One of my worst fears is starting to become reality: I’m quickly watching myself transform into a conservative. OK; it’s probably not that drastic. But in lue of my support for the recent Supreme Court decision on the 2nd amendment; favoring individual gun owners and my forgiveness of Senator Obama supporting the much disputed FISA bill, methinks that my liberal ties are not as apparent as they once were.
First let’s consider the former issue regarding the 2nd ammendment. As I’ve said time and time again, I agree wholeheartedly with this decision. The Constitution as it was written never predicted that crime-ridden places like Flint, Michigan would ever exist. I should also point out that though history likes to paint the founding fathers as all-knowing and postulated deities, not even they could foresee that the musket would be replaced with the uzi. Expecting them to draft 18th century legislation to address 21st century firearms is like expecting today’s Congress to enact energy emissions legislation for those flying cars we’ll have 100 years from now (We were supposed to have them today, but the Cadillac Escalade and Yukon Denali stymied those efforts. But I digress…).
Secondly, we must consider the research-supported thesis that crimes are not committed with nearly as much frequency by people who own guns legitimately than by those who own them illegally. This idea may have all the makings of an NRA brochure; but it’s true. You may have isolated cases where killers can be traced back to guns registered in their names (people killing their spouses, for instance). But generally speaking, crimes committed by firearms are usually perpetrated by people who (1) were engaged in other criminal activites beforehand and (2) obtained their firearms illegally.
Make no mistake about it: being a black male living but a mere hop, skip, and jump away from the cut of all cuts, I am most definitely conscious of the reality of gun violence. Though this is not a phenomenon unique to the ‘hood, it is prevalent when we look at the headlines. That said, I make no bones about being an advocate for legislative and judicial support of our rights to protect ourselves in counteracting the profliferation of violence against innocent and unsuspecting victims. But in the same vein, I also recognize the fact that it is high time that we ammend the Constitution to address some aspects of gun control. But that discussion should not — nor should it ever — include the question of whether or not law-biding, mentally stable people should be able to pack heat.
Speaking to the notion of Sen. Obama supporting the FISA bill, perhaps the simplest question is: Why not? If I were Obama (thank God I’m not), I would have likely employed the same strategy. Sen. Obama is looking to become the next POTUS. Plain and simple. For one, he is clearly trying to accomplish the feat of “bipartisanship”; which I would argue has become loosely defined as exchanging tits for tats. If Obama shows his GOP advesaries that he is willing to compromise some liberal ideologies for the sake of unification, I can think of few other ways to do so than by conceding to at least one staple of their platform. Besides, while I agree that the Constitution should never be viewed as a trivial document or as an inconvenience to the so-called “War on Terror”, the FISA bill is not even close to falling in line with the outright tortuous methods that the GOP endorse. Tapping into a phone sex discussion doesn’t have the same weight as…oh…let’s say…waterboarding.
Secondly, we have to be mindful that if Obama wins the White House he will have a Democrat-controlled Congress at his disposal. As such, he would be allowed to use his Executive powers — coupled with the Dems’ Legislative powers — to frame provisions in the FISA bill that will protect the civil liberties liberals are afraid will get trampled. I mean, we all know that an Obama Administration would have a completely different appreciation of the importance of protecting civil liberties than the current administration. In a nutshell; sometimes in order to change a system, you have to become a part of the one with which you have so much opposition.
I’ve cited these two particular stories just to point out how it is long past time that the Constitution be overhauled. We have gotten to a critical point in our nation where Conservatives hate everything about the spirit of the Constitution (the unalienable rights part really burns their noodle since it also applies to all ‘dem dirty A-rabs) while liberals would be willing to let a nutcase walk because the feds tapped his phone and he wasn’t Mirandized. Somewhere in this discussion, an equillibrium must be established. Frankly, the only way I see that happening is by allowing Puffy to get his hands on the Constitution. He’s remixed just about everything else. Why not let him have a crack at the Constitution?
– ACL
The Unmitigated Word 
Guess that means you’re gonna be the keynote speaker at the Republican National Convention. How did you wiggle that away from Joe LIE-berman?
I wouldn’t quite say that I’m ready to get my “Zell Miller” on. It’s just that in these two cases, I’m rollin’ decidedly with the non-libs. Just thought I’d toss that out there. But ultimately more to the point, an overhaul of the Constitution (or, at the very least, a serious modification to it) will be equally beneficial to both sides. Bringing balance to the force has always been my thing.
Getting P. Diddy to produce a remix of the Constitution. Not a bad idea. I don’t trust the politicians to stop quabbling long enough to make something happen. But something DOES need to happen. Even Thomas Jefferson suggested that the Constitution be overhauled every twenty years or so.
Regarding the gun rights issue: most people who know me know that I hate guns. But I do believe that at least half of the victims out there would not have fallen prey to violent attacks had they had arms themselves. Now this doesn’t mean that everyone should go around carrying assault rifles. But some sort of concealed weapon (only after going through all of the necessary registration, training, and so on) is not unreasonable.
Regarding the FISA bill: I hope your assumptions are right about why Obama would jump ship and side with the Bush Administration. B/C right now, he’s got Democrats calling him a traitor and threatening to abandon him come November. Even if supporting this bill isn’t as bad as torture, it still goes against some of the basic principles of the Constitution. Seems Obama has some ‘splaining to do.
While we’re on Obama jumping on Bush’s bandwagon, your politician is also playing the role of some sort of political puppet by trying to pander to right one more time with his support of extending Bush’s faith-based initiatives. Remind me again: which one of the candidates is Bush the third?
Hillary 4 prez, I think people often get the wrong idea about how faith-based initiatives work. These programs are established so that religious institutions can provide public services, and NOT to advance a specific church. Churches are not allowed to use federal monies to support internal projects, events, building, etc.
My purpose in telling you all this is not to change your mind about faith-based programs; just to make it clear what they are.
Thank you for the clarification Saved Sinner. That still doesn’t dismiss the fact that Obama is starting to change his position on every single issue. First he starts wearing a lapel after he said he wouldn’t. Then he goes against public financing after saying he wouldn’t. Then he supports FISA when most of his Democratic colleagues don’t. Now he’s supporting Bush’s faith based initiatives. This man is either confused, a major flip flopper, or he will say/do anything to win. Mark my words: he will make you all regret not supporting Hillary!
Hillary 4 prez (always!): I mean this in the best wa possible: Please get over it. Hillary isn’t going to be the president. Choose a candidate (one that’s actually running) and move on.
@ J. Alex:
“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. …
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it’s rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure.”
It was a revolution that TJ called for every 20 years…I’m just sayin’. 😉
Nic,
Big Pimpin’ TJ also said:
““Let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be nature herself indicates. By the European tables of mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other words, a new generation. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years should be provided by the constitution, so that it may be handed on with periodical repairs from generation to generation to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure.”
– 1816
Sounds like a call for an overhaul to me…
@ Hillary: Since Obama and Hill Spawn are making some (pretty tepid) attempt at unity, I’ll try it with you. Instead of throwin’ blows, I’ll simply try to address your points:
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I don’t see changing positions as a bad thing necessarily. It shows that Obama is willing to (1) admit if/when he’s wrong or (2) compromise with the other half. Liberals who want this country solely ran according to liberal standards are no better than conservatives who have hijacked the country for the past seven years.
To an extent, even your girl has flipped a lil bit. She’s gone from trying to have Obama’s hands for dinner to actually shaking them (Bill is another story but, for the sake of discussion, let’s keep it to Hill). After months of racebaiting and being an overall jerk, she is sucking it up to join the Democratic nominee; even if her support is lukewarm. Perhaps you could learn something from your leader.