UPDATE 6pm:
Billmon brings up a good point as to why the joke's not funny:
"Original civil rights sit ins were deliberate violations of local laws (segregation + trespassing etc) to stake claim based on higher law. … the argument was that a higher law -- a compelling moral purpose, backed by the U.S. Constitution -- was at stake. … So [the question] becomes: Does moral claim asserted -- demand for votes on background checks & misnamed "no fly no buy" -- justify that action? And, more to the point: What higher law justifies that action? The Constitution (2nd Amendment this time, not 14th) […] & related SCOTUS rulings are not on protesters side this time. They are not claiming any civil right that is denied to them or to the people they represent by color of law (no pun intended). Indeed, if u take "no fly no buy" at face value, they're staking high moral claim for bill that denies a right based on government fiat. … [It's] a mighty high moral claim made on behalf of some fairly weak (and, in the case of "no fly no buy," dubious) legislation. Hope Dems remember that if they get back control of House & GOP firebrands use similar tactics [to try to] force votes on anti-choice bills."
Yeah, they don't think that far ahead. They're only thinking to about November, 2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment