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?
Most states have seen the same phenomenon though, crime (mostly violent crime, i.e. rape, murder, assault) goes up when more restrictive gun laws go into effect, crime goes down when gun laws are relaxed and more law abiding citizens have them. This is only logical though. Criminals do not obey laws, only law abiding citizens do. After WWII (since 1903 actually), our own government promoted gun ownership and marksmanship through the Civilian Marksmanship Program. Imagine, our own government advocating the ownership and use of the actual weapons they used in warfare at the time. Where was the increase in crime?
The population will always be safer when guns are put into the hands of law abiding citizens and more dangerous when put into the hands of criminals, as our own president did with the Fast and Furious scandal, in an effort to further his gun control agenda.
Oh, wait- IOKIYAR.
You mean like those red states that promise they’ll write laws that nullify U.S. laws, like say, gun laws? Other than those idiots, who has tried to “amend our constitution without going through the amendment process, for their own ends…?” Please provide CREDIBLE proof of that happening.
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.
When various groups try to amend our constitution without going through the amendment process, for their own ends, and they use false arguments to do it, I would hope that any sane person would point this out!
The truth is that Massachusetts passed some of the most restrictive gun laws back in 1998. As a result, gun ownership went down by 86% between then and 2010. Murders went up by 87% during the same period. They did not stop a mass murder…
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.