By Dr. Ray Kessler, who is, incidentally, a retired Prof. of Criminal Justice, former defense attorney and prosecutor is your host. I am also a part-time instructor in Criminal Justice at Richland College, an outstanding, 2-year institution in Dallas, TX.
https://richlandcollege.edu/
Note that I do NOT select which ads run on the blog.
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
Congrats to Obama & Biden
Congrats to Pres. Obama and VP Biden. I wish I had bought some gun company (e.g. S&W, Glock, etc.) stock before the election.
At least the local election went well. I threw the towel in on national politics after last night. I doubt I'll live long enough to see the damage from the next four years repaired.
I doubt Mitt would have been better on gun rights. Is Glock traded on the US exchange? My Ruger stock is doing well. I'll have to pick up a Bearcat and a Mark series.
GEJ & 44, Thanks for the comments. GEJ: At least based on what Mitt said and the Repub. Nat'l platform (FWIW)and Obama's record, I don't think there is any doubt that Mitt posed less of a threat to Second Amendment rights. As I recall, Mitt supported a A/W ban, but that was before the Heller and McDonald S.Ct. decisions. Obama's first S.Ct. appointee, Sotomayor voted against making the Heller right applicable to the states. There are lots of a good reasons why the NRA and all pro-Second Amendment orgs. that got involved, supported Romney. Glock is an Austrian company, I don't know where (or if) its stock is traded. Congrats on the Ruger stock!
White men (accurate qualification) who elect to purchase guns on the basis of the outcome of a presidential election are likely the same ones who threaten to move to Canada if "their guy" doesn't win. It's a bluster typical of an immature ego, the kind that you certainly do not want devising strategy in the executive ranks of your business. If it's a humorous phenomenon, I guess it's lost on me.
Part of the irony/"humor," is that election of an anti-gun President results in more guns in civilian hands and more profits for gun industries In the short-run at least, their vote backfired on anti-gunners who voted for Obama. However, their votes may pay off if Obama appointees to the Supreme Court overrule Heller and McDonald. This would be the first time in history that the Court completetly wiped out an individual right from the Bill of Rights that it granted only a few years earlier.
Dr. Kessler, Your insightful and sensible comment is appreciated. I do question the term "granted" in the last sentence. SCOTUS does not grant people's inalienable individual freedoms. The court's justices can only recognize and protect those guarantees, or it can harass citizens who exercise their freely inherited right to keep and bear arms. If the latter be the case, it's up to the states to stand-up to the federal government's abuse of power.
At least the local election went well. I threw the towel in on national politics after last night. I doubt I'll live long enough to see the damage from the next four years repaired.
ReplyDeleteI doubt Mitt would have been better on gun rights. Is Glock traded on the US exchange? My Ruger stock is doing well. I'll have to pick up a Bearcat and a Mark series.
ReplyDeleteGEJ & 44, Thanks for the comments. GEJ: At least based on what Mitt said and the Repub. Nat'l platform (FWIW)and Obama's record, I don't think there is any doubt that Mitt posed less of a threat to Second Amendment rights. As I recall, Mitt supported a A/W ban, but that was before the Heller and McDonald S.Ct. decisions. Obama's first S.Ct. appointee, Sotomayor voted against making the Heller right applicable to the states. There are lots of a good reasons why the NRA and all pro-Second Amendment orgs. that got involved, supported Romney. Glock is an Austrian company, I don't know where (or if) its stock is traded. Congrats on the Ruger stock!
ReplyDeleteWhite men (accurate qualification) who elect to purchase guns on the basis of the outcome of a presidential election are likely the same ones who threaten to move to Canada if "their guy" doesn't win. It's a bluster typical of an immature ego, the kind that you certainly do not want devising strategy in the executive ranks of your business. If it's a humorous phenomenon, I guess it's lost on me.
ReplyDeleteRidgway, you lost me. What are you talking about?
ReplyDeleteSure I did . . .
ReplyDeletePart of the irony/"humor," is that election of an anti-gun President results in more guns in civilian hands and more profits for gun industries In the short-run at least, their vote backfired on anti-gunners who voted for Obama. However, their votes may pay off if Obama appointees to the Supreme Court overrule Heller and McDonald. This would be the first time in history that the Court completetly wiped out an individual right from the Bill of Rights that it granted only a few years earlier.
ReplyDeleteDr. Kessler,
ReplyDeleteYour insightful and sensible comment is appreciated. I do question the term "granted" in the last sentence. SCOTUS does not grant people's inalienable individual freedoms. The court's justices can only recognize and protect those guarantees, or it can harass citizens who exercise their freely inherited right to keep and bear arms. If the latter be the case, it's up to the states to stand-up to the federal government's abuse of power.