Sean Hannity chatted with his pal Mark Fuhrman last night about the Boston Marathon bombs. Hannity really, truly didn’t want to be political, because his thoughts and prayers were with the families of the victims, but he just couldn’t help but point out that when Fuhrman noted that the bombs had probably been made with easily-available items, that added “a layer of texture and context” to demonstrate the supposed futility of passing gun safety legislation.
After Fuhrman discussed the likely contents of the bomb, Hannity said:
Listening to what you’re saying, Mark, and I don’t want to be political, there are so many families suffering tonight and they’ve been devastated and our thoughts and prayers are with them here but what you’re really saying here is that it does add a layer of texture and context, maybe, to the whole gun debate that we’ve been having and I’m not trying to make this political but you’re basically saying that anybody that wants to inflict any type of major harm, they could use household materials to do this. Is that, am I hearing you correctly?
Yes, Hannity had heard Fuhrman correctly, he said. Then he added:
I don’t like to be political because I think it’s kind of like walking into some kind of insane issue but you know, they’re making all this effort to pass legislation that won’t stop any gun violence or any violence whatsoever and on the very shadow of that legislation in Congress, we have this happen. You’ll never be able to stop this. You won’t be able to stop people from being able to actually build these type of bombs. It’s unfortunate but that’s the state of affairs.
You can’t stop drunk driving or speeding but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have laws prohibiting them.
Huhhhhhh? Methinks, it’s you who should spruce up your understanding of how that works.
Here’s the relevant portion which North Carolina’s attempt violates:
“1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Note that second sentence (which I bolded for you). North Carolina’s effort violates that section. By attempting to establish a state religion, it violates MY right to be free from YOUR religion.
Also, you need to acquaint yourself with Jefferson’s letters from and to the Danbury Baptist Association (the letters which introduced the phrase “separation of church and state” to the political lexicon). The letters were written by a Baptist group which felt the State of Connecticut did not have a right to use Baptist tax monies to fund the State’s established (as in “official state”) Congregational church. Jefferson agreed with the sentiment. Unfortunately, because—at THAT time—the Constitution did not necessarily trump State Constitutions, so Jefferson could only offer moral support. As the states (especially in the North, where European immigrants—who weren’t all Protestant—were arriving in large numbers) began to realize that the idea of a “state church” did tend to cause problems for the “new Americans” whose religious attitudes weren’t quite the same as the “old Americans”; therefore, they began disentangling the state apparatus from the church apparatus.
You ignorant POS.
Try paying your FEDERAL INCOME TAXES with CONFEDERATE dollars.
Don’t forget to tell our friends at the Mark Koldys dump how you are not a racist.
Remember how the southern states fought to keep slavery legal. Then managed all the way through the civil rights debate 100 years later.
Leave already you fugging constitution lovin’ retards.
2) You were asked to provide your source. Thanks for proving you can’t.
3) What powers is the federal government “usurping”? Republicans are trying to void powers at the state level, and there were a few attempts to void powers by Republicans, like Mitt Romney’s proposed marriage amendment, but what has the federal government done?
Oh, wait- You’ve already proven IOKIYAR philosophy, so why should I care what you reply with?
Oh, wait- IOKIYAR.
My source that says you’re wrong is http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/macrime.htm and this one that shows Mass rated as 35th in murders as well haveing had 2.6 murders per 100,000 in 1998 and as of 2011 it had risen to 2.8 per 100,000. 87% rise? hardly http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord
Yet another former Felon on the roles of Fox employees.
The reality is that bombs can be EASILY constructed with almost no real skill required on the part of the bombmaker. (And many people making illegal booze could find this out the hard way—alcohol fumes and flames make a VERY explosive combination.) And it’s one reason why they’re so easy to make and use by terrorists.
*I know, I know. This is Hannity; facts are optional any time he says anything.
However, almost all of my exposure to FUX is through NewsHounds, so I have little to base this on.