People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Thursday, September 02, 2010

The Gov't Will Decide

That 2nd Amendment thingie?  It doesn't extend to guns potentially falling into the wrong hands.  So keeping guns out of anyone's hands is the logical course our government should take.

So says the Obama administration:

Obama Administration Reverses Course, Forbids Sale of 850,000 Antique Rifles
By Maxim Lott, Fox News

The South Korean government, in an effort to raise money for its military, wants to sell nearly a million antique M1 rifles that were used by U.S. soldiers in the Korean War to gun collectors in America.

The Obama administration approved the sale of the American-made rifles last year. But it reversed course and banned the sale in March – a decision that went largely unnoticed at the time but that is now sparking opposition from gun rights advocates.

A State Department spokesman said the administration's decision was based on concerns that the guns could fall into the wrong hands.

"The transfer of such a large number of weapons -- 87,310 M1 Garands and 770,160 M1 Carbines -- could potentially be exploited by individuals seeking firearms for illicit purposes," the spokesman told FoxNews.com. [link] [emphasis mine]
If you think about it, any gun, on any given day, can "fall into the wrong hands."  A sound justification for getting rid of all guns.

Thank God we have a benevolent government that is there to protect us from ourselves.

- - -

Along those same lines:

"[Democrat] Deval Patrick on Beck rally: “It’s a free country. I wish it weren’t.

Maybe it's best if we the people decide who gets to keep and bear arms.

Quote of the Day

From James Taranto:
Last night, in an Oval Office speech, Obama said something nice about Bush for the very first time: "No one can doubt President Bush's support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security." At one time, such an uncharacteristically gracious statement might have made Obama look good. But our hunch is that among those who bothered to watch the speech, a common reaction was: I miss having a president whose support for our troops, love of country and commitment to our security no one could doubt.
The bare-bones truth.

How Do You Define 'Deficit'?

Yeah, that'll work:

It's worth noting: This has been the GOP position in Washington for thirty years.

Out of the Past

This is of no particular interest to anyone but me perhaps, but I found it noteworthy just the same.  Ed Morrissey began a piece yesterday (see "Oval Office speech another low-key effort") with this:

"When Barack Obama went out on the campaign trail in 2007, the media fawned over his oratorical skills as though he was the reincarnation of Edward Everett."

My guess is, 99% of America doesn't know who Edward Everett is - or was. Wikipedia provides this:
Edward Everett (April 11, 1794 – January 15, 1865) was an American politician and educator from Massachusetts. Everett, a Whig, served as U.S. Representative, and U.S. Senator, the 15th Governor of Massachusetts, Minister to Great Britain, and United States Secretary of State. He also taught at Harvard University and served as president of Harvard.

Everett was one of the great American orators of the ante-bellum and Civil War era.
So what is Everett (arguably) most famous for these days?

This: Delivering a speech to a large crowd of 15,000 assembled on November 19, 1863 to honor America's war dead.

And who was Everett's back-up act?

That less-than-great-orator Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln's 1 minute, 48 second speech that followed Everett's 2 hour oration?

You know it as the Gettysburg Address.

Just goes to show - there's more to speechmaking than simple oratory.  Content plays some small part as well.

"Four score and seven years ago ..."


MSNBC might have been able to put this guy to work as an evening anchor had the police not shot him:

Discovery Channel hostage-taker hated programming
By David Dishneau and Sarah Brumfield, Associated Press Writers

Silver Spring, Md. (AP) — A gunman police shot to death after he took hostages at Discovery Channel's headquarters said he hated the company's shows such as "Kate Plus 8" because they promote population growth and its environmental programming because it did little to save the planet.

Three hostages — two Discovery Communications employees and a security guard — escaped unhurt after the four-hour standoff Wednesday in Silver Spring, just outside the nation's capital. After several hours negotiating with the gunman, tactical officers moved in when authorities monitoring him on building security cameras saw him pull out a handgun and point it at a hostage, said Montgomery County Police Chief Thomas Manger.

It wasn't the first time Lee, a homeless former Californian, had targeted Discovery's headquarters. In February 2008, he was charged with disorderly conduct for staging a "Save the Planet Protest." In court and online, he had demanded an end to Discovery Communications LLC's shows such as TLC's "Kate Plus 8" and "19 Kids and Counting."

Instead, he said, the network should air "programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility." [link]
A product of the left.  He hated humanity.

The police did his cause a favor.

- - -

Headline of the day:

"Gun-wielding eco-terrorist calls for reduction in human population, gets wish."

That's even more impertinent than my take.  Good stuff.