From TPM:
During his questioning of Kagan, Grassley asked her not just about her opinion of Heller, McDonald or stare decisis, but about whether the right to bear arms predates the constitution Kagan is seeking to interpret on the court. He wasn't talking about the Magna Carta, or the Hammurabic Code, however: he wanted to know whether the right to carry man-made weapons actually came from a higher power. Kagan, for her part, didn't want to get into litigating whether a higher power gave us rights before we enshrined them in the document she'll be asked to interpret.
Somehow, and I admit that I am completely lost in my attempt to understand just how this conclusion has been reached, Senator Grassley seems to believe that the right to bear arms in America is a right that was given to us, not by the mere mortals who crafted the Second Amendment, but instead by the Almighty God.
No, I have NOT been drinking! Here watch it for yourself.
I am going to have to re-read the Bible, because I must have missed the chapter where He handed out the weapons and ammunition.
You would think that David would have had access to, at the very least, an Uzi when he went up against Goliath. I mean that would have made things a hell of a lot easier for the guy, dontcha think?
We got the smarts to manufacture weapons and ammo from The Man, himself.
ReplyDeleteThe smarts to refute His existence came from...came from...came from...
You can't spell Grassley without "ass."
ReplyDeleteGrassley clearly has mis-placed part of his alleged brain somewhere between the last plane he rode on and the chair of the hearing room where he uttered this gibber-jabber...
ReplyDeleteHe is from Iowa and there isn't much out there but being this lost in space deserves a visit from the congressional psycho docs...
It's true the rule of law for the U.S. gives every man a right to bear arms. During the revolutionary war, all men bore arms, whether to protect themselves or hunt. It was a necessary way of life. Then, of course, each nation is expected to defend itself as well against crime and outlaws. These are the temporal solutions of man.
ReplyDeleteBut, the spiritual laws of man are according to the bible, "For though the weapons of our warfare are not physical (weapons), but they are mighty before God for the overthrow and detruction of (spiritual) strongholds."
No matter how any leader wants to twist it, he can't change God's mind. The NT speaks only of our spiritual warfare: the belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the strong boots of the gospel of peace, the helmet of salvation, the shielf of faith.....
What would Jesus do? He came with no weapons, no army, no mandate from heaven to taunt leaders.
But, He did understand the world we live in and how leaders had to keep order to counter crime. He knew that a secular order was necessary, like our military. And the NT asks christians to respect and support those who fight for us. So that everyone will be at peace.
But, individuals who "use" scripture to bend to their will are not true followers. In my observation, repubs are trying to justify God's permission for them to carry uzis and firearms. Why don't they just come out and say that they want firearms, instead they try to inject God's endorsement on it, is just plain wrong.
Oh, please!~ The gun wasn't even invented until 1000 years after Jesus died. So if it was from God, don't you think he'd have Jesus invent and build them when he was here and donate them to all the people in his travels because his father ordered everyone to have guns?
ReplyDeleteGrassley "wasn't talking about the Magna Carta, or the Hammurabic Code, however: he wanted to know whether the right to carry man-made weapons actually came from a higher power."
ReplyDeleteThe higher power is his 2010 re-election campaign.
If Moses was commanded to write THOU SHALT NOT KILL as one of the 10 commandments for the human population to follow, would it not be hypocritical on the part of that same higher power that commanded that to also allow guns (which didn't exist then) to do something that was already commanded we NOT do?! Last I checked, that higher power doesn't fall prey to human shortcomings. Ah...the stupidity just keeps on comin!
ReplyDeleteAnd once again, Grassley manages to embarrass the hell out of this usually proud Iowan.
ReplyDeleteLook, Chuckles, and all the rest of you whack-job Xtians out there - the Declaration does not say "by OUR creator..."
ReplyDeleteThe Declaration says "...all men are endowed by their creator..."
Get it?
THEIR creator - not our creator...
Do you see the difference? THEIR creator.
Allah, Kali, Buddah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Blue Unicorn, the Bestest Sky Wizard... get it? If they had meant Jesus or Jehovah or YahooWahoo they would have SAID that.
And they would have made it very clear in BOTH the Declaration and the Constitution. But they DIDN'T. They DIDN'T build in a separation of church and state nudge, nudge, wink, wink. tee hee, tee hee. The Constitution very clearly says "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Grassley and Palin and the rest of the Christian Taliban need to go sit in a corner and argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and let the reasonable people get on with running the country.
Really now...Grassley and others like him, are the people we've entrusted to handle our future? To guide the ship of State?
ReplyDeleteThe inmates are definately in control of the asylum, folks.
We are so screwed.
I am from Iowa. I emailed snake in the Grassley and told him he was an embarrassment. He couldn't think of a better question to ask her. Really? I guess it is hard to ask a question in that setting when you need to get in god and guns.
ReplyDeleteThe look on her face cracks me up. Like she clearly understands he is the wack job sent from hell.
ReplyDeleteMaybe that other wack job from MN can help him out. You know the chic who thought ACORN was invading Alaskan villages during the start up of the census...
Here I thought the wacko people only resided on the north shore of Lake Lucille. I must admit, the guy from Iowa, demonstrates more thought process than IT that quit...
more insanity.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure the virgin and her stud MUST have had a gun with them. after all, those were dangerous times - riding around the countryside and staying in barns, surely they needed a gun to protect themselves. they had to defend the son of god somehow - and we all know that guns are the only real means of defense. what if there was a barn invasion???
Is there any other country on earth that has such an unholy love affair with their weapons? Gun ownership seems be almost a sacred & sanctified act among Americans. I'll never forget Charlton Heston's challenge to his detractors to pry his rifle from his cold dead hands, or that tired refrain repeated ad nauseum by gun advocates, that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
ReplyDeleteIs it any wonder that the U.S. has such a high gun-related mortality & injury rate?
A tad of OT but not really considering we're discussing Trig and Bristol again.
ReplyDeleteSullivan's Quote of the Day II
Quote For The Day II
30 Jun 2010 02:33 pm
"When my son Hunter asked me why it was okay for Bristol Palin to have a baby before she was married, I told him that God has special rules for special people. God knew that Bristol could become very rich from having a baby, so He granted her a pregnancy. Since she is the daughter of Sarah Palin, and the name Bristol Palin can be rearranged to spell “Orbit Plans” she is pretty much an angel, at least by the official bible definition. And that pretty much makes her son like a Jesus, technically speaking. This is just more proof that the blessed Palin family has wonderful and holy plans for true Americans. After explaining this to my son, he told me that he wanted to be sex-educated at a public school so that he could have a Jesus baby too. I smacked him in the mouth and told him that sex education is only for liberals and atheists. As good Christians, we should be ashamed of sexuality and our bodies, unless you are chosen by God, like Bristol Palin," - tinfoiler.
Hilarious stuff. The sign-off is linked to the blog where Sully found this at Sullivan's page.
Sully must know some more things are coming Mrs. (i love calling her Mrs.) Palin's way.
InDIVIDUAL rights? Is not this guy a sitting senator? For many years. He doesn't know what the Declaration of Independence says? It's inALIENable rights - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No guns in there anywhere.
ReplyDeleteThe NRA leadership, that gives that nutjob in AZ her machine gun a 100 percent rating, owns the Congress.
ReplyDeleteThe NRA leadership, not the individual gun owners, is on a greed and power trip that has few equals. It set as its goal to eliminate all gun restrictions, period.
It is the NRA leadership that individual gun owners and gun opponents must stop. The leadership is manipulating the fear and emotional patriotism of low information voters to drive this madness. Grassley also has a high rating from the NRA as do most Republicans. Why - money, money,money.
It's just going to get worse thanks the Supreme Court removing campaign donations from corporations and making it more difficult for high gun crime cities such as Chicago to ban hand guns.
I, for one, am getting tired to seeing signs banning guns from schools, churches and grocery stores. I don't mind people owning a gun for protection in their homes or having a rifle for hunting if there is proper training and licensing, but toting guns around in public, letting them into colleges, taverns, gyms is just unnecessary and asking for trouble.
Grassley is an ass whether or not it is part of his name (though many thanks to the person who pointed that out - loved that!)
I think Sarah probably agrees with Grassley.
ReplyDeleteFrom her speech to Rainbow Omega:
"And I thought, there too, wow that-that’s really awesome. We have technology -- God’s given man technology [sonogram] so we can measure life....we can see life at 12 weeks along...we can measure this little baby’s bones and see this neck. And then I was marveling at that and then thinking, wow, just God knows what he is doing and how He provides for man -- this wisdom, this technology."
Hmmm - that was an off the wall question wasn't it?
ReplyDeleteSince 99% are born with arms - guess it would be an inherant right to BARE them.
Oooooohh!!! It was GOD who decided we needed guns? Well praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!
ReplyDeleteBwaahahahahahahaha!!! The look on Kagan's face is priceless. If you didn't notice, go watch it again, maybe with the sound off. She looks like she suddenly discovered that she's in an alternate universe and wonders how the hell that happened!
ReplyDeleteI'm from Iowa and Grassley (or Grandpa Cornpants as a friend and I refer to him) is an embarrassment to our state, our country and our intelligence. Please know that all Iowans are not that stupid and simple-minded. It is time for him to go and that's why I'm working hard to elect Roxanne Conlin in November.
ReplyDeleteIt is time for all Americans to rally against the NRA. Kids are being slaughter in the streets of Chicago and they are concerned about gun rights. Where are the tenthers? They should be mad at the Supreme Court for not allowing states and cities to make their own laws. In 2006 63 children under the age of 4 where killed by guns. Where is their right to live and not be killed? In the same year 80 children 5-9 died because of guns. A total of 3,218 children 19 and under died from guns. Senior Citizens 4,183 died because of guns. We need to stand up against the powerful, and evil NRA.
ReplyDeleteBut of course god made guns why else would he come with a AK-47.
http://failblog.org/2010/06/23/epic-fail-photos-product-fail-spree-3/
New book for the Reta...
God made man.
Man made gun.
God loves gun.
Could we also use the same logic with other controversial issues?
God made man.
Man made death penalty.
God loves Killing.
Yep that works for the Crazies.
God made man.
Man found a way to end pregnancy.
God okay with abortions.
No I didn't think so.
HMT
I swear, Grassley needs to see a shrink because there is something definitely wrong with his mind. That was worse than Paylin's word salad, or at least on the same par, and we all know that is saying a mouthful. He is nuts, but what can we expect from a republican? Actually, he is closer to a tea party republican; the worst kind.
ReplyDeleteGrassley uses the kind of loose logic that would get him an F on a law school paper, or even an essay in freshman English.
ReplyDeleteBecause the Declaration predates the Constitution and uses the term inalienable rights. He concludes that rights given in the Constitution are inalienable.
For him inalienable equates to God given. Even though that is not what inalienable means.
Therefore the second amendment's recognition, of a need for a civilian militia to defend against potential threats from foreign tyrants that faced the infant, military-less USA, is God given.
Its pure bull shit. Its not logic and is bases on a false premise that inalienable means God given.
And on the false premise that the Declaration is the supreme law not the Constitution.
And the factually failed premise that God created guns and gave them to mankind, and the host of conflicted issues that creates with Christ’s teachings and for many other religions that teach the ideal of peace.
I loved Kagen's expression, It was exquisite of "what in the hell is he talking about."
I give Grassley points for creativity in the realm of Activist judicial logic.
But good lord that was a stupid thing to say in front of national audience.
The Constitution, unlike the Declaration of Independence, does not reference a Higher Power, other than "We The People."
ReplyDeleteIt is a practical doctrine, intent on avoiding the past history of evils plaguing mankind that thwarted people from living a full, free and peaceable existence. It tackled guns and alcohol and term limits and all sorts of flotsam and jetsom that worry the populace from time to time, but that no one in their right mind would lable "Biblical." It is a toolchest, always responsive to necessary changes, enlightenment and the safekeeping and promotion of democracy as it evolves through time.
supportive of the end user.
It's, well, Darwinian, tell ya.
The Constitution has nothing to do with God, or the Bible, or Christianity. Nothing whatsoever. It is a compendium of lessons learned, intent on preserving order and peaceable, fruitful existence, open to new lessons compelled in the future toward the same end, a moveable feast with a stiff and enduring spine. It concerns itself with what works, or does not work, toward the promotion and preservation of democracy.
The Declaration of Independence does recognize the inalienable rights of man bestowed by a Creator. As a way of expressing that every person born on this earth is entitled to equal rights, rights neither bestowed by man, or properly taken away by man's laws or selfserving whims, but is owned unimpeachably by every human being at time of birth. That there is a greater purpose afoot that trancends mere petty, self centered human struggles for dominance and power. No one is given this right by his fellow man, therefore it cannot be denied by his fellow man.
You don't need to believe in God to embrace this ideal.
Nowhere in the Declaration is there a specific reference to a Christian God, nor Jesus, nor the Old or New Testament.
There's a reason for this. The people that wrote that document, and the Constitution, were sick and desperately tired of generations of governments and wars that derived their power, authority and destruction on the basis of religion, twisting the words of religious texts to their own self centered, political and profiteering ends, the result of which destroyed individuals, families and whole nations.
These documents were written by people who were absolutely determined that religion was never again to rear its ugly head under the false guise of political power, to wreck their lives and. . .deny them their inalienable rights, the inalienable rights bestowed upon them by their Creator.
Not to be denied by the petty machinations of man, or the likes of a Sarah Palin.
Those authors, they saw someone just like her coming, and had dealt with her like, before.
This one's for you, Sarah.
7:29 ...very well said. Kudos.
ReplyDelete