M. Newell: Obama should re-read Constitution

There are 100 senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices, which equals 545 human beings, out of the 300 million citizens of this country, who are directly responsible for all the nation's fiscal and domestic problems that it faces today. Does that make any sense?

And those elected leaders tell the public every day that the problems are not of their doing. They each place the blame on the other side of the aisle or blame former presidents — blame anyone but themselves.

Barack Obama has inflicted a $16 trillion debt on us and wants more. He wants no limits to his spending spree and claims Congress does not have the power to stop him. Sounds like he doesn’t understand the Constitution or would rather ignore it.

Congress has the power; he is only allowed to agree or disagree.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution gives United States citizens the right to bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed upon. Obama is trying to infringe upon that right.

A government that tries to disarm its people is a government fearful of its people. And when a government disarms its people, it no longer becomes a government ruled by the people; it becomes a dictatorship — a government that rules the people. The first step is disarming the people, just as Hitler did.

Obama is not the sole power in this country. He is but a small part of a constitutional government. He needs to re-read the Constitution and follow it.

Mary Jane Newell, Oxford

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.



RONALD RIML's picture

There's a 'Reason' to be fearful of our 'People'

This 'Citizen' shot and killed his seven year old son because he "Didn't know it was loaded.

Pa. man accidentally shoots and kills 7-year-old son in gun store parking lot

Published: December 09, 2012 11:05 a.m.

A 7-year-old child was shot and killed by his father in the parking lot of a Mercer County gun store yesterday afternoon in what is being investigated as a tragic accident, according to a report from The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

Police said 44-year-old Joseph Loughrey was reaching inside his truck to place a .9 mm Taurus handgun in its center console shortly before 11 a.m. when the gun went off, striking his 7-year-old son, Craig Allen Loughrey, who was in the backseat. The child was shot in the chest and died on the scene.

Loughrey was outside Twigs Reloading Den in East Lackawannock Township, about 60 miles north of Pittsburgh. He had just left the gun store after trying to sell two firearms – the handgun and a scope rifle, according to investigators. The storeowners turned him away and Loughrey was reportedly loading the weapons back into his car when the handgun discharged.

Loughrey was questioned by state police at the Mercer barracks, where he told them he had emptied the gun's magazine and did not realize there was still a bullet in its chamber, police said.

Until you've seen this kind of blatant stupidity up close and personal as I did for twenty years - you might then understand my feelings for firearms and their lovers.

Steve  Dosh's picture

M. Newell: Obama should re-read Constitution

Mary ? 13.01.26 17:46 hst ?
Why are you telling us ?
Wrong forum ?
h t h ?
/s Dr. Dosh , Hawai'i •  :)

Derek Green's picture

Hold on a second...

Mary Jane, maybe YOU need to re-read the Constitution, and maybe get a brush-up on government basics. There are three branches of government with checks and balances. The president, despite your claim otherwise is not singlehandedly responsible for the debt. The republican-controlled congress needs to approve any spending he wants to do and establishes the budget. The senate, with a slight democratic majority cannot by themselves override the house. So all have to be in some sort of agreement for these things to pass. You shouldn't knock one person for doing what all are involved with.

As far as guns go, there is nothing mentioned about removing guns from people, only putting restrictions on the type of arms that can be purchased. Do you seriously think that the Constitution included the concept of semiautomatics as a means of protection? If anything, it was referring to muskets and single-shot rifles. Regardless, the ban would only apply to certain types of higher capacity military style weapons, not all guns, so you should get your facts straight.

Its tragic that people concerned about losing guns can't seem to be as concerned about how we prevent tragedies like Newtown, Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc. from happening again.

JOANNE MOORE's picture

Oh for crying out loud!

No one is trying to disarm the American public. Just reinstate the ban on semi-automatic rifles like the Bushmaster used to kill those 20 children and their teachers. And to ban those huge clips that make killing more innocent people easier and faster.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Did you figure out that no

Did you figure out that no Bushmaster was used in Sandy Hook yet?????

No Bushmaster, No huge clips (proper term is magazine).

RONALD RIML's picture

CT State Police place Bushmaster model XM15-E2S with

30 round clip inside school. This of their official press release as of January 18th, last modified January 23rd.



In previous press conferences, the Connecticut State Police clearly identified all of the weapons seized from the crime scene at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

To eliminate any confusion or misinformation, we will again describe and identify the weapons seized at the school crime scene.

Seized inside the school:

#1. Bushmaster .223 caliber-- model XM15-E2S rifle with high capacity 30 round magazine

#2. Glock 10 mm handgun

#3. Sig-Sauer P226 9mm handgun

Seized from suspect’s car in parking lot:

#4. Izhmash Canta-12 12 gauge Shotgun (seized from car in parking lot)

This case remains under investigation.

Lt. J. Paul Vance

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Ouch, you cut me deep Ronald,

Ouch, you cut me deep Ronald, you cut me deep.

I'm thinking that mud I've been slinging looks pretty good right now.

Mark Wrenn's picture


Hitler did NOT disarm the people, in fact he expanded gun ownership: "Unfortunately for those who would like to link Hitler and the National Socialists with gun control, the entire premise for such an effort is false. German firearms legislation under Hitler, far from banning private ownership, actually facilitated the keeping and bearing of arms by German citizens by eliminating or ameliorating restrictive laws" http://goo.gl/P83CU


It's creepy how eager some are ...

... to apologize for Onkel Adi. But, hey, he got the trains running on time. Lots of folks right here, right now, wouldn't hesitate to put on the jackboots and start goose-stepping.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

The 1938 German Weapons

The 1938 German Weapons Act

The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." But under the new law:

Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as was the possession of ammunition."[4]
The legal age at which guns could be purchased was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]
Permits were valid for three years, rather than one year.[5]
The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[4]
Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.[4]

Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.


MARK GRAVEL's picture

Forgot the last sentence

On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, promulgated Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation, which only applied to newly conquered Austria and Sudetenland, effectively deprived all Jews living in those locations of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.[6][7]

Now ask yourself, who paid dearly?

Hitler's government did in fact take the guns away from those who mattered most.

RONALD RIML's picture

Barack Obama has inflicted a $16 trillion debt on us???

All by himself, Jane? In the four years since he was first elected President?

He has his faults, to be sure. But he didn't start two wars on the Credit Card - and I'm sure he would love to end the Bush Tax cuts the Republicans refuse to end.

Why do you keep hiding from the causes of our deficits???

We simply can't trust anything you write in your letters.

Betty Davies's picture

Love it!

1) statistics that prove your point

2) "disagree" clicks by folks who couldn't read a graph if their lives depended on it, and/or aren't going to let any %$&# facts get in the way of Fox-inspired beliefs.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Ronald, Can you be any more


Can you be any more misleading? Your graph outlines years 2009-2016 like Bush is still in office. He is not and Obama is pretty much responsible for spending now.

When Bush left office the Debt was $10.6T, now it is over $16T and projected to surpass $23T by 2016. This exceeds your fantasy chart.

Lastly, letting people keep more money they earn through a tax rate reduction does not cost the government anything; I is not their money in the first place. All the government has to do is to cut spending an equal amount, a concept never uttered from Washington and the liberal left.

RONALD RIML's picture

Bush may not be in Office; yet his evil policies live on


MARK GRAVEL's picture

The fact that the Obama

The fact that the Obama administration eliminated the Bush tax cut is proof that one is not stuck with Bush policies. That said, the Bush policies only live on because Obama supports them; perhaps because they are good policies.

You know that I'm correct.

America's Mr. Right (in the context of correct).

RONALD RIML's picture

Again, "Mr. Right is Wrong" - Not all Bush Tax Cut Eliminated

Bush-Era Tax Cuts

"The deal, worked out between Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., negotiating for Mr. Obama, and the Republican senate leader, Mitch McConnell, locked in place almost all of the Bush-era tax cuts, raising tax rates only on household income over $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples.

The plan raised tax rates on capital gains and dividends, but only for households with income over $450,000. And it reinstated some limits on exemptions and deductions for households with over $300,000 in income. It also permanently increased the estate tax to 40 percent from 35 percent, but kept the exemption level at $5 million."

As you repeatedly claim you're 'Right' - Mark - yet the Evidence proves you are 'Wrong.' Propagandist, Much......

MARK GRAVEL's picture

I recommend you google

I recommend you google “arguing with a liberal youtube” and view a few of those clips. I see a lot of your behavior mirrored therein.
Takeaway: Obama can change course. Obama did change course (don’t care about the details); therefore, don’t keep blaming Bush. If a Bush policy is still in effect, it is because Obama and the Democrats want it to be.

Look at the forest for the moment and forget the trees. Moreover, stay focused and stop changing the argument.

RONALD RIML's picture

"I see a lot of your behavior mirrored therein."

Certainly you have, Mark.


Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...