As the most bizarre Presidential campaign of my relatively long life continues, I find myself longing for the elusive Ideal Candidate.
If you’ve been reading this blog for enough years, you know my ideal candidate is Condi Rice. She was a vastly better Secretary of State than Hillary Clinton. Dr. Rice is a self-made success: brilliant, indomitable in debate, respected throughout the world, embodies gravitas, and not incidentally is a strong supporter of individual Second Amendment rights.
I’m not the only one who thinks so. See this, from Michael Gerson in the Washington Post.
Who thinks it’s time for a Draft Condi movement?
I have wanted to vote for Condi Rice for high public office for at least the past decade. I have confidence in both her ability and her honor/competence/integrity. (you choose)
In this sad year with no viable candidates in sight, I would sign any petition, campaign for, and contribute funds (after my social security check comes in) to support a “Condi For President” campaign.
The write-in option is viscerally appealing, but not practical.
Someone needs to present herself as a sane candidate.
So far .. nothing.
I liked Ike. Condi Rice seems awful nice, but women are generally just too prone to knee-jerk promotion of gametic competition among males, an underlying cause of general conflict. Another way to put it is to say that women are trouble. A woman told me so, you know. “The female is the deadlier of the species,” someone said. If you add the hormonal dissonance brought about in women by use of THE PILL over the last 50 years, it is actually could be time to disenfranchise the female vote in order to put affairs back into peaceful equilibrium. Radical Islam may be in the process of instituting such a version of gender politics. I am getting a level IV vest with chicken plates after this blog, by the way. I vote for TN_MAN for President, with Alex Jones for running mate. More logic, less trouble!
Hmmm . . . back when Mr Obama was first elected I did opine that I’d always believed that America would one day have a black president, but I always though it would be Dr Rice.
And while I think she would bring credit to the office, she just doesn’t want the job.
Hmmm . . . I first came across this idea many moons ago in ‘The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy’ of all places, but I suspect it’s not original: anyone who wants the job is obviously not suitable for the job.
-sigh-
Your so right. Mas, I feel trump is in with Hillary to get her in office.
I agree entirely. I also feel she is too smart to want to jump into the current bloodbath. Maybe she’ll wait 4 years and pick up the pieces.
An aside: I had thought of 1 Samuel 8 (wherein Israel asks for a king to rule them) back in 2008. What I never could have dreamed possible was that 8 years later it’s happening all over again…but I’m positive the outcome will be worse than when the last Messiah got elected to the adulation of cheering throngs.
Agree 100 %. Unfortunately she has often stated she doesn’t want the job. She would be a great President regardless of her sex or race.
Over 40 years ago, my brother became involved “on the inside” in DC and was privy to much info the public didn’t see. I asked him what was going on shortly after Jimmy Carter proved that a good man doesn’t always make a good president. He said it’s very simple – the best people don’t want – or NEED – the highest offices. They refuse to submit themselves and their families to the scrutiny that goes with that territory. Their egos don’t require them to do that – ala Trump, Clinton, et al. Condi Rice is walking, talking proof of this.
None of the candidates left are Vets. Geoff Who figures if you are not willing to put your personal fanny on the line for the US of A, you got no business ordering others to do so.
Mans,
While I believe Cruz would be the better option, almost anybody but the current crop will do. Condi Rice has always been a favorite of mine, but she’s made clear a run for the White House is not in her calendar.
Well, I am not all that familiar with Ms. Rice, but my main problem is to choose the “least worst choice Person”, who is running for US President, this November.
All of us will have two choices, “hold our noses”, and vote for Trump, or whoever winds up as the Republican Candidate, or NOT VOTE AT ALL, as it’s a No-Brainer to not vote for Hillery/Bill Clinton Again.
At least Trump knows how to Make/Save Money, and “How to Fire People” who don’t measure up, so I will vote for him, at least once, if he lives long enough make it to November, that is?
Since no one here seems to think much of Trump or Cruz, you might be interested in this interview with Bruce Bartlett, who worked for Ron Paul, worked in Congress to advance the economic programs of the Regan administration, and held a couple of policy and economic policy positions in the White House during George H.W. Bush’s administration. He says, “So I think that giving Trump the nomination is the surest path to complete and total destruction of the Republican Party as we know it. And I look forward to him getting the nomination for that reason. I think he will have a historic loss. I think he may well bring in a Democratic Senate. But more importantly, my hope is, at least, that he will lead to a really serious assessment of the problems of the Republican Party, and lead to some opening of thought, opening of discussion, conversation among groups that have been sidelined for quite a long time. Mainly moderates and people of that sort who have been just pushed to the sidelines in favor of ever more rabid, nonsensical, right-wing authoritarianism. But I also don’t think it really makes all that much difference whether Trump gets the nomination, because he’s already succeeded in destroying the Republican coalition as far as the general election is concerned. Because, look, if he doesn’t get the nomination, he’ll probably do everything in his power to guarantee that whoever does get the nomination is defeated. So either way the party is looking at historic losses, historic defeat. And I think that is really, really a wonderful thing.”
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/25/complete_and_total_destruction_of_the_republican_party_former_reagan_official_bruce_bartlett_on_why_he_backs_trump/
If he’s right, I don’t see how the Republican moderates can easily gain back control of the party (and he acknowledges that in passing later in the interview), but if they don’t then there’s a very real possibility of dominance of the Democratic Party for years to come, with moderate Republicans simply staying home and not voting or possibly voting for Democratic moderate or conservative candidates rather than voting for Republican right-wing candidates.
Condi is great, but her enemies will always bring up her support for the Iraq War in order to make her look bad to voters.
I like Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, Walter E. Williams and Ben Carson. But then, I am a dreamer.
Interesting how Americans complain so much about the politicians WE ELECT. I guess economics is a difficult subject to understand, and so is politics.
Hillary Clinton will win, because Hillary will cheat.
I don’t vote for Republicans, I vote against Democrats, so I will vote for whoever is on the Republican ticket.
Look at how bad things are in America. And yet, all the other countries are even worse! I bet North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Cuba and Venezuela would love to have a recession like we are having now. A recession where most people still have jobs, and go to restaurants, and malls, and Disney World, and shoot guns, and drive pickup trucks with big tires, and shop in Supermarkets with aisles for pet food.
I was a life long Republican until the RNC rewrote the rules in mid stream to keep from seating the Maine Delegation at the 2012 Convention. I am a native Memphian, who truly loves my home State of Tennessee, but I live in Maine and I was so happy we went for Dr Paul. After the 2012 Convention I revoked my registration as a Republican and became a Libertarian, since they represent my small government, fiscally responsible, pro Constitution politics better than the GOP has in my adulthood. Now Hastert has been convicted of RAPING 5 little boys and his colleagues, or better accessories after the fact, got him off with only 15 months in Prison. Is the Grand Old Boy RAPING Party really something we want to save?
The sad fact is that the establishment wants a candidate that is corrupt or can be corrupted. Any candidate that is sincerely their own person is a direct threat to the establishment and their crony politics and crony capitalism.
This is why the GOP hates Trump. Trump is no saint, but when you are a billionaire it is hard to find something that that a billionaire needs or wants that he can get only from the cronies. Therefore, Trump cannot be manipulated in all the ways that past candidates have.
The fact is the only difference these days between the GOP and Dems is how they spell there party name. The GOP would rather see Hillary win than Trump. Hillary can be “bought” and Trump cannot.
I too admire Condi Rice, but if a candidate these days appeals to the vast majority of Americans outside the Beltway corruption for their talent and honesty, then that is not the candidate the corrupt establishment wants or will support. The establishment will do anything to prevent that from happening – and they have the connections and the money.
The belief that we live in a democracy today is an illusion. Today’s elections are little more than a secondary school popularity contest.
I listened to Condi speak at Norwich University at my son’s graduate level graduation ceremony. She was asked directly if she would run for POTUS and the audience, nearly to a man, enthusiastically supported the idea. She said she had a single word answer to the question and that it was “NO”. She is far too happy where she is. I believe she is too wise to want the job. I would also vote for her in a heartbeat but it ain’t gonna happen.
Condi Rice is a true American treasure. Her contributions to our Republic are unmatched by any of the current crop of presidential wanna-be’s.
To be truthful, we don’t deserve someone one of her intelligence and integrity. We, as a nation, have squandered the blessings that were bequeathed us, allowed ourselves to be lulled into dependent children, never satisfied, always wanting more. Our politicians are more than willing to “oblige” us.
“Oblige” is the root of “obligation”. Make no mistake, the national debt that we have accrued is “our debt”, collectively and individually. Our obligation. Eventually it will be paid, not by the politicians, but by us, the citizen.
No person of true integrity and personal accomplishment would want to preside over what I fear is coming in the near future. A shame, because possibly the right person could help cushion the fall.
I can’t help but notice that everyone here seems to be stuck in the Two Party mindset. There are other options, one of which is former two term Governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson, who will be on the ballot in all 50 states in November. Johnson firmly supports the Second Amendment, as well as all of our other rights. If you’re not already firmly in camp Hillary or camp Donald, check him out. He’s already polling at 11%.
@ Dave (the Liberal, non-Uncle one):
Since I was born during the middle of the 1930s Depression, and raised to believe in “God, Duty, Honor, and Country”, I am sure you would call me a “Right Winger”, who “Clings to his Religion, and his Guns”, but if it wasn’t for my Generation, and Our Fore Father’s, and Children (Who served in the War of 1812, The Civil War, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, and the Gulf Wars), you would probably be learning to speak Russian, German, or one of several other Asian, or Middle Eastern Languages, and stay out of, or Get Out of, whatever Political Reeducation Camps our Foreign Masters might use!
Paul
I’d vote for Condi, but she’s been on record that her dream job would be the NFL commissioner. More bucks, less headaches and a lot less stacked-deck media attacks.
Nonetheless, I’ll be voting the ABH ticket next November: Anyone But Hillary.
Dave the Liberal – just because I didn’t pick a name doesn’t mean I “don’t think much of someone.” I DID say “the BEST people” don’t aspire to the highest offices. It’s so very sad our “politics” have become so much “reality tv” that yields the choices we have today instead of a meaningful political process that would give us candidates whose goals would be to return America to its former greatness, not boost their egos or insure their so-called legacy.
Yes, Condi Rice would get my vote. I wonder why the Republican party hasn’t drafted her. A woman of True Integrity. Instead, as I vote in the Indiana primary tomorrow, none of the candidates stand out as the best choice.
Well, Trump will need a running mate …
@Paul Edwards: None of the things you say would cause me to label you a right-winger. I do not equate patriotism, religious belief, respect for veterans, or being a veteran with right wing views. Indeed, there are many moderates and liberals in both parties who hold those views. You may hold other views beyond those which make you a right-winger, and I’ll take your word for it that if I knew those additional views that I would probably label you as such, but the ones you mention don’t do it.
When I think of Ms. Rice, it reminds me of a statement I believe is attributed to Ronald Reagan. “…we will have a woman president and she will be a Republican.” Ms. Rice would get my vote over any of the current candidates.
I think we are all in agreement that this is a terrible election and the country is in a “lose or lose worse” situation with any of the candidates. The best we may get from the current crop could be a Cruz vs. Sanders contest. At least their ideologies are clear. All that being said, I’m not leaving the country unless Texas secedes or I take a trip off planet.
Sorry, but I’m not a fan of Ms. Rice – she was a participating member of the cabal that blundered into Iraq – a mistake we’re still paying for.
Way back when, I would have liked for Colin Powell to run. To his credit, he’s one of the few that has apologized for his part in the Iraq mess, but I still can’t believe he didn’t have enough street smarts to realize he was being used as a patsy in promoting the Iraq debacle.
I’m simply voting for ABC (anybody but Clinton), which means NO third party as that will hand her the election. I’m just waiting for the Republican party to sort this mess out – I’m assuming I’ll either be voting for Cruz or Trump, and at this point it looks like Trump may be unstoppable!?
I retired from heavy industry and have seen how our trade policies have gutted the working class – I believe they say over 60,000 factories closed since 2003, along with all the support industries / workers that supplied and serviced those factories and workers.
While he is a bore, and impossible to watch, at this point I think Trump could either be the best thing that’s happened to this country or the worst, and at this time I’m willing to take the chance.
If not, and we continue to elect the same old insiders / power brokers, the slow motion train wreck that our country has become will continue to roll down the tracks to its inevitable end.
Dr. Rice has been a favorite of mine for years and I would gladly support her in any endeavor, and would work my butt off to get her elected as President. But there’s one little thing that the liberal conformist media would pursue her on: Why has she never married? It doesn’t matter one bit to me, but the media are relentless, and would make her life a living hell. I would never wish that on a decent person, only on a democrat.
My dream candidate for President would be Vlad Lenin or Joe Stalin, but since neither are available, I would settle for Bernie Sanders or Madame Hillary.
Yes, I know Lenin and Stalin weren’t born in America, but that doesn’t seem to be a disqualifying factor anymore, at least not in the last two elections.
While I appreciate the endorsement of Two-Gun Steve, I am far too logical to ever want the job. I suspect the same is true of Condoleezza Rice. So far, this election cycle reminds me of a quote from President Theodore Roosevelt which goes as follows:
“It may be that ‘the voice of the people is the voice of God’ in fifty one cases out of a hundred, but in the remaining forty nine it is quite as likely to be the voice of the devil, or, what is still worse, the voice of a fool.”
It is very clear to me that the 2016 election cycle is one of the forty nine cases referred to by President Roosevelt. Certainly, the Voice of God has been silent during this campaign. The current leading candidates manifestly fall into the “other” categories listed above by Teddy. On the one hand, we have an amoral, self-serving egomaniac (representing the Voice of the Devil) and on the other, we have a deceitful, manipulative left-wing fanatic who is an avowed enemy of the 2nd Amendment. She represents the Voice of the Fool.
The entrance of Ms. Rice into this campaign would indeed be a welcome manifestation of God’s Love. Sadly, I fear that He will continue to remain silent and that this election will come down to Beelzebub versus the Fool. In other words, this is yet another election where our only choice is to select among the lesser of two Evils.
President Roosevelt plainly felt that the Fool was worse than the Devil and I tend to agree. Evil may sometimes (inadvertently) recoil upon itself and give rise to Good. However, the path of the Fool leads only to destruction. Therefore, if God does indeed continue to remain absent from this race, I guess I will have to go to the polls and vote against the Fool. I can’t honestly say that I would be voting FOR anybody.
There may be supporters on this blog, of either the Devil or the Fool, who object to my above characterizations. Their fingers may be aching to grab a keyboard and post that TN_MAN IS WRONG. That the Devil or the Fool actually represents the MESSIAH and that they are selected by GOD to save this Nation. To them I say, don’t bother. I would sooner believe that the moon is made of green cheese or that whales speak French at the bottom of the sea than believe THAT!
I pray daily that God’s Voice will be heard and that it will drown out the thunderous voices of the Devils and the Fools that are bent upon destroying this county.
While I have heard Dr. Rice speak of her father bearing arms to protect his community from violent racists and her general support for the Second Amendment, I would still need to hear her “on the record” beliefs on specific subjects such as Universal Background Checks, the gunshow “loophole”, magazine capacity limits, Modern Sporting Rifle (Black Rifles) ownership…
On a separate note, Dr. Rice favors amnesty for those individuals illegally in this country, and I believe she has stated she will remain ” open minded ” on the idea of a “pathway to citizenship” for those individuals. These positions are not endeared by a large percentage of the Republican base.
Cheers Mas,
The article you cite is ‘never TRUMP’ propaganda. Being two months old, it labors on moot points. TRUMP has dominated with landslide victories and will easily surpass 1237 delegates. There will be no ‘second vote’ for the nomination in Cleveland.
That article agrees with you about Ms. Rice but there is an opposite viewpoint:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-weird-admiration-for-condi-rice/
It is four years old, but that is telling as well. “…realists shouldn’t be rooting for Condi Rice… people identify her with Republican realism, it associates realism with one of the least competent National Security Advisers and Secretaries of State of the last several decades…”
My purpose is not to debate opinions, but to bring the discussion to a very sharp point. We are late in the game and there is one choice, TRUMP or 1,000 years of darkness being reigned down on America and the world by Hillary Clinton.
TRUMP is 100% for the Second Amendment:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights
The case is made in the following videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8VKmbu-HQ8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwNIzqaYLX4
Thanks for the blog and sharing different ideas,
Best regards,
Doc Casull
Breaking News – Ted Cruz suspended his campaign tonight so fantasy candidate deram time is suspended.
Donald Trump vs the gun grabbers!
If you like him or not, the Hillary appointed Supreme Court is not an option for gun owners!
We all have strap on our helmets and go to work for our 2A rights. If that means working and voting for Trump, then if needed you can close your eyes and hold your nose. If you can’t work for the only candidate to support guns, then you should work on concealed carry cell phone. The 2A is too important to sit on the side lines.
@ Doc Casull:
“Trump is 100% for the Second Amendment.”
Actually, Trump is 100% for Donald Trump. However, it is certain that Hillary Clinton is 100% against the Second Amendment.
Therefore, indeed, as I noted in my post above, the Devil is better than the Fool.
It looks like Trump is almost certain to sew up the Republican nomination at this point and that his opponent will be Clinton. In that case, I shall certainly vote AGAINST Hillary Clinton by holding my nose and pulling the lever for the devil. May God help us all!
Vin,
I agree. Is Trump the answer to all our country’s problems? Don’t know. Was he my first choice for the nomination? No. Is he a 2nd. amendment purist like myself? I sincerely doubt it. Will he appoint true conservative judges to the federal courts? Remains to be seen.
What I do know. Hillary makes no bones about where she stands on the 2nd. amendments, federal judges, and using regulations to beat down political opposition. She has repeatedly shown her lack of moral character and a propensity to destroy her adversaries for personal reasons. Her ineptness in doing her job as Secretary of State, while running her side business of selling influence, is becoming more and more obvious. In my view, she is the epitome of what is wrong in Washington.
Now, to Trump. What does he really believe? He wrote an outstanding article on his stance on the 2nd. amendment. Is that his real beliefs? Don’t know. He’s taken some positions in the past (pre-presidential campaign) the give me pause on this issue. His moral foundation? Again, I don’t know. Has he destroyed people for personal gain? That’s according to your definition of “destroy”. He has used bankruptcy to avoid paying debts, and eminent domain to take property otherwise not for sale by the owners, for personal gain.
Now, my conundrum. Vote for a flawed candidate that I really don’t know for sure what his true goals are, or don’t vote as some suggest, and insure the election of a person (Hillary) who I truly believe will complete the “fundamental change ” started by Obama. To me, not voting is not an option.
Will I support Trump. Yes. Not voting for Trump will be supporting Hillary. Will he be a “great president” as he is fond of saying? I sincerely hope so, for the sake of this once great country.
You will notice that this comment is filled with “I don’t know’s”, questions, and doubt’s. It must be election time in America.
P.S.- saw on TV a couple of days ago that ” 9% of voting age Americans had voted, on average, in the Republican primaries, and 8% of voting age Americans had voted in the Democrat primaries. The way I read this is that only 17% of adult citizens give a hoot about what is happening to our country. God helps us, it’s obvious we won’t help ourselves
We’re doomed! Ted Cruz has dropped out of the race so the Orange Obama will be the Republican nominee for this do or die election which will forever change our once great nation. OO as a great salesman who would say anything to get your money, and as a politician, would say anything to get your vote, then your money after he takes power. However, that’s unlikely as HillBilly will ascend to the throne and rule over us lowly peasants next year since the FBI will drag it’s feet until the presidential election is over.
We all know that the ideal candidate does not exist. And if one were to emerge in the future, I would be suspicious because it would seem too good to be true. Like it or not, and I surely do not, we must now hold our noses and pull the lever for Trump. Not only due to Clinton’s 2A stance, but for a whole host of others. I believe that she would be worse than BHO. Trump’s not a conservative he’s a populist; but that’s the direction the electorate is leaning. The fact that he has at least stated during his campaign that he is pro 2A will have to suffice for now. Hillary, on the other hand has made her 2A position quite clear. I also like Trump’s statements on rebuilding our military. Whether or not he would do it remains to be seen; but rest assured if Hillary gets in there, we’ll be dependent on France for our national security.
We are now down to a choice of one. I believe we have been for a while. It’s Trump or Hillary. Anyone who cannot vote for Trump is casting a vote for Hillary. Simple as that.
I ran across this article via a link on another site.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-curmi-/a-revision-on-the-bill-of_3_b_9772428.html.
This gentleman believes he has figured out a good argument for restricting the 2nd. amendment. Basically he says that the 2nd. amendment guarantees the right to gun ownership but not the right to use it. His reasoning? If you use the gun for self defense you are denying the one attacking you of their right to a fair trial, a right guaranteed by the same constitution. In other words, the attackers right to a fair trial trumps (no pun intended) your right to prevent your own death at the hands of a criminal. He believes the only other use of a gun is for armed insurrection against the government which is illegal. Case closed. The second amendment now has no reason to exist.
Any guesses as to whether or not he votes? Any doubt of which party/candidate he will support.
Liberal Dave, if I remember correctly, you have in the past linked Huff-Po articles in your comments. Is this guy a “moderate democrat” or a “left wing-nut”?
Huff Post is so anti Trump they would not cover him in the news section only entertainment. Less objective source than the supermarket tabloids when it come to politics.
@ Dennis:
The basic line of reasoning given in this article is the assumption that the U.S. Constitution grants both the right to self-defense (via the 2A) and the right to a fair trial (via the 5A). When conflicts arise in such constitutional rights, the more important one (which to a Huffington Post Leftist would be those under the 5A) would carry greater weight. Thus, he reaches his left-wing conclusion that the right to a fair trial negates the rights granted under the 2A.
There are many flaws in this argument. For example, self-defense rarely results in the death of the attacker. If the act of self-defense does not kill the attacker (say it only wounds him or scares him off to be later captured by the police), it does not damage the rights granted under the 5A. The attacker can still receive a fair trial. There are probably dozens of cases of non-lethal self-defense for every fatal one. Thus, this argument would not universally apply. Does he mean to argue that the mere possibility of death, and the resulting loss of the opportunity for a fair trial, is enough to totally nullify any and all rights granted under the 2A? If so, then that is a sweeping claim that shows how little value the leftist mentality truly places on the 2A. When a constitutional right has no value, in someone’s eyes, then I guess even a tiny crumb of opposing benefit is more than enough to justify its total and complete sacrifice.
However, the main flaw in this argument is in the assumption that the right of self-defense flows from the 2A. It does not.
The right of self-defense is a natural right. A right enjoyed not merely by humans but by every creature that walks, swims, jumps, crawls, slithers, or flies over the earth. When a cape buffalo is attacked by a lion or a bison is attacked by a wolf, it has the right of self-defense. It may not win but it has the right to try. Sometimes, the defender does win. There have been plenty of lions gored to death by buffalo in Africa and plenty of wolves stomped into jelly by bison over the centuries. Never doubt it.
The right to a fair trial, on the other hand, is a man-made right that is granted by the Constitution. A cape buffalo that gores a lion is not put on trial for this act nor does the buffalo get to offer a “stand your ground” defense. His trial is determined by whether he is still alive after the fight!
However, a man that kills his fellow man is entitled to a fair trial or (at least) legal review, in the US anyway, under our system of constitutional laws.
Since self-defense is a natural right, it operates on a higher plane than any artificial, man-made right. Therefore, the 2A (as it supports this natural right) actually takes precedence over any artificial right to a fair trial.
The reasoning in this article is, therefore, deeply flawed. It shows how poorly the author of this article understands the true nature of self-defense since he apparently believes that it flows from words on a bit of paper. I would point out that neither the lion nor the cape buffalo can read and they have no knowledge of any constitutional rights.
No right to a fair trial can ever invalidate the right of self-defense or render moot the 2nd Amendment. Other nations of the world, who have succumbed to this type of flawed left-wing thinking and who deny their citizens any right of self-defense (think the U.K. or Australia here), are guilt of human (and natural) right violations. These violations are as serious as the loss of freedom of speech or freedom of religion in other countries. If these matters were adjudicated properly, the U.K. and Australia would be at the top of the list of known human rights abusers. Unfortunately, these lists are compiled, in many cases, by the leftists themselves who are careful to ignore their own ideological abuses.
@Dennis: I can’t label this writer in any convenient category. His a priori reasoning, which ignores two centuries of legal interpretation and gives controlling weight to the preamble of the Constitution to a degree that no reasonable legal interpretation would do, is so far outside the mainstream as to be no more than a curiosity.
He leans towards an interesting question, but by bringing in the fair trial argument goofs it up (by his light the right to self-defense would also be trumped by any other right in the constitution which requires a living person to exercise it, that’s patent nonsense). There’s a very good argument to be made that the right to self-defense mentioned in the Supreme’s gun cases is only a “right” as a reason to support the 2A coverage to guns outside militia use and that beyond that there’s no independent right, especially independent constitutional right, to self-defense. That’s supported by the fact that every state has the right to define in its statutes exactly what will be recognized as legal self-defense and that those definitions need not be uniform from state to state. Perhaps the right might invalidate an attempt by a state to eliminate the right of self-defense altogether by repealing its self-defense statutes and expressly abrogating all common-law rights to self-defense, but I wouldn’t put much money even on that outcome. If it were an attempt to cut the right back to the point that it only applied in the very rarest or most improbable of circumstances, I wouldn’t put any money at all on that attempt being invalidated under the self-defense “right.”
By the way, once I click “submit” on this posting, I’m going out the door and will be traveling for a few weeks and may not have much Internet access or time to post here. Please forgive me if I don’t post or reply regularly, but I’ll try to keep a hand in as time allows.
@ Dave (the Liberal, non-Uncle one):
I disagree with your statement that the right of self-defense does not exist beyond 2A coverage to guns outside of militia use or that every State “has the right to define in its statutes exactly what will be recognized as legal self-defense”.
This is nothing more or less than the denial of the existence of a natural right to self-defense and would justify any State or the entire USA or any foreign government in stamping out (as the UK and Australia have largely done) any right to self-defense at all. The fact that it is often done does not justify a right to do it. This is nothing more that the argument that “might makes right”. In effect, saying that, if a State or Government can get away with suppressing the right of self-defense them (bingo) they have exercised and shown a right to do so.
You see the insidious nature of this argument and approach. First, a State or Government passes laws, under the guise of “gun control” and crime prevention, to disarm the people. Then, once the people are disarmed, it is “might makes right” party time! The government now has the might so it tells the people what is right! First thing to go is any right of self-defense. Then the government grabs control of the economy. Eventually, every aspect of the peoples lives is under the thumb of “Big Brother”.
Hence, we see the TRUE value of the 2nd Amendment. To stand against the disarmament of the People and to keep us off the path of “might makes right” Government control. Self-defense does not just extend to the individual protecting himself (or herself) from criminal attack. There is a larger level of self-defense whereby the People protect themselves from the criminal attack of a power hungry, “might-makes-right” Government. Both types of self-defense are supported by the 2nd Amendment.
I love her attitude and ability but I suspect that she is too smart to want the job and we can’t draft her.
Mas,
I was a Condie fan when she first appeared during my tour in DC. She was supposed to be the great Kremlinologist.
Subsequently, when Bush the lesser returned from meeting Putin (Condie again the Bush expert on things Russian) and said what he said about him I was dumbfounded.
Subsequently I found out more about her and wouldn’t want her anywhere near DC again.
REpublican establishment, Dem establishment, all the same. Folks like her get a sense selling influence is just something they deserve – regardless of whom they are assisting.
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&projects_and_programs=ableDanger
The entire argument reduced to it’s most important element:
#neverhillary
Ever.
Except for prison.
I once had an extended, civil email exchange with a black female who was attending Stanford University. She was, predictably, liberal. I pointed out two professors who she had available to her at Stanford, Dr. Thomas Sowell (arguably one of the most intelligent men in America) and Dr. Condi Rice. Fluent in Russian, plays the piano at the level of a concert pianist, former Secretary of State (and with whom I share a birthday).
She dismissed both out of hand. She had even had a brief encounter with Dr. Rice who apparently tried to educate the young lady in the few minutes they had together. Either of these people, Dr. Sowell or Dr. Rice individually are monumental intellects, together they are truly a resource to whom one should pay close attention, especially if you are lucky enough to have them near at hand on a daily basis.
Liberalism truly is a mental disorder.
TN-MAN 2
Dave 0
The “existence” of a self-defense right to which I was referring is only the extent to which it has been and may in the future be recognized by US courts and, most importantly, the US Supreme Court. I wasn’t addressing the question of whether or not such a right _should_ be recognized, but the likelihood that it _will_ be recognized beyond the 2A cases. I’m fairly sure that it will come up again as cases on restricting particular types of weapons come before the courts, but beyond that, I rather doubt that it will go further.
Dr. Rice would be a better President than either Trump or Clinton. But that’s a bar so low a cockroach couldn’t get under it.
Clinton is grossly incompetent and ignorant (or misinformed). Trump may be competent, but is ignorant, misinformed, and has cultivated a public character that is utterly unsuited to the office. Both of them are of bad personal character (shameless lying, dirty dealing). Ask yourself this: would you trust either of them to marry your son or daughter?
Rice is honest, competent, and knowledgeable about foreign affairs. I’m not sure about her stands on domestic policy; I fear that she would be too consensus-minded. (To a certain extent, I see the same problem on the foreign-policy side.)
However, it’s irrelevant as she could never be elected. She is identified with the Bush wars, which have been so savagely blackened by the media that they contaminate anyone who touched them.
@ Dave (the Liberal, non-Uncle one
I believe that All of OUR Right(s) to Self Defense, are a “GOD Given” Right, that are merely confirmed, and protected, by the U.S. Constitution!
If the “Courts”attempt to “Deny” us those “Rights”, it is time to “Throw Out”, the judges “Who Believe that”, and/or the “Government Officials” appointing those Judges, either via the Ballot box, or the Cartridge box, as appropriately stated in OUR “Declaration Of Independence!
And I believe that the invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe after drinking heavily (his drunkenness explaining the imperfection of His creation).
But my believing does not make my beliefs any more (or less) true than your beliefs do yours.
The fact is that the availability of self-defense is so universally accepted in US culture that I cannot see it ever being stripped away; restricted, perhaps, but not abolished. But there’s a difference between a “right” of that nature – actually a privilege – and a constitutional right.
@ Dave (the Liberal, non-Uncle one)
You take too narrow of a view of the U.S. Constitution. In effect, declaring that the right of self-defense is actually just a privilege while simultaneously implying that it is some kind of cultural holdover or archaic believe dating from an earlier time.
This ignores not only 200 years of American Legal rulings (plus centuries of English Common Law) but also the idea that the US Constitution is a limit on the power of Government and not a limit on Freedom. You are, in effect, saying that any right not specifically enunciated in the Constitution is just a privilege. A privilege that may be trodden under, at will, by the iron boot of an oppressive government.
I assure you that there is far more justification, in the US Constitution, regarding a right of self-defense then there ever was for the “right” to gay marriage which was recently manufactured by the SCOTUS.
Comments are closed.