HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Michelle Obama, they're c...

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 05:51 PM

Michelle Obama, they're called "rights" for a reason

As President Obama is urging Congress to pass legislation to curb gun violence in the wake of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary school last year, Mrs. Obama said it's important to remember the children who have been lost to gun violence -- such as Hadiya Pendleton, the 15 year old who was shot and killed in Chicago after participating in inaugural festivities last month.

"She was standing out in a park with her friends in a neighborhood blocks away from where my kids...grew up, where our house is. She had just taken a chemistry test. And she was caught in the line of fire because some kids had some automatic weapons they didn't need," she said. "I just don't want to keep disappointing our kids in this country. I want them to know that we put them first. That, you know, our rights and our privileges take a back seat when it comes to the safety of our children in this country."


http://gma.yahoo.com/first-lady-sees-movement-improving-childhood-obesity-233321584.html

Mrs. Obama, I love you. Everyone on DU loves you. But I'm sorry - it's time we had a little talk.

It should go without saying that no child should have to worry about being gunned down by gangsters or criminals of any stripe. A child needs to feel some measure of safety in the neighborhood where she lives and plays with her friends. That's a no-brainer. We were all kids once.

But when someone hints that freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to a trial by jury can be endangered by calls to "keep our children safe," a phrase from the late, great George Carlin comes to mind - child worship.



Now, I realize that Carlin and I hold widely divergent opinions on gun control, no argument there. But one reason we all want safe neighborhoods for our kids to grow up in is because children won't stay children forever. They grow up and become adults. And when that child's corpus callosum finally matures and that person is entrusted by society to vote, to serve on a jury, to own a firearm, and to enjoy more alcohol than the occasional sip of wine at Mass, we want to have some reassurance that this person is ready to take on the responsibilities of an adult.

Part of the reason people like me harp on our Constitutional rights so much is because the Constitution treats us like adults. It was drafted by some folks who were already figuring this "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" shit out. It's been tweaked at times, sometimes unwisely so (re: 18th Amendment). But it still retains the potential to be tweaked, as long as the rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution are preserved. Rights, Mrs. Obama. The sort of thing that adults require in order to make our form of society work. If it weren't for our rights, the government could encase us all in bubble-wrap, forbid us from using scissors with pointy ends, outlaw the consumption of alcohol (and soda, and coffee, and...), and treat us all as though we had just stepped into third grade. And the government could justify it all "for our safety." And the safety of our children, no doubt, provided some of us find a way to strip off enough bubble-wrap to reproduce.

We want kids to laugh, love, and thrive. More importantly, we want them to grow up into adults with some measure of character and responsibility. That way, maybe they can help solve a few of the lingering problems that we jackasses cannot. As adults. Preferably, as Democrats. But most definitely with rights.

Okay, off my soapbox for now...

8 replies, 2448 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 8 replies Author Time Post
Reply Michelle Obama, they're called "rights" for a reason (Original post)
derby378 Mar 2013 OP
KittyWampus Mar 2013 #1
derby378 Mar 2013 #3
MotherPetrie Mar 2013 #2
rog Mar 2013 #4
Peter cotton Mar 2013 #5
derby378 Mar 2013 #6
kwassa Mar 2013 #7
nobodyspecial Mar 2013 #8

Response to derby378 (Original post)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 06:03 PM

1. ANY parent in the universe will say their children's safety is paramount. She's speaking as a parent

 

and that comment is a snippet. I have no idea what on that particular subject came before or after.

But in the CONTEXT of the article she was speaking conversationally. Not as a political personage.

And there were quite a few subjects raised in that article. I find it passing strange that someone would seize on that one minor bit when that wasn't even the main subject covered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #1)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 06:12 PM

3. I hear you, but it's almost impossible for the FLOTUS to escape politics

We honor many of our previous First Ladies, too. Hillary Clinton, Lady Bird Johnson, Jacqueline Kennedy, Eleanor Roosevelt - all of them are widely respected, and they most decidedly made many statements from the viewpoint of moms, but their close proximity to their husbands means that much of what they say will be filtered through a political lens, whether it deserves to be or not.

Y'know, speaking of the FLOTUS acronym, what are we going to call Bill Clinton if Hillary gets elected? FGOTUS is a bit of a tongue-twister. Will we just stick with "President Clinton" in his case?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 06:11 PM

2. -1,000,000

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 06:32 PM

4. Another -1,000,000

I'll add another negative million, re: that bs OP.

.rog.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 07:11 PM

5. +2,000,001

 

The balance is now in your favor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Reply #5)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 07:21 PM

6. I appreciate it

In a community as large as DU, I'm not going to please everybody, so in for a penny, in for a pound...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 07:25 PM

7. You are making a mountain out of nothing.

She is not advocating taking away our basic rights, but merely noting that all rights have limits, as our courts have also ruled. No individual right is absolute.

Why this set you off, I have no idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 07:40 PM

8. Major fail

Your analogy isn't even reasonable.

"If it weren't for our rights, the government could encase us all in bubble-wrap, forbid us from using scissors with pointy ends, outlaw the consumption of alcohol (and soda, and coffee, and...), and treat us all as though we had just stepped into third grade." -- This is ridiculous. NO ONE is even proposing this.

And saying sensible, rational gun control legislation -- yes, you still get to keep guns even though you are NOT part of a well-regulated militia -- is a slippery slope that leads us there is as idiotic as the GOP's claim that same-sex marriage will lead to people marrying dogs and turtles.

Nearly all of your rights are regulated in some fashion or another. Why are guns so damn sacred?

And why does that right trump a child's right to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Child worship, my ass. OMFG, we are going to act as if children are entitled to life. What is the world coming to?!?!?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread