hsmith wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYUmCj4yud4
Matthews uses 1st amendment to attack the 2nd.
My response would be a bit different - on "did you bring a gun":
Perhaps you weren't paying attention Mr Matthews. I *did* attend an event, armed with a loaded firearm. People around me disagreed with my opinion, and I disagreed with theirs, and NO blood was spilled on the street. My sidearm never left its holster, and the fears and claims of danger were found, repeatedly, to be unfounded.
on "do you know the history of guns":
Yeah, I do, last I checked the assassinations of US Presidents throughout history has been done by cowardly men acting in concealment and in close quarters, the lone exception being Kennedy, who was shot with another hidden gun. If I had any intent to harm the President, why would I broadcast the presence of my gun? You're making an illogical leap borne on your own fears and irrationality!
on "what do you think about this country, etc":
I think we lost sight of what role the federal government is designed to play in this country. In Article 1 of the Constitution, combined with Amendments 9 and 10, it's clearly outlined that Congress shall pass no laws that deal with those things explicitly given to them to govern, nor prevented from the States' governance. Between abuse of "necessary and proper" in relation to the Commerce Clause, and a public that doesn't pay enough attention to care, that limitation has eroded to be practically meaningless
on "What about the 16th Amendment and income taxation":
It was passed by the Amendment process, following the law of this country's constitution. While I disagree with other aspects of how that money is used, it is legal by definition.
Of course, knowing how the editing/mics work, I'd be given about three words before the talking head starts ranting his point again.
