Since he launched his campaign, Sanders has taken flak from Clinton and other gun controllers for supporting the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which bans lawsuits based on "the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended." But both before and after he cosponsored a bill aimed at repealing that law, he defended the principle it embodies, which suggests his actual opinion has not changed.Sanders' opinion on PLCAA seems to have gravitated to the 'other side'; he no longer has the testicular fortitude to stand up for his previously stated opinion.
Has he changed his opinion, or has he merely chosen to have "no opinion" because in the Democratic party, people who own firearms are Socially Unacceptable?
Doesn't matter; whatever position he espouses changes from one day to the next, which is the definition of a politician who has no goal other than to pander to whatever demographic seems most vocal .. today.
Which will change tomorrow.
This is POLITICS; it's not Leadership.
Clinton at least knows where she stands. She's AGAINST private ownership of firearms. Not because she thinks it's 'wrong', but because she thinks it's 'unpopular'. It's all about The Votes, Folks.
Unfortunately, Clinton's "Leadership" is anti-constitutional. But it's increasingly popular. It's like Hitler focusing national bias against Jews in the 1930's, because he needed a scapegoat and Jews were easy to hate.
So it is for Americans in the 21's Century; scapegoats are ALWAYS a viable political tool
Which suggests that neither candidate is viable for people who think the Constitution is more important than .. well, either of the Democratic leaders, who only think they need to WIN!
("Get outta the way, Boy, I'm talkin' here!" seem to be their attitude toward people who are not Liberals.)
On the Republican side of the slate, we have .. um .. who are they again?
Nobody THERE is talking about PLCAA. It's not on their Event Horizon; they're all busy trying to show how almost-a-Democrat they are. Nobody on the Republican side is a Conservative. Well, there's Trump, but he's aiming for the Starring Role in "1984 - The Remake!"
(Actually, that might work; it worked for Nixon, and that turned out okay!)
We have a Badminton game with the shuttlecock representing the American voters, and the Democrats seem to have assumed both sides of the court. They bat us back and forth, with no concerns about the welfare of the shuttlecock; they both just want to Win The Game. Everybody knows this, but nobody seems to care. The Primaries are the important thing; nobody thinks there is a Republican candidate. And they're probably right, because Republicans are too busy with infighting to find a viable candidate. It's hard to be a Republican Candidate, because nobody knows what the Party Platform should be. They have none!
Sorry to see that. I'd like to see at least ONE Presidential race in this century which is represented by viable candidates from BOTH parties .. whoever that is.
Didn't we use to have Republicans running for office? I know, it's been a long time. Heck, by today's standards, John F. Kennedy would be considered a Conservative!
Have I mentioned how much I detest Politics?
Oh, but not NEARLY as much as I detest Politicians!
On either side of the net.
No comments:
Post a Comment