Here’s something that’s fraught for hashtag takeover
(Fox News) President Obama will keep an empty seat next to the first lady on Tuesday when he gives his State of the Union address, to represent victims of gun violence, according to the White House.
Obama, who is trying to reduce gun violence by issuing a series of executive orders to tighten federal gun laws, announced the symbolic gesture Friday when talking on the phone with fellow supporters of more stringent gun-ownership laws.
A White House official said the president told the supporters the open seat in first lady Michelle Obama’s viewing box was for “the victims of gun violence who no longer have a voice — because they need the rest of us to speak for them.â€
You know this will bring out huge numbers of media reports comparing it to the Clint Eastwood speech which featured an empty chair, representing Obama. The chair for the SOTU could represent Obama’s empty policy on the Middle East, or his empty promises regarding the ability to do background checks on “Syrian” refugees. It could represent his empty gesture to represent gun victims, a goodly portion who are Black and live in cities run by the Democratic Party, Blacks who are rarely mentioned by Mr. Obama and other Democrats.
Perhaps it could represent empty holsters, as Obama and Democrats look to put large restrictions on the ability of law abiding citizens to own/carry weapons to protect themselves from the criminality caused by Democrat criminal justice policies.
The State of the Union addresses are given in the House chambers. And as an apparent attempt to express his dissatisfaction with Congress, Obama also said the open seat should serve to “remind every single one of our representatives that it’s their responsibility to do something about this,†the official said.
Like the heavy restrictions in Democratic Party run Chicago, Baltimore, and California? Ted Cruz had a great response
“If I’m elected POTUS, there’ll be an empty seat for the over 50 million unborn children killed since Roe,†Cruz tweeted, adding the hashtag #Stand4Life.
Or, how about a seat for all the people killed in the fighting in the Middle East because Obama was too uncaring to get involved? Or all those killed by ISIS, which rose during Obama’s time in office?
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Also consider:
Is the goal of the liberal car registration crowd to eventually grab all cars from the American populace? I couldn’t sell my old car to my son’s buddy without filling out forms for the state so they know who owns that car! When the time is right, the government will check their registry and swoop in and confiscate our autos!! And almost certainly in the name of climate change prevention!
On top of that, the state has a laundry list of safety and environmental mandates on autos! I’m even required to have liability insurance to compensate others for damage I might cause with my auto! Outrageous. There are state regulations on tires, fuel, child car seats, gas mileage, tailpipe emissions, seat belts and air bags! These actions are the slippery slope, the camel’s nose under the tent and/or the domino effect leading to the progressive goal of banning all cars!
I’m urging my patriot brothers in the Missouri Auto Drivers Against Missouri (MADAM) to drive to and occupy with their autos the MO DMV Central Office in Jefferson City to demonstrate our frustration with the state’s oppressive regulations.
They can have my car keys (actually an electronic fob) when they pry them from my cold dead fingers!
“Honor” not “honer”
What’s the point? Wherever Barry sits, there’s an empty chair.
Jeffery’s meme is the same as the one Obama is trying to sell.
It is quite telling that the so called “Constitutional professor” doesn’t know the legal difference between a “privilege” and “right” under the law.
But hey, either not understanding or not willing to tell people the difference shows that the left has to rely on lies and obfuscation to trick those low information voters.
gitarcarver once again maintains that there can be no limits on US residents’ constitutional “rights”. He finds it unconstitutional to suggest that gun owners be held responsible for any damages.
Are you OK with giving fully automatic weapons to the mentally ill? To children? Of course you won’t answer.
Jeffery once again shows a lack of reading comprehension.
The fact of the matter, and one that he does not address, is that under the law, a privilege is not the same thing as a right.
Driving a car is a privilege. The Second Amendment enumerates a right.
.
On the other hand, GC, Jeffery is absolute HELL on those strawman.
Vicious, mean, no quarter given.
gitarcarver,
Just as I said…
There’s no sense in discussions with you…
Buh bye
Awww….. poor widdle Jeffie-poo runs away again because his false narrative shows his ignorance.
You made the comparison when it wasn’t correct, Jeffery.
Then when I said something about it, you tried to attribute to me a statement that I did not make.
So if you don’t want to discuss how you tried to make a silly comparison and then lied about what was said, I can live with that.
Let me know when you are ready to act like an adult.
I won’t hold my breath though.
guttercrawler can’t go three comments without resorting to name-calling, then reverts to its standard meme. It’s what a guttercrawler does.
Does it really ‘think’ expanded background checks violate the 2nd Amendment? Does it really ‘think’ that increased funding for mental health, the FBI and ATF violates the 2nd Amendment?
Would requiring liability insurance for damages caused by gun owners violate the 2nd Amendment?
Do any and all regulations related to guns and gun ownership violate the 2nd Amendment?
Clean up on aisle 7, as a little boy named Jeffery just vomited.
Once again, Jeffery tries to shift the discussion away from the very point he made which is demonstrably wrong and a lie.
As for “name calling,” you were the one that bragged about being good at name calling and that you used it all the time.
Jeffrey asked:
Yes.
We’ve already had a constitutional amendment to protect the right to vote from the imposition of a poll tax, something designed to keep those too poor to pay the tax from voting. Requiring liability insurance to own a gun would fall along the same lines, restricting the rights of people who could not afford the insurance.
And, of course, the comparison with automobiles utterly fails: you may own an automobile without having insurance on it; the restriction is that you may not drive that automobile on the public roads. I can see where a private firing range owner might require some form of insurance to use his property, which would be something akin to requiring auto insurance to drive the pubic roads, but that’s about it.
Of course, a poll tax would be a good idea, in that only people who were actually productive enough to be able to pay the tax would be able to vote.
I have to admit it: the first generation of Americans were right when they restricted the franchise to white male property owners. Those Americans produced leaders such as George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, while the free-for-all voters of today gave us Jimmy Carter and Barack Hussein Obama.
You left out the voters who gave us Dick Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. W tried to finish the demolition of America that Reagan started. In their defense, W and Reagan were ignorant ideologues, true believers, but not deliberately evil.
Otherwise you raise good points, worth considering.