least medicated.

        • Buddy,
          Calling posters “angry old get off my lawn white guys” is not outside the limits of decency? Guess it depends where you draw the boundary for your safe place. And here I thought I was being gentle in my response.

    • Their just all butt-hurt because the Supreme Court just kicked it so hard this morning!

      • Maybe Scalia finally did one good thing.

        Perhaps we’ll see another sit-in on the House floor like the Republicans did in 2008 on behalf of the oil companies. Eddie Munster Ryan can pontificate on the pureness of their motives, the sudden high-roaders in the hinterlands can chime in that ‘it’s all for the babies’. In 2008 the Republicans couldn’t stay in the saddle as long as the Democrats did, their sit-in only lasted 5 hours and when it was over several of them were stuck to the floor. Ho ho ho.

          • LKB, I thought today’s SCOTUS decision was correct.
            However I can imagine the uproar that will occur “South of Texarkana” and the demand for the Republic of Texas to secede from the U.S.A.
            And yes, that will also be behavior by a bunch of babies

          • Yo’re right, this rightie doesn’t like it. Abortion on demand is a stain on our moral fabric, and once again we see SCOTUS scribing laws on the walls of statehouses. Abortion is not a constitutional right, privacy is. And somehow the court twisted RvW into abortion being a privacy issue. Thomas was right in channeling Scalia’s views in his dissenting opion, but it would have been one vote short even with Scalia…one vote… so this decision is not a slam dunk, but it is the law.

  5. Nothing personal, but I tend to think those who make the argument that “nothing is wrong with the 2nd Amendment” are misinformed as to the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, or have either been tricked by the modern gun lobby’s marketing or are actively perverting its meaning.

    First, here is the text of the 2nd Amendment:

    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

    Gun enthusiasts and gun lobbyists love to cite the 2nd amendment to the constitution as the catch-all defense to their right to carry any weapon that they can get their hands on (like “assault” rifles). In order to do this, gun owners and sellers have hopelessly perverted the original intent of the 2nd Amendment and have expanded its guarantee of the right to “keep and bear arms” far beyond its original bounds.

    From its passage and until the late 20th century, the 2nd Amendment to the constitution was interpreted to protect the rights of states to maintain militias and for militiamen to sustain arsenals. In the early years of our country, there was no standing federal army (the founders were afraid of a national standing army consolidating power) and the states were expected to sustain a state militia in order to contribute to the national defense. This expectation necessitated protections for militias that would facilitate militiamen keeping weapons for their service.

    The 2nd amendment was predicated upon the maintenance of state militias, something that has become irrelevant in the face of our federal armed services, and is not something that should have allowed individuals to claim the right to own weapons. State militias had the right to bear arms, but individual, unattached Americans had no such right, this distinction in the difference between the 2ndAmendment being a collective right or an individual right.

    Chief Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger (a Republican) said the following about the proposal that the 2nd Amendment is aimed at protecting every American’s right to own guns:

    “…one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I’ve ever seen in my life time. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies—the militias—would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.”

    As Justice Burger said in no uncertain terms, before gun lobbyists and activists began campaigning to change the understanding of the 2nd Amendment in the late 20th century, nobody considered it to be an individual right. Unfortunately, a decades-long concerted effort by gun lobbyists and big money conservatives has successfully shifted the meaning of the 2nd Amendment so that it can be used to justify letting anybody own any weapon that they choose.

    Reasonable gun control regulations are not unconstitutional. The 2nd Amendment may be interpreted as an individual right, but this does not mean that it is unlimited.

    Even in its perverted form, the 2nd Amendment is not the perfect defense for gun ownership and is not an impediment for gun control regulation. After all, if the 2nd Amendment were absolute, imprisoned criminals would have the constitutionally protected right to carry a missile launcher with them while in the prison; using it to hurt people or damage property would be a crime, but carrying it would be a simple exercise of constitutional rights. In this direction, madness and mass killings wait for our society.

    The next time a gun enthusiast proposes that the 2nd Amendment gives them the absolute right to bear any arms that they wish, pose the previous situation to them and ask them to reconcile their interpretation of the Amendment with realistic laws. What you will get as an answer will be a contorted explanation on how criminal conduct negates the 2nd Amendment rights (absolute rights don’t work like that—case in point: the 1st Amendment) and how it is not sane or safe for criminals to have access to weapons while in prison. To be fair, they are half correct that such a gun policy is neither sane nor safe in our prisons, but, then again, neither is their proposed gun control regime on general society.

  6. Put plainly, guns are tools that have only one real use: to kill things. Whether for hunters to obtain food or police and military to defend themselves, a gun is for killing! They exist for the simple purpose of propelling a small projectile at high rates of speeds towards a target, with the direct goal of causing it physical trauma. Unlike many other things which may become lethal as they were not intended, guns have no alternative purpose and must be treated differently.

    Cars kill many people during accidents and mechanical failures, but their actual purpose is to facilitate transportation. When used correctly, cars are simply a tool for transporting people or objects from point A to point B faster or cheaper than many other methods of transportation. It is only when cars are used incorrectly that they become dangerous to others.

    With our current transportation infrastructure, cars are an integral part of how our society moves and it would be virtually impossible for us to change quickly. The deaths caused by cars are tragic, but they have no bearing on the need to regulate an entirely unrelated tool.

    The key difference between guns and cars in this debate is the fact that cars have purposes other than causing harm, while guns have no such redeeming aspects. At the most charitable, guns can be described as existing to allow good people to defend themselves from bad people by threatening them with death. In the context of maintaining social order, guns do serve a purpose to allow the civil authorities to impose force on violent people (giving the police the ability to defend themselves on the job), but the idea that this force should be distrusted to everybody in society is just insane.

    If cars were like guns and served no purpose but to facilitate violence, then I would support as strict regulations of them as I propose on guns. Guns have no social benefit and a removal of guns from society would not have the negative effects that a removal of cars would have. In fact, the reduction of gun availability in our society would help alleviate the epidemic of gun violence that we are living in and would save many lives.

    While on the subject of cars and guns, I would also point out that, in many cases, cars are far more regulated then guns. Gun enthusiasts may like to draw the comparison between guns and cars in support of their ability to own/operate guns without regulation, but they don’t appear to acknowledge the fact that car operation is far more regulated then gun operation. With guns, many states don’t require background checks, licensing, registration, or state-issue permits, yet they require all of the above for cars.

    In order to drive a car, you must be registered, get training, have a license, get insurance, and submit to periodic inspections. If such strict regulations were imposed upon guns, there is little doubt that gun-enthusiasts would begin hyperventilating and gesticulating about an illegal overreach into their personal right to own weapons.

    The next time somebody draws comparisons between the regulations on guns and cars, then since both have the potential to be dangerous, the regulations on cars should be translated to analogous restrictions on guns. Before anybody is able to buy a gun, they should be required to get firearms training, become certified through a state licensing process, get insurance for potential damages that their weapons may inflict, and register each and every one of their weapons with the state. Such a suggestion would likely result in a rapid backtracking by the gun-enthusiast as they try to make up reasons why guns don’t deserve to be as regulated as cars.

    • Nice exposition of the gun problem at 4:37p.m. and 4:37p.m. Unfortunately those who could learn from it will not. Twenty dead 6 & 7 year olds at Sandy Hook only stiffened their resolve to strut around with their guns, pretending to be tough. The carnage will continue.

    • congratulations on answering a question the greatest legal and constitutional minds have pondered, but forgive me for taking a short cut to refuting it.

      The way the founders secured a well armed militia was by insuring well armed citizenry was not infringed upon.

      Justice Burger is one opinion, and important one, but not the final one.

      Good point on cars, but one they are not a constitutional right, and two, not all firearms are designed to kill. In fact, most will never be used for killing, the ones used in self defense will most likely never have to be fired, which leaves firearms which you claim is designed to kill far far safer and less deadly than cars which you say are not designed to kill. go figure.

      As far as the falling for the marketing ploy. fraud? Assault weapon is the greatest ploy of the whole debate. there really is no such thing as an assault rifle and what has been portrayed as an assault rifle is not really the best choice for killing a large number of people. Basically it is a scary looking gun that is essentially no different and with no more tactical advantages than it’s sporting counterpart.

      All in all, this gun control argument is a useless distraction which is unenforceable and will never have the affect we all desire.

  7. classless fool in eville guns save lives……………if a scum bag toad breaks into my house or attacks me or my family on the street I can and will without a doubt put a cap in their ass………..you are one dumb son of a bitch………

    • I realize an asshole like you is clueless about the topics of logic or cause and effect, but I’ll still try. But since you are as sharp as a dull blade, it’s probably not worth my time

      I’ve often seen this quote, usually pasted over a picture of Sam Elliot:

      “You actually think criminals will obey gun control laws? You’re a special kind of stupid, aren’t you?”

      Here we see a splendid example of the straw man fallacy. The straw man fallacy is when, instead of taking on your opponent’s actual position, you attack a harmless effigy of it. In this case, the claim is that proponents of gun control actually think that criminals will obey gun control laws, which is of course a stupid thing to expect. Ergo, proponents of gun control are “a special kind of stupid.”

      Of course criminals won’t obey laws! But that’s actually kind of the point. Criminals tend to ignore laws, big and small, and they usually commit many more small crimes than big ones. That is, a person who commits major crimes tends to already have a lengthy criminal record of minor offences by the time they do something big. This fact can be used to help reduce crime in two main ways.

      First, on someone’s first arrest for a minor crime, there are opportunities to set them on the right path so that they don’t re-offend. In Canada, judges can grant conditional discharges upon sentencing, ensuring that the accused will not have a criminal record if they complete a rehabilitative program or course or meet whatever other conditions are specified by the judge. Some of these programs actually have a pretty high success rate, meaning that people caught early for minor crimes rarely commit another one. And if someone is picked up for illegal possession of a firearm before they actually shoot someone with it, that’s actually a good thing.

      Second, there is parole. To many people it seems counter-intuitive to let a dangerous criminal out on parole before the sentence is complete — they think he should serve his whole sentence! — but in fact it serves to help keep them off the streets longer if they are at all likely to re-offend. Parole means regularly checking in with a parole officer and keeping out of trouble; minor offences while on parole put you right back in jail, and for longer, because committing a minor offence while on parole is itself an additional offence with an additional sentence. Nobody really expects habitual criminals to obey their parole conditions. We hope they will, but if they don’t it’s actually a way to keep them locked up longer so they can’t commit more serious crimes.

      Gun control advocates, then, generally do not actually believe that criminals will obey gun control laws, and so the attacking that belief is attacking a straw man.

      Consider: the argument seems to be that we shouldn’t have gun control laws because criminals don’t obey the law anyway. But that’s actually a pretty terrible argument. Should we not have laws against stealing? Against driving drunk? Against murder? After all, criminals won’t obey those laws.

      We have these laws, not because we expect criminals to obey them, but so we can do something about it if they don’t: we can punish them or force them to undergo rehabilitation or banish them or whatever it takes to reduce such behavior.

      So do the authors of this kind of nonsense actually believe that their opponents expect criminals to obey the law? Do they actually believe there’s no point to passing laws that criminals will just break anyway? That’s two kinds of stupid right there.

      Speaking of stupid, do you have a mirror you can use?

      • So is it a logical fallacy to say that you will not keep firearms away from criminals by making it harder for responsible law abiding gun owners to acquire one.

        Or is it a logical fallacy to say that at best gun control laws can achieve is affecting the methodology of murder but not the incidence?

        Or would it be considered moving the goal post to say that since banning fully automatic weapons did not lower the murder rate we need to ban scary guns, and when scary guns do not have the desired result we need to ban handguns, and when banning handguns does not have the desired affect we need to ban…

        Isn’t logic like a math equation? so when one part of the is factored, shouldn’t we move on the other part of the equation>? Maybe we should focus on education and hardening targets or perhaps come up with a completely new methodology for controlling firearms with in constitutional boundaries? seems logical to me.

  9. And you’re as classy as a 2 dollar whore selling their soul for some easy taxpayers money……….

    • Look, dumbass, you should not talk when the adults are having an adult conversation. But clearly you are dumb as a bag of hammers, but tolerating you is getting more and more difficult.

      Also, your comments towards elkaybee show you to be a bigoted and ignorant fool. Hopefully the administrators for the CCO throw your stupid ass out for such a personal and vile comment. Your last rant violates the CCO’s guidelines on posting.

      In conclusion: STFU and GTFO

      • WHOA MULES! Try This;

        http://www.scrolllock.nl/3.html

        You all must understand, my buddy al sharpie aka tommyromo had his head pulled off in a botched abortion and therefore has a legitimate excuse to abhor it.

        He also shot his foot off twirling his six shooter but since it was his LEFT foot, figures it no big deal.

        Headless one foot al sharpie is my buddy.

        Please ease up Classy.

        Later….

Comments are closed.