Senator Johnny Isakson On “This Week”

For folks who need their daily political fix, US Senator Johnny Isakson was on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” to discuss gun control and the fiscal cliff.  Keep your comments civil down below, or else Santa will bring you a lump of coal.


  1. jpmsouth says:

    Perhaps ‘gun control’ is a good place to utilize the 10th Amendment. In States that wish stricter laws let them pass or vote for stricter laws up to encroachment on the 2nd Amendment. What is right for my community is not right for another community… While the murders in CT., CO. and other States are terrible – they were not crimes against the federal government with the individual States retaining jurisdiction.
    As a parallel; the crime of murder is viewed across all 50 States as a heinous crime, but all 50 States are allowed to codify how it prosecutes, protects the innocent, and sentences the guilty – all within the framework of the Constitution.
    Should we have a national regulation on how we prosecute and carry out a sentence for a State capital crime? Obviously the answer is no, so why should we have a more restrictive national regulation reducing Georgia’s access to ammo, magazines, guns?
    I believe it is Georgia’s right and responsibility to govern Georgia according to our standards – not the dictates that is right for another State.

    • joe says:

      The Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, defines which rights we the people cede to the federal government, which rights we cede to the states, and which rights we retain for ourselves. The “…shall not be infringed” languge in the 2nd Amendment is clearly a right that is not ceded to the federal or state governments. The 10th Amendment (which was overturned by the War of Northern Agression) reserves rights to the states , or the people. The 2nd reserves a right to the people.

      • Joe, pick up your jock. The point at issue is whether or not “right to bear arms” implies a right to bear all arms or just some arms.

        Btw – Are you still upset that you guys lost the war between the states?

        • joe says:

          Congress has the right to issue a ‘letter of marquis’. What does that mean? It means that congress can send citizens armed with cannons (merchant ships) out to get somebody who has not been convicted (pirates).

          The right to bear arms includes all weapons.

          • xdog says:

            That’s ‘letters of marque’, but then it’s ‘Marquis of Queensbury’, which probably confused you, being devoted to defense and all.

            The 2nd amendment doesn’t give me the right to own a nuke, or keep a Stinger in my backyard. The idea that the Bill of Rights grants rights that can never be limited is ridiculous.

            • jpmsouth says:

              No one has proposed that the 2nd Amendment allows a citizen to own a nuke, or keep a Stinger in their front or backyard. In fact, the SCOTUS heard arguments on limiting after restrictions were placed on keeping explosives, sawed off shotguns, and fully automatic weapons. What will be proposed by Senator Feinstein when Congress convenes in January is the forced surrendering of semi automatic guns and extended magazines as imposed by the federal government based on limits set by the government.
              James Madison wrote the basis of the 2nd Amendment, and Madison explained the intent of that Right in the Federalist Papers – and that Right is based on citizens being able to defend itself from an intrusive government.
              We may all choose to arm ourselves, or choose not to arm ourselves – we are allowed that Right. I for one believe if we allow the government to go too far limiting semi automatic weapons and extended magazines all our other Rights will be jeopardized.
              Paranoid? Perhaps, but that does not mean that the government does not intend to reduce my freedoms and I have chosen not to trust my Rights to the tender mercies of those that would reduce my freedom. I simply do not trust government to protect me based on Watergate, the Patriot Act, Fast & Furious, or a whole litney of other crimes committed by that government in the name of preserving government.
              Now pardon me – I have to complete the purchase of a Trident II with 24 D5’s – General Dynamics is running a great pre-Christmas deal.

              • xdog says:

                Yo jpmsouth, good luck with that Trident. I’ll want a demo.

                You’ll notice I was responding to joe’s nonsensical statement ‘The right to bear arms includes all weapons.’ I even said so in my post.

                Have a good holiday.

  2. Bill Dawers says:

    I think the more interesting part of this is Isakson’s response to the “fiscal cliff” question, beginning around the 5-minute mark. He’s clearly willing to compromise to make sure taxes don’t go up dramatically on the middle class.

  3. jiminga says:

    Limiting magazine size is a fools errand. A magazine can be changed in less than two seconds.

    As for mental health records being included in background checks, existing HIPPA law prevents that. So our legislators are admitting they are part of the problem they really don’t know how to solve and never really think things through.

    Words, just words, that will lead to a loss of even more of our rights.

  4. What has not been commented on in the Isakson interview is his ringing endoresment of John Kerry for Sec. of State. I’m a retired military officer and wouldn’t support John Kerry for dogcatcher. Mr. Isakson has completely lost touch with Georgians. The stockholm syndrome is alive and well in Washington. Good grief!

Comments are closed.