There are some reasonable arguments that can be made for banning some assault weapons. There area also some reasonable arguments that can be made for the necessity of assault weapons. Neither of these arguments are "ridiculous". It is not ridiculous to be concerned about criminals having semi automatic weapons which are easily converted in to fully automatic weapons. Nor is it ridiculous to be concerned about the State getting too much power, such that the citizen should want to guard against abuse of that power. The safeguards put in place by the founders are not there to protect someone against Osama Bin Laden or some burglar. The safeguards are there to protect the citizen against the State/Gov't. I maintain that what ever the Police are allowed to have - the citizen should be allowed to have. I maintain that a big part of the problem in this nation is not "directly" the police or the criminals. The problem is laws which turn citizens into criminals and increase the power of the police (which turns the police into criminals - power corrupts - more power corrupts more - and the simple fact that the police are required to enforce illegitimate laws which is - in of itself - criminal) The Drug war for example was not a war on drugs. It is a war of the State/Gov't against the people -and any reasonable analysis of this "war" has come to this conclusion - so much so that you can find this account in the mainstream media. The powers actually did not give a hoot about drugs (and this is documented) - they wanted to increase their power. Look at the crime created by prohibition. After prohibition was lifted the crime went away. The real crime however was that this was an illegitimate law made by an illegitimate authority- in complete and flagrant violation of the founding principles - principles which are supposed to be used to interpret law and the Constitution. The violations of the founding principles and illegitimacy of authority that existed during prohibition have not gotten better. They have gotten worse. Whats more is that those calling themselves "Republicans" these days - hate the principles of Republicanism - just as the left hates the principles of Classical Liberalism. Red establishment has been at the forefront of these violations and illegitimacy of authority - right along with Blue with SCOTUS bringing up the rear. So I get - and even agree with - some of your issues in relation to Tulsi but, find me someone better on either the right or the left. Lastly. "it is just a rifle that has scary looking parts and is used in a very minority of crimes.. Some people watch too much TV". This is Utilitarianism rearing its ugly head - an ideology which is at plague proportions. We have some nut commit some crime or do something stupid and the next thing you know someone is preaching that this justifies making some law banning something. Aside from this being a violation of the rule of law - punishing one person (people) for the actions of another. This ideology completely ignores individual liberty - the principle on which this nation was founded. Utilitarianism is a justification for law that looks only at "what will increase happiness for the collective" it completely ignores the rights of the individual. On this basis alone I argue that such justifications should be rejected - nevermind the problem of "who gets to decide" - one mans poison is another mans pleasure. For example: "if it saves one life" or "harm reduction" as justification for law. The problem is that this justification sounds really good on the surface---- "Who does not want to save a life" ? This is what makes this justification so insidious. When you did deeper however - the true evil of this justification is revealed (assuming you were not immediately triggered by the term "collective") Is "if it saves one life" legitimate justification for law. Let us assume this is true and see where it takes us. If this is a valid justification for law - should we not ban skiing tomorrow ? would this not save one life ? What about boating ? that is really dangerous - one could drown Driving a car ?? forget it - one of the most dangerous things one can do. In fact one should probably not rise from bed in the morning as one might fall and break neck. In a free society the individual has the right to risk a reasonable amount of harm to himself. If this is not the case - then freedom ceases to exist. What is "reasonable". What is reasonable is what ever "we the people" decide - and not the Gov't. This is the definition of a Republic. 50+1 or Simple Majority Mandate (some authority claiming to be able to mess with individual liberty on the basis of getting elected) is not enough to mess with individual liberty. If something is so harmful - so dangerous - so offensive to the common person - that Gov't should be given power to punish those who do that something through physical violence (Law) .. the an overwhelming majority will agree. At least 2/3rd's. In the case of a change to the constitution there is a 75% requirement. I would be happy with 2/3rds. Take Meth/Heroin vs Pot for example. Clearly there is no overwhelming majority that thinks Pot is so horribly dangerous that the State should be given the power to punish. Meth/Heroin is another story. If a referendum were held it is safe bet that these would be made illegal. Regardless of the outcome - "That is the BAR". The BAR is not 50+1 or Simple majority mandate. Both Republicanism and Classical Liberalism refers to SSM or 50+1 as "Tyranny of the Majority". Never mind - we are now living in Tyranny of the "minority" ... special interest groups are now effectively messing with individual liberty, or some municipal official elected by 35% of the 10% who voted.
Now you are making arguments that do not apply to me and are sketchy. 1) I did not say all fracking was bad - nor did I agree with the idea that fracking should be banned. 2) Fracking in some locations causes problems - as in earthquakes - and can damages aquifers and it is depleting the freshwater aquifers. - and this depletion is an issue. 3) the other problem is that shale oil is not sustainable in the long term. It is a ponzi scheme and when that bubble bursts there will be consequences. The rapidly decreasing supply when the bubble does burst will drive up oil prices. 4) CO2 is fourth on my list of the most pressing environmental issues. From a global perspective you do hit the nail - almost on the head. What ever decreases we effect (say 10% over 10 years or some such thing -) .. this is a very small percentage of the overall increase due to industrialization of nations like China, India and others. Number one on the list is pollution of the Oceans with heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants (POPs). 2/3 are population increase and industrialization of that population which go hand in hand. Very little is being done about 1,2,3. "Gobal Warming" gets all the attention.
Snip... 1. Converting a rifle to full auto requires machining. If you are a machinist, why not just make your own machine gun? 2. No converted rifle has been used in a crime. 3. It's already against the law.
True. We're far more likely to be either seriously injured, crippled or killed on the highway than from a bad guy with a gun. According to FBI stats, one is ten times more likely to be stabbed or beaten to death, than killed by someone with an assault type rifle. So people who make a big deal out of assault rifles are essentially brainwashed by the left wing, mainstream media. To address crime and crimes involving firearms, one would have to extol the virtue of marriage, Fatherhood, family and raising children properly. But for decades, the left has denigrated marriage and its particulars, creating and rewarding an epidemic of children born out of wedlock and the attendant crime that follows. So addressing this would be to reverse the lefts entire doctrine. That's why they blame guns.
So why in front of Congress? Because, if he said it in public, his lies are legal libels. If he says it in court, it is prosecutable perjury. But if he says it in Congress, its immune from libel suit and protected by Mueller.
Imagine her giving the State of the Union Address. She has or had flaws. But she's the best we got. Good enough.
