BLAST FROM THE PAST: A LOOK AT PRESIDENT OBAMAS SPEECH ABOUT THE EXECUTIVE ACTIONS HE IS TAKING TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE. PART 1.

(Some of the following I have covered in other posts. However, I  believe they

are worth repeating, for the Benefit of those who are new readers.)

Let us TRY TO IGNORE THE RHETORIC, SOUND BITES, AND 

OTHER MEANINGLESS CLAPTRAP BEING SPREAD ACROSS

THE AIRWAVES AND THE INTERNET, AND APPROACH THIS WITH 

MATURITY AND RATIONAL THOUGHT, WITH THE IDEA TO DO WHAT 

IS RIGHT AND GOOD FOR THE U.S., THE WORLD, AND FUTURE GENERATIONS.

Question #1-  Do we Agree that there are certain Individuals and/or Groups

that SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ACCESS TO FIREARMS. If so, who and why?

Question #2-  Previous Judicial Decisions, and Legislative Actions have set

Limits, as to what ACTIONS ARE PERMISSABLE and COVERED BY THE

BILL OF RIGHTS SET FORTH IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

For Example:

FREEDOM OF SPEECH-  DOES NOT ALLOW US TO SAY ANYTHING 

WE WANT, ANYWHERE WE WANT, AT ANY TIME, AND USE "FREEDOM

OF SPEECH" AS A UNIVERSAL DEFENSE TO AVOID SANCTIONS OR 

PUNISHMENTS.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION-  DOES NOT ALLOW POLYGAMY, PHYSICAL

ABUSE, CONSUMPTION OF CERTAIN DRUGS, DISCRIMINATION IN THE

EMPLOYMENT SECTOR....AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO BE COVERED 

BY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

So if we ACCEPT THAT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE NOT ABSOLUTE,

BUT ARE SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC CONDITIONS, FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD,

WHY WOULD THE 2ND AMENDMENT BE EXEMPT?

Question #3-  Given the Stated GOALS AND PROCEDURES SET FORTH BY 

THE PRESIDENT IN HIS SPEECH, TO HELP REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE, WHY

WOULD YOU CONCLUDE THAT:

-  THEY CANNOT BE ACHIEVED, OR WILL NOT

   PRODUCE DESIRABLE RESULTS?

-  THEY PRESENT AN UNREASONABLE BURDEN 

   ON THE LAW ABIDING GUN OWNER?

-  IT PUNISHES HONEST GUN OWNERS , INSTEAD OF

   REINFORCING THE RESPONSIBLE DECISIONS THEY

   ALREADY MAKE?

TO BE CONTINUED...