In the wake of Thursday’s mass murder at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, we have to start asking hard questions. Gun control advocates immediately knee jerk and say we have to pass tighter gun control laws. Pro-gun advocates immediately knee jerk and say that gun control is not the answer, neither of which address the issue of the hatred in the heart of the individual who feels compelled to kill.
In this particular instance, the individual in question was one of those males who apparently felt the need to take revenge on society, because they couldn’t get laid.
Seriously. (more…)Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
MSNBC talking head Joy Reid went onto some program on MSNBC that passes for a news show, and the topic was gun control (what else would they be discussing on MSNBC?).
Reid, who is black, immediately had to pull out the slave card.
“There’s this sort of neo-Confederate thread that runs through this pro-gun movement and NRA movement,”
Really. According to most liberals, the Confederacy was all about keeping the blacks in slavery. A moral evil, without a doubt, but to the aristocrats in charge, the question was about states’ rights. To the average person, they felt they were defending their homes against invasion.
According to Reid, these “neo-Confederates” are not allowing the states to decide their own gun laws for themselves.
The Confederate cause was about states’ rights, at least from their point of view, but to throw out neo-Confederate shows a complete ignorance of anything to do with the Confederate cause.
But in one fell swoop, she links gun rights activists in with slavery and the neo-conservative movement, which is linked to neo-nazism .
Do these people really have any idea what the word neo even means?
Her complete thought:
“There’s this sort of neo-Confederate thread that runs through this pro-gun movement and NRA movement, and they believe in tenthorism (sic) and try to pull back from Federalism in everything but this. Because when a state decides that it wants to pass gun laws, they say ‘oh no no no no no’. We won’t even let a state decide its own gun laws. We’re going to go in and upend and pull back anything that restricts gun ownership and they will go state by state and do that, they try to challenge it in states, even blue states like Illinois, so there’s this sense that states don’t have the right to restrict gun use within their borders, the NRA will come in, helicopter in and do that.”
Okay, one thing at a time.
Tentherism, of which I am a member, is the belief that most actions by the Federal government are unconstitutional. I spelled it differently in her quote, because that’s how she pronounced it.
Here’s where the liberals try to have it both ways. They accuse gun rights activists of trying to undermine states’ rights, while squashing the notion that states should be able to decide issues for themselves, like abortion and healthcare, or even environmental policy. It was the Warren Court of the 50’s and 60’s that began to apply the Federal constitution to the states. There are restrictions placed upon the states within the Constitution, but the First amendment does not apply to the states, it applies to Congress. The Second Amendment does not apply to the states, it applies to Congress. The third, the fourth, and so on.
While discussing the issue of gun control, she was discussing Colorado, which has enacted a few gun control laws (which the host of the show called “very practical measures”.
However, liberals believe that the Bill of Rights applies to the states, when it is convenient for them to do so. The y believe this so much that they tend to ignore that the states even have their own constitutions, a fact that has been lost since the rise of progressivism to prominence.
If Ms. Reid had bothered to look, she would have found this little tidbit in the Colorado constitution.
Section 13. That the right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall he be called into question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.
Yet that’s what the passage of the Colorado laws have done exactly. Requiring background checks is an infringement of your rights.
Per the Colorado constitution, the right of NO person to keep and bear arms…., this means felons as well, so whatever your background checks turns up is invalid.
But then the liberals would start screaming that Federal law prohibits Felons from owning firearms.
So, then the states can’t decide for themselves.
In other words, the NRA is not trying to prevent Colorado from deciding for itself, it is trying to help recall those who voted to take Coloradans from them, and force the state to follow its own constitution.
In other words, trying to make a state follow its own constitution is the equivalent of Federalism, taking the rights of the states away from them.
These news stations have these idiot contributors who come on and contribute nothing but babble, throwing out big words like “Tentherism” and “neo-confederate”.
So just remember the next time you want to go out and defend your right to arms, you really want to put black people back into slavery.
Isn’t that a bit ironic? Gun rights activists are the ones who secretly want to put non-whites back into slavery, while it is the gun control activists who were the ones who enacted some of the first gun control laws, primarily to prevent blacks from obtaining firearms?
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
I’ve said many times before that I don’t watch Real Time with Bill Maher, but I watch quite a bit of HBO (Game of Thrones and movies), and sometimes it just happens to be on and I catch part of it.
Earlier this week, Michael “Fatboy” Moore and Bill “I look like a pedophile” Maher were at it again.
First, Maher states that after taxes went up, the deficit fell more than expected. Don’t get me wrong, that’s always a good thing. He concluded that these tax increases really weren’t hurting anyone.
I sat there in disbelief. I shouldn’t have been shocked, because I think Maher is a smug, arrogant ass who hasn’t a clue what he is talking about.
Yes, the deficit is decreasing, but the debt is still increasing! The two are not the same thing, but what he is saying is that the debt isn’t increasing as fast as it had been.
One of his other panelists, a columnist from the New York Times did not that the economy was slowing down from the tax increases, but Maher doesn’t care. The deficit is coming down! Who cares if we all start losing our jobs again? He’s got a secure position as a useful idiot on pay television.
The conversation then swung to the Second Amendment. Moore started in about statistics that said 81% of young people didn’t want to have a gun, so they were winning that battle. Of course he never cites the source of his numbers, so as usual, he’s probably pulling them out of his fat ass.
Moore expressed disgust at the notion of background checks being blocked in Congress.
MSNBC host SE Cupp pointed out that background checks assume that the person has some nefarious purpose for purchasing a weapon, and they have to prove they are not a criminal in order to get one. That’s the same as saying you are guilt until proven innocent.
Of course, Moore said that “if you want to purchase a weapon that can kill 20 school children, I want to know where it is”. So, for Moore, it isn’t just about the weapon itself, it is about invading your privacy.
“We the People, that means the majority, and the majority want gun control.”
I can’t find the exact page where I saw it, but it is my understanding that the desire for gun control spiked after Sandy Hook, and has been declining ever since, dropping below a majority last month during the push for gun control legislation, possibly due to people seeing what some of the states were doing, like New York, California, and the proposals in Oregon and Washington.
There is a term that Moore obviously never learned, and that is the “Tyranny of the Majority”.
If a majority wants to try to take rights away from people, that is a form of tyranny. It is commonly misunderstood that only governments can be tyrants.
He also went on to say that he wants the Second Amendment “amended” to say that “we agree with what the Founders wanted, but it only covers muskets….”
That is where these liberal idiots go wrong.
The Second Amendment isn’t about muskets.
The Founding Fathers were smart enough to design a system of government almost from scratch. In order to do so, they drew from what the States were doing, English Parliament, and ancient Rome. If they were smart enough to know the history of ancient Rome, then they were smart enough to know that weapons evolved over time, from the rock and club, to the dagger, to the sword, the spear, bow and arrow to the musket. I’m sure they realized that weapons would continue to evolve. To say that they only meant muskets is blatantly ignorant, but should come as no surprise to anyone that Moore believes this while he hides behind his armed bodyguards.
But I think the ignorant quote of the night came from greaseball Maher.
“The Second amendment is bullshit. It says a well-regulated militia, and we have neither militia nor is it well-regulated.”
So I guess the California National Guard isn’t militia, nor has it been “well-regulated”.
It’s true, the National Guard is not a militia in the sense that it meant before the 1900’s. Today’s militia is much better trained and organized. The State militias would train within their own states, they did not go off to Basic Training.
Make no mistake, the First Congress agreed that the Second Amendment is about militias. Their debates make that crystal clear. However, because some of the states feared that Congress would defund the militias and not arm them, the Amendment came to be. Why?
The militia were made up of the citizenry, and they were expected to serve in it. It wasn’t like it is today, where people volunteer to join. While I won’t say participation was mandatory back then, because I’m not sure if it was, but young men of certain ages were expected to serve. In case of emergency, they were expected to grab their weapons and come at a moments notice. The Massachusetts Minutemen were great examples of this expectation.
In order for the militia to grab their arms and rush off at a moment’s notice, they need to have their weapons handy and ready to go.
Thus “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
Things have changed over the last 200+ years, but does it really matter?
Somewhere around the turn of the 20th Century, things changed. The militias were changed into the “National” Guard, and became more an extension of the Federal government, a reserve force for the Army. They are Federalized every time we go to war, or if there is a disaster. They are usually first on the scene. their role has been greatly expanded. But does that mean that the people no longer need to right to arms?
James Madison wrote in the Federalist #46 “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.“
What advantage does being armed give us, I wonder? Why would European kingdoms not trust their citizens with weapons? To defending against tyranny and keeping the government in check?
While very few came out and directly said “it is to defend against tyranny of the government”, there were those who said it, and some were very influential.
This government is reaching a point where it is afraid to trust the citizenry with weapons, and using children and tragedy to attempt to strip away the rights of the people.
In a perfect world, people would not kill other people. People would not steal from others, and governments would not grow too large and oppress people, but alas, we don’t live in a perfect world.
Today, we are seeing what a large government is capable of doing. How much longer do we tolerate it?Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
It never fails that whenever an attack happens on our soil, those out there waiting in the wings to take more power for themselves, and rob us of our liberties start coming out of the woodwork.
Michael Bloomberg is one such person, and he is nothing less than a tyrant and a despot.
The man known for arbitrarily and capriciously banning sugary drinks in New York said yesterday that “the people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry, but we live in a complex word where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”
You have a legitimate worry about privacy, but tough shit. We’re going to eliminate it anyway.
We need more cameras to watch over us and protect our public safety.
Cameras didn’t stop the bombing. Cameras didn’t stop hijackers from flying airplanes into buildings.
“Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11.”
You mean like the choice to buy a Big Gulp or a Super Big Gulp?
“Clearly the Supreme Court has recognized that you have to have different interpretations of the Second Amendment and what it applies to and reasonable gun laws … Here we’re going to to have to live with reasonable levels of security.”
But you don’t want to take away our freedoms.
Note how he smoothly slipped gun control in there. I wasn’t aware that the bombers killed and maimed people with guns. Oh yeah, they didn’t have permits for the guns they used to shoot at police. If only we had a law that would require them to obtain permits. Wait, Massachusetts does have such laws! And they weren’t followed? What a surprise!
“It really says something bad about us that we have to do it. But our obligation first and foremost is to keep our kids safe in the schools; first and foremost, to keep you safe if you go to a sporting event; first and foremost is to keep you safe if you walk down the streets or go into our parks. We cannot let the terrorists put us in a situation where we can’t do those things. And the ways to do that is to provide what we think is an appropriate level of protection.”
It’s really for your own good that we curtail your freedoms and rights, because there are those out there who want to take your freedoms and your rights from you.
“What we can’t do is let the protection get in the way of us enjoying our freedoms. You still want to let people practice their religion, no matter what that religion is. And I think one of the great dangers here is going and categorizing anybody from one religion as a terrorist. That’s not true … That would let the terrorists win. That’s what they want us to do.”
Says the man who has stepped up surveillance of the Muslim Community.
We cannot categorize anybody from one religion as a terrorist, yet over and over, these acts are perpetrated by people of ONE SINGLE RELIGION! I don’t see the Jews blowing themselves up. I don’t see Christians blowing themselves up. I don’t see Buddhists blowing themselves up (they are more into self immolation). I don’t see Hindus or Sikhs blowing themselves up.
ONLY FRICKIN’ MUSLIMS!
Bloomberg is a benevolent tyrant. He doesn’t want to do these things because he wants to, he has to do these things, because if we retain out Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment rights, then the terrorists win!
He wants to take care of us because we can’t do it on our own.
There is very little in the Constitution that can be interpreted differently. The only thing open for interpretation is our rights.
As much as I loathe to use Alex Jones as a source, this video is chilling. This was during the house to house search for the terrorist suspect who had fled Friday. Because the police are looking for a suspect, they toss out everyone’s Fourth Amendment rights.
It is NEVER okay, under ANY circumstances to violate the rights of the citizens. These people didn’t do anything wrong, yet they are being treated like criminals.
Is that what it looked like when the Japanese Americans were rounded up and taken to internment camps?
Is that what it looked like when the Nazis rounded up the Jews?
When they come to confiscate your weapons, I expect it will look like this.
December 7, 1941: Pearl Harbor. End result: Japanese Americans rounded up (while German Americans were left alone), and we were left with a much larger standing army.
September 11, 2001: World Trade Center/Pentagon. End result: Homeland Security and Patriot Act. More government watchdogs.
April 15, 2013. Boston Marathon bombing. End Result: ???Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )
Reid’s gun control proposal is dead. For the moment, anyway.
Even though Reid himself voted against his bill (allegedly for procedural reasons so he could re-introduce it later), Reid had this to say after the amendment was defeated:
In the 1920s, organized crime was committing murders with machine guns. So Congress dramatically limited the sale and transfer of machine guns. As a result, machine guns all but disappeared from the streets. We can and should take the same common-sense approach to safeguard Americans from modern weapons of war.
Let’s take a look back into history. The government and the states had just instituted the Prohibition constitutional amendment, creating a huge black market for alcohol. Of course the mafia stepped in. This was a problem created by the government, not something that just sprang out of thin air.
But what Reid is saying is that the National Firearms Act of 1934 made all the bad guns disappear.
Did it? Or was it because Prohibition ended in 1933, thus ending the black market for alcohol?
Did criminals finally decide, with the NFA that they should just turn in their weapons? Hardly.
But Reid went on to say:
And I will vote for [Dianne Feinstein’s assault weapons] ban because saving the lives of young police officers and innocent civilians is more important than preventing imagined tyranny.
Imagined tyranny? Imagined?
Any time the government moves to restrict the rights of the citizens, that’s tyranny.
President Obama, flanked by his lapdog, Joe Biden on one side and Gabby Giffords (who was pro gun rights before being shot), claims the NRA lied, and if anyone would know about lying, it’s Obama.
“The gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill,” he insisted, by suggesting that the bill would lead to a national gun registry, “even though it did the opposite.”
I have to take a moment and complain about that article I linked above. Here’s part of the problem that we have with journalism today. Philip Bump, the man who wrote the story said that the Senate was unable to overcome a Republican filibuster. A filibuster is a device used to prevent a piece of legislation from coming to a vote. This was voted on, so there was no filibuster to overcome, as contended by the author. This is why we are ill informed as a country, because we have people writing stories who have no idea what they are talking about. [Every other story I have read said this was a vote on the amendment, not a vote to end a filibuster, and the amendment was defeated]
Stop looking at me like that!
The president claims that the background check amendment would not create a registry, it would do the opposite.
Is the president saying there is already a registry in place, and that the legislation would have dismantled that registry?
It would do the opposite? Really? Who’s lying now?
The President hammered on those four Democrats who voted against, including vulnerable Montana Senator Max Baucus, but continued to blame the defeat on the Republicans.
During the first two years of his first term, Obama had a filibuster proof majority (until Scott Brown won the special election), but gun control was not on his radar (nor was gay marriage). What we have is a president who governs by expediency. Children were murdered in a heinous crime, so we must punish those who legally own weapons.
Obama claims that 90% of Americans are behind him. Again, who’s lying now?
Of course, Nanny Bloomberg was not pleased, and made the same 90% claim.
“Today’s vote is a damning indictment of the stranglehold that special interests have on Washington,” Bloomberg said. “More than 40 U.S. senators would rather turn their backs on the 90 percent of Americans who support comprehensive background checks than buck the increasingly extremist wing of the gun lobby.”
That’s the modern day Democrat. If you call the government to redress your grievances, you are a special interest. If you want to defend your rights, you are an extremist.
Nanny is the true extremist, wanting to control what people consume and how they live their lives is the extreme view. Want to strip away rights through a bill/amendment that everyone knows and admits would not have done a damn thing to prevent Newtown, is the extremist.
A friend of mine, a lefty, said that he remembered when the NRA was reasonable. There we go with the attacks again. If you you don’t agree with the Democrats, you are unreasonable.
Dianne Feinstein, of course, isn’t happy either. Her assault weapons ban was defeated 60-40. No word on blaming the Democrats that voted against it. Her belief is that the Senate is gutless to go against the American people and take away their rights.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo waded in:
The Senate’s failure to pass a bipartisan measure that is supported by the vast majority of American people is a sad statement on the power of extremists to stand in the way of reason and common sense.
It is time that the Republicans stop playing defense and get aggressive and go on the offensive. Start pointing out how the Democrats are the extremists, not the other way around. Start calling out the Democrats on their lies and bullshit. Start creating doubt, because right now, the Democrats have the country believing that they would never lie, and everything the Republicans say is a lie. They desperately need to change that image.
Of course, that isn’t the end of the debate or of the legislation. Obama has already said it is only Round One. Obama will not stop until he has successfully restricted our ability to get arms, under the guise of stopping criminals from getting them. He knows damn well none of his legislation prevents criminals from getting guns, only law abiding citizens.
Oh, and Piers Morgan! It failed, so it’s time to self deport your Limey ass back to London! Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out!Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
Connecticut has become the latest state to pass draconian anti-gun laws on top of the anti-gun laws they already have in place. This proves that the gun control advocates believe that if their gun control laws did not work, it was because they were not strict enough. Connecticut had a ban on assault weapons, yet the shooting at Sandy Hook still happened.
So what is Connecticut’s response?
Stricter gun laws!
It hasn’t passed yet, but observers say it is a mere formality at this point.
Details of the new law include:
- a ban on “high capacity” magazines
- any existing magazine with a capacity greater than 10 must be registered with the state
- a dangerous weapon offender registry to prevent dangerous people from getting their hands on weapons; that is, according to the New York Times, if you are convicted of more than 40 weapons offenses, you will be entered into this “registry”. I want to know if you get a free gift for reaching that milestone. Forty offenses? Really? That’s supposed to accomplish, what again?
- ammunition eligibility certificates
- universal background checks
- adds 100 “assault style” weapons to their list of banned weapons and requires that a weapon only have one type of “scary” feature to be considered a “banned” weapon
- banned weapons cannot be bought or sold in Connecticut
- existing weapons must be registered with the state
Ron Pinciaro, executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence, said:
“We have to be satisfied. There are still other things that we want, we’ll be back for in later sessions, but for now, it’s a good thing.”
Let’s see, you are getting your registry, you are getting your ban on high capacity magazines, you got your “assault weapons” ban. What else could you be coming for in later sessions? I wonder, but the left keeps insisting that no one is coming for the guns!
They focus on the reports that Lanza fired 150+ bullets (I say that because reports vary as to the actual number) in a span of 5 minutes, but there are reports that he used as many as nine magazines, but at least 1/3 of them were not completely empty. So, he had 270 bullets at the most, and shot 150. Doing the math, he shot five out of every nine bullets, or a little over half a magazine before he reloaded. 16.8 bullets per mag, to be exact.
That’s also including the bullets he used to break into the school in the first place.
So limiting him to a ten round magazine would not have prevented the massacre.
No. Ten round magazines are a mere stepping stone.
Take a close look at the list of new laws. See the common thread? Registries.
Never mind that the Supreme Court has already declared the registry of weapons to be unconstitutional in 1968 (repeat ad nauseam; I hate having to repeat myself over and again).
All governments want to create these gigantic databases: Obamacare; gun registries, financial data. Pretty soon they will want to start keeping track of when you sleep, how long you sleep, when you take a crap, or other bodily functions kick in, when you eat, how much you eat, what you eat. They even turned the White House Easter egg roll into a Federal Fat Camp.
Government knows what’s best for us, and those of us who complain are just to stupid to realize it. Most Democrats that I know have that attitude and don’t understand why we would not want to bend knee to the king. They don’t believe that they are slowly being enslaved by this government, and don’t understand why we want to stand on our own two feet and forge our own path. We don’t need rights, whatever we need, the government will provide. I believe that during the American Revolution period, they were called Loyalists.
The list of states that have added new gun control laws, or are talking about adding them:
- New York
- Illinois (Chicago)
And probably a few more that I can’t think of off the top of my head.
California is considering regulating and taxing ammunition. Missouri, Minnesota and Oregon have had bills requiring that gun owners remove their “assault weapons” from the state.
Gun control advocates claim the Second Amendment only applies to the National Guard, a “well regulated militia”. Democrat operative Cass Sunstein claims in an article that even Chief Justice Warren Burger (appointed by Nixon) said the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to keep firearms.
They are right that the Second Amendment covers a “well-regulated” militia. The term “well-regulated” has several meanings:
- working at peak precision.
It does NOT mean having lots of rules or government control, as liberals would like us to believe. However, when they say that it refers only to the militias, who do they think made up those militias? The People.
It’s easy to be a fool when you just repeat by rote.
The intention of the Second Amendment was that the Founders distrusted standing armies. They had experienced firsthand the tyranny of a standing army, and wanted to avoid it believing that a standing army was the bane of liberty.
However, as troubles with the Indians began to escalate, as much as they disliked the idea of standing armies, the Founders realized that they had to have one, so they tried to keep it as small as they could. (It should be noted that the Indians were starting to figure out that the new settlers had no intention of staying put and not moving westward) The Constitution does not prohibit a standing army, but it encourages it to be temporary.
What gun control advocates tend to ignore is, what did the Founding Fathers think about it? How about that First Congress that debated the Second Amendment? It amazes me how poor these “scholars” actually are. In fact, they suck. Well, they probably don’t suck so much as they are not honest with us.
Tench Coxe, a delegate from Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress (1788-89):
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms. (Tench Coxe in ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’ under the Pseudonym ‘A Pennsylvanian’ in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…. [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)
Alexander Hamilton, a Federalist, and the First Secretary of the Treasury:
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. (Federalist No. 28)
…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…. (speaking of standing armies in The Federalist No. 29)
What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen…The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution… Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. (Alexander Hamilton The Federalist, No. 29)
Noah Webster (of Webster’s Dictionary fame, cousin to Daniel Webster (Connecticut representative), editor of the Federalist Party newspaper):
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. (“An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution,” 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56 [New York, 1888])
The thoughtful reader may wonder, why wasn’t Jefferson’s proposal of ‘No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms’ adopted by the Virginia legislature? They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. (Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.)
John Adams (Second President of the United States):
Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would. (Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763, reprinted in The Works of John Adams 438 [Charles F. Adams ed., 1851])
Samuel Adams (John Adam’s cousin and a great beer):
The Constitution shall never be construed…to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. (Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)
If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin. (Letter to James Warren, October 24, 1780) [Note: to find this, go the the linked site, then in your browser, “find” and enter the search term “Oct 24 1780” and it should take you straight to the letter]
I am thus far a Quaker, that I would gladly agree with all the world to lay aside the use of arms, and settle matters by negotiation; but unless the whole will, the matter ends, and I take up my musket and thank heaven he has put it in my power. (Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775)
Thus America must suffer because she has something to lose. Her crime is property. That which allures the Highwayman has allured the ministry under a gentler name. But the position laid down by Lord Sandwich, is a clear demonstration of the justice of defensive arms. The Americans, quoth this Quixote of modern days, will not fight; therefore we will. His Lordship’s plan when analized [sic] amounts to this. These people are either too superstitiously religious, or too cowardly for arms; they either cannot or dare not defend; their property is open to any one who has the courage to attack them. Send but your troops and the prize is ours. Kill a few and take the whole. Thus the peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile and abandoned, while they neglect the means of self defence [sic]. The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves. (Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775)
George Mason (Father of the Bill of Rights and author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights):
…to disarm the people ― that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. (3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials. (3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)
[The American Colonies were] all democratic governments, where the power is in the hands of the people and where there is not the least difficulty or jealousy about putting arms into the hands of every man in the country. [European countries should not] be ignorant of the strength and the force of such a form of government and how strenuously and almost wonderfully people living under one have sometimes exerted themselves in defense of their rights and liberties and how fatally it has ended with many a man and many a state who have entered into quarrels, wars and contests with them. (“Remarks on Annual Elections for the Fairfax Independent Company” in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, ed Robert A. Rutland [Chapel Hill, 1970])
George Washington (First President of the United States):
A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a Uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent others, for essential, particularly for military supplies. (First State of the Union Address of January 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790)
To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them. (Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 [Univ. of Alabama Press,1975])
A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms. (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer  at 169)
The constitution ought to secure a genuine militia and guard against a select militia. …All regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenseless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments to the community ought to be avoided. (Richard Henry Lee (writing as the Federal Farmer – Letter #18; recipient unknown)
Thomas Jefferson (author of the Declaration of Independence and Third President of the United States):
No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. (Proposal to Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950] )
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms…. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. (letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. (Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 [Foley, Ed., reissued 1967]; Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, [Memorial Edition] Lipscomb and Bergh, editors)
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. (Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764)
We established however some, although not all, its [self-government] important principles. The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed… (Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors)
James Madison (Father of the Constitution and Fourth President of the United States):
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. (The Federalist, No. 46)
It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it. (The Federalist, No. 46)
The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…. (I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])
From The Congressional Register, 17 August 1789:
(Note, these are representatives. The Senate debates were kept secret)
Elbridge Gerry (Massachusetts):
This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the government; if we could suppose that in all cases the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed.
Fisher Ames to George R. Minor. 12 June, 1789
The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people.
There are so many more, but I think you get the point. Of course, not everyone agreed with this, but 2/3 of both Houses did.
In fact, it was some of the states who had actually proposed the amendment::
New Hampshire: Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion
Virginia: That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence [sic] of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.
We need more firearms training!
New York: That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence [sic] of a free State;
Hold on, these are talking only about militias? The point is that militias are made up of people.
But it is interesting that this is the only amendment where the term “the people” doesn’t mean the people to liberals:
… or the right of the people peaceably to assemble …
The right of the people to be secure in their persons …
… shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
The powers not delegated to the United States … are reserved … to the people.
Half of the amendments in the Bill of Rights refer to the People in some manner. Why is it that the term in this amendment doesn’t mean the same to liberals as the others? Because they are afraid that they might get overthrown when this country wises up.
Anyone who believes that this amendment is just for militias, just for sporting and hunting, just for self defense and not overthrowing the government is very mistaken and either ignorant or disingenuous.
Are the people outgunned by our standing army? Yes we are.
But so was the Continental Army.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
To many people, I am going to sound very cold right now.
Details about the Sandy Hook Massacre are starting to emerge after a few months of investigation.
Apparently, the shooter got in by shooting through the door, which was locked, where he promptly killed two people who came out of the office to investigate the ruckus.
In all, he fired a total of 152 rounds: 150 rounds in five 30 round clips, err, magazines, one in the chamber, and one in his pistol which he used to kill himself.
Investigators also said that he had researched mass murderers on the internet.
Rachel Maddow said on her show that it has emerged that all 152 rounds were fired in less than five minutes.
Here’s where I am going to sound cold. People are lucky that he fired that many rounds in that short a time. He wasn’t very accurate. The body count could have been much worse than it was.
I sympathize with the families. We all do. No one should have to endure the horrors that they have had to.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that he had 10 round magazines instead of 30. He would have had to carry 15 magazines rather than 5. Still possible to carry 150 rounds.
The logic is that if he were forced to reload more, the gun might have jammed, or he wouldn’t have gotten as many shots off.
Anyone who is practiced with reloading weapons knows that it only takes a few seconds to reload. Could the weapon have jammed? Possibly, but a well maintained and properly cleaned weapon tends not to jam, except with extended use.
Forcing him to carry 15 magazines instead of five would have increased the time it took him to shoot people to what, seven minutes? Eight? I think he could have still got off that many rounds before the police were ready to storm the building.
Maddow proceeds to show a clip of an exchange between Senators Ted Cruz and Dianne Feinstein, in which Cruz asks her a question, but instead of answering the question, Feinstein launches into a tirade, thanking Senator Cruz for the “lecture” (a theme that Maddow picks up), even though there was no lecture. Both (Feinstein and Maddow) point out that Feinstein became Mayor of San Francisco after a gunman assassinated San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and City Supervisor Harvey Milk.
Both neglect to mention they were killed by a revolver, but you don’t hear an outcry to ban revolvers.
We know that the Sandy Hook gunman planned out this massacre. He researched mass murders on the internet. His victims were located in a “gun-free” zone, just like the victims in Aurora, or at Virginia Tech. Or possibly coming to a Colorado University near you. It amazes me that the left doesn’t see the irony in that.
The plea is always an emotional one.
Feinstein asks, at one point if someone should be allowed to own a bazooka.
I’ve argued before that the Constitution implies that we can, under the Letters of Marque and Reprisal clause in Article I (Section 8, Clause 11). If we can own a warship, it isn’t a warship without cannons. If we can own cannons, we can own bazookas.
Of course, Cruz, asking a question of the Constitution, mangled one of his quotes of the Constitution. I’ll let the readers figure out where.
Feinstein argues that even though we have the right of free speech, we still regulate it. We can’t incite panic or a riot. We can’t defame someone by making statements that are patently false.
That’s all true enough.
But consider this:
Congress shall make no law
No means no, not maybe. It is not depending on what the meaning of is is.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
There is no ambiguity there.
It doesn’t matter how many weapons your bill exempted, Mrs. Feinstein, if it was 2 or 2000. The Second Amendment does not say
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but you shall be limited in ammunition, limited in the number of arms you have to choose from, limit one per person or household.
If you truly studied the Constitution, as you claim you do, looking to understand it rather than looking for loopholes, the understanding of this amendment is not difficult to perceive.
We need to get these people help, which in the cases of Newtown and Aurora, these were people who were mentally disturbed. Instead, you attempt to punish the majority of legal gun owners by restricting their rights. You go down the easier path than the right, and truly moral path.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )
Gun rights advocates are celebrating that Senate Majority leader Harry Reid has single-handedly defeated Diann Feinstein’s draconian assault weapons and magazine ban. He has dropped it as part of an overall gun control bill, but has said that she can try to add it as an amendment, but he believes that she doesn’t have the votes to get it.
A solid victory for gun rights advocates! You got that, AND pissed Michael Moore off at the same time! What could be sweeter than that?
Not so fast. Now is not the time to sit on our laurels and bask in the light of victory. This battle has only just begun.
Reid has his own gun control package he wants to pass, and he dropped Feinstein’s bill because he thought it would harm his overall gun control bill.
Which means, obviously, there is a gun control bill on the horizon.
However, Feinstein said she won’t roll over and play dead. She has suggested that she will break her bill into smaller packages and feed them to the Senate to have a vote, one at a time if needed.
Reid’s new gun bill will hit the floor in April, but who knows when Feinstein’s bill(s) will come to the floor.
In other news, Colorado has signed laws that greatly expand background checks and limits the sizes of magazine.
Magpul, manufacturer of gun accessories such as magazines, has said that if these bills are signed into law, they would be moving their company out of Colorado.
The response from Colorado’s government?
Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
In New York, where the governor Andrew Cuomo signed the SAFE Act into law, his approval is plummeting. People are angry over the law. They have also arrested a man for selling two semi-automatic rifles and 300 rounds of ammunition, felonies under the new state law.
This is getting crazy folks. Totalitarianism is settling over us. These people don’t care about saving the lives of children. Children are pawns to them, pawns to be used to tax more money from us, and systematically take our rights away.
Feinstein is like the crazy aunt you hide away in the attic. No one takes her seriously anymore. She feels she was betrayed by Reid. She was betrayed by her nutcase ideas. She needs to be put to pasture. Most of them need to be put to pasture. The Constitution requires a minimum age to be elected to the Senate. It may be time to set a maximum age in the Senate to move some of the Alzheimer’s patients out of the government.
In the meantime, DHS is refusing to answer to Congress, explaining why they have purchased so much ammunition, “assault weapons” and armored vehicles.
There are those who think that we are being paranoid about Congress (and our state legislatures) trying to strip our rights away from us, but when the government has a non-military agency stockpiling weapons and ammunition, we have every reason to be paranoid.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
As I’ve been working on my series of articles on the United States Constitution, I’ve been researching the Second Amendment. In particular, I was looking for records on the debates over the various proposed amendments, and I ran across this article. Thom Hartmann, the author of the piece, says that those who claim that the Second Amendment is there to protect the people from the government are going against the Founding Fathers.
He points to a webpage that shows records of the debates over the Second Amendment (at the time, the Fifth Amendment), that I have perused and bookmarked to use later.
His piece is factually correct, but I think he is drawing the wrong conclusions. He is failing to take into account that most of the people who held these debates were Federalists, people who believed in a strong centralized government, people more along his line of thinking.
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, was an ardent Federalist, but later joined Thomas Jefferson in creating the Democrat-Republican Party, the Anti-Federalist party when he felt the Federalists were trying to take too much power.
Hartmann is also derisive of those of us who believe in that purpose of the Second Amendment, saying “as though their fully-loaded AR-15 with 100-bullet drum will keep them safe from Predator drones and cruise missiles.”
He forgot the tanks, jet fighters and artillery.
But, he maintains, “If indeed this is the true intent of the 2nd Amendment, protection from the government, then here’s the newsflash: you guys are woefully outgunned. And the 2nd Amendment would have allowed you to own a cannon and a warship, so America today would look more like Somalia today with well-armed warlords running their own little fiefdoms in defiance of the federal government.”
The Continental Army was woefully outgunned and outnumbered during the Revolution. The British Army was a professional army, yet the rebels still managed to defeat them. Three out of every four cannons used by the Continental Army were captured from the British.
George Washington was defeated in battle after battle, yet he held the Continental Army and the Revolution together through sheer force of will and the power of his personality. He later presided over the Constitutional Convention, and later became the First President of the United States. He remained a humble man through all of this.
So, Hartmann derisively says the Second Amendment would allow you to own a cannon and/or a warship if it were intended to be a protection against a tyrannical government. I say the Second Amendment, nay The Constitution itself allows you to own cannon and a warship, if you look at it closely enough!
What’s that you say? I’m nuts?
Hmmm. Let’s see.
The United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, line 11, Congress has the Power: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
What is a Letter of Marque and Reprisal, you ask?
A legal Pirate, and PIRATES HAVE THEIR OWN WARSHIPS!
In fact, the National Park Service’s website, a government agency. defines: privateers (privately owned ships authorized to make war). Even a government agency admits that warships can be privately owned.
If you follow Alexander Hamilton’s idea that the Constitution has implied powers, it is implied that citizens can have their own warships, complete with cannon.
And there is this little nugget:
In December 1941 and the first months of 1942, the Goodyear blimp Resolute was operated as an anti-submarine privateer based out of Los Angeles. As the only US craft to operate under a Letter of Marque since the War of 1812, the Resolute, armed with a rifle and flown by its civilian crew, patrolled the seas for submarines. See Shock, James R., Smith, David R., The Goodyear Airships, Bloomington, Illinois, Airship International Press, 2002, pg. 43, ISBN 0-9711637-0-7
So what was that argument about citizens not being able to own nuclear powered submarines?
The answer is yes, they can, and don’t try to argue that the Founders didn’t know what a submarine was.
Here is a photo of a Turtle:
For the record, Hollywood director James Cameron (The Terminator, The Abyss, Titanic) owns a submarine. Several other collectors own functioning tanks.
There are those who argue that cannon do not fall under the Second Amendment because a person cannot bear, or carry a cannon. That’s a limited definition of bear. To bear is not just to carry, but to move, to tend in a course or direction, to be located or situated. I would argue that as long as the cannon can be moved, if falls under the bear clause (get it?).
How far is too far, though? While it falls into the realm of the ridiculous, does that mean I can buy a rocket propelled grenade launcher? A nuclear weapon of any size? Do chemical weapons fall under arms? What about hand grenades?
I agree with Justice Scalia that there has to be reasonable restrictions. I don’t agree that banning machine guns and submachine guns are reasonable. It’s still illegal for criminals to own them, yet they still seem to get them, but for the gun control crowd, reasonable becomes more and more narrowly defined as more weapons are banned. Some weapons need to be banned, but it needs to stop there. Like I said before, the Constitution implies that I can own a warship, so I want one now. =) A cruiser, maybe?
The majority of Hartmann’s argument lies on the supposition that the militia was there to defend the government.
The Founders disliked standing armies, and who could blame them? Look at what the standing armies did to them. The Revolution became a hot war when the British moved to confiscate weapons and military supplies the they believed were stored at Concord, Massachusetts. The rebels already knew about that movement, and had moved most of the weapons and material west to places like Worcester (pronounced Wooster).
Instead of having a standing army, they elected to let each state have its own militia. These militias were to drill and practice to be ready to be called up by the Federal or State government if the need arose. Armies, on the other hand, were to be reevaluated every two years.
Today, we have a standing army, and the militias have been turned into the National Guard, a more or less Federalized militia. So, the idea of a militia has become outdated, right? In a sense, yes. Militia are nowhere near the competency of professional soldiers when it comes to training. The training of a militia is woefully inadequate. Still, the Second Amendment is very clear:
…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
History shows, however, that professional armies tend struggle with irregulars. Look at the lessons of Vietnam and Afghanistan, and the Revolution, for that matter. When in open combat, the militias get beaten time and again, but when they change their tactics to irregular tactics, the professionals struggle.
The Founders had no concept of the American military being a global force. They were only concerned with their neck of the woods, and wanted to be able to defend themselves if attacked. They never conceived going to Europe to chase the Nazis out. The Americans did nothing to help Europe take down Napoleon after he had conquered most of it. The Americans ended up fighting the British again during the War of 1812, but that had little to do with Napoleon, and more to do with the kidnapping of American sailors by the British to serve in their navy.
Hartmann quotes an 1814 letter from Thomas Jefferson in which Jefferson claims that the Romans had no standing armies. History would have to disagree with that. The Roman army started out as Jefferson said, but as the empire grew, it became necessary to have a standing army to control their empire. Eventually, the army grew to such size that the military essentially took control of the empire through a series of military coups.
The American system has also started with militias, and has now evolved to a standing army. Can military coups be far behind?
Yes, the Constitution gives the government the power to quell rebellions. What government wouldn’t? However, Hartmann argues that this in and of itself that the Second Amendment is not about the ability to overthrow our own government.
He conveniently ignores the Declaration of Independence:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
That, in and of itself gives us the right to overthrow our government, if the need arises.
George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights, and author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) wrote this, his third clause in his declaration:
That government is or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right, to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.
The question then becomes not that we have the right to do it, but should we?
George Washington, in his Farewell Address, recommended trying the Amendment Process (Article V) before resorting to rebellion, among other things:
To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.
It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.
Unfortunately, there is no mechanism in the Constitution for the people to call a Constitutional Convention, only for the States to do so. I have posed the question before. Is it time? Do we need to pester our state officials to call such a convention? Several already have, but not enough.
So, it is not only Mr. Hartmann who is incorrect in his interpretations (from my point of view, anyway), so are the ones who say “Our ancestors would be shooting by now!”
We must heed the Wisdom of George Washington. We must try other means, peaceful means, first. Voting simply isn’t enough. While our government may be growing to frightening proportions, it is our duty to alter it, via the amendment process. The Constitution is not the place for denying rights to others, but the place to restrict the power and size of the government.
It is important to keep a few things in mind. The French Revolution (1789 – 1799) culminated in the rise of a dictator by the name of Napoleon Bonaparte. The defeat of Imperial Germany during the First World War led to the Weimar Republic, which ultimately collapsed leading to the rise of a dictator named Adolf Hitler. Contrary to internet belief, Hitler was never elected by the people. Although he had become Chancellor through legal means, as soon as he had the numbers in the Reichstag, he seized absolute power.
Therein lies the danger of overthrowing a government by force. We must learn from history. More often than not, and the American experiment is the exception, not the rule, when a government is overthrown by force, a despot steps in. We Americans were lucky Washington was a humble man who became the first president. Otherwise, we could still be in a monarchy. We certainly wouldn’t have the system of government we have today.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
Yesterday, I wrote about primary sponsor Mitch Greenlick admitting that HB 3200 was pretty flawed.
According to an Oregonian story yesterday (link to Oregon Firearms Federation), the outrage was so great that Greenlick stopped taking phone calls, and claims to have deleted one thousand emails that he received over the weekend.
In addition, Greenlick would later throw Ceasfire Oregon under the bus, claiming that they had written the bill. As of my writing yesterday, I suspected they may have written it, but wasn’t sure. (Scroll down to see the OFF alert)
So there we have it. Our legislators and Congress are voting on bills that someone else has written. If they are going to do that, they should at least read the damn things before introducing them. It would save them a lot of embarrassment, and a lot of taxpayer money.
One of the most insidious provisions in the bill was the “inspection” by the county sheriff.
Okamoto said that her group believed that gun owners didn’t need the guns covered by HB 3200 for such purposes as hunting and self defense. And she argued that gun owners who kept one of the guns under the proposed ban in the bill would be “agreeing to allow this search.”
Which would pretty much be every modern weapon in existence. But Okamoto is delusional if she thinks that a government mandated search is the same as an agreement to subject yourself to a search.
However, as much as Greenlick tries to backpedal, he still can’t hide his true intentions.
Greenlick said he would want to greatly amend the bill if it started to move through the process. For now, he said, it’s mostly stimulating debate.
“It’s not where they [most legislators] want to go and it’s not where I think we’re going to go,” said Greenlick, “but it’s where we should be going.”
It’s not stimulating debate. It’s stimulating outrage. But the man, who is nearly 80, is getting senile if he thinks that taking away our rights is “where we should be going”.
As for the emergency provision at the end of the bill, it’s not as nefarious as it seems.
I emailed five different representatives this morning, including Mitch Greenlick, and only two responded (both Democrats, surprisingly, including Mitch Greenlick). Both said that all it means is that it goes into effect immediately on being approved by the Governor, instead of on January 1 after the current session as is normally the case.
From Representative Jeff Reardon’s office:
The phrase “This 2013 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this 2013 Act takes effect July 1, 2013.” As well as the “Declares emergency, effective July 1, 2013” is making sure that their effective date is the day listed which is also the day the governor signs the bill. This happens after the passing of the bill in both the house and the senate.
It is often put on all bills that don’t have a written in ‘effective date.’ (as in, it is not something that starts with the new school year, new year, or after tax filing etc.)
It is used on 20 to 40% of bills per session.
This is NOT the same as a ‘state of emergency’ as declared by the President or the Governor.
The same is true if it says effective upon passage.
Ceasefire Oregon’s website says one of the funniest things I’ve seen in my life.
“Large-capacity ammunition magazines have been used in half the mass killings in the last 30 years,” the organization says on its website. “At least make the shooters stop to reload. Give us a chance.”
You have a chance.
Buy a gun.
Learn to use it.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )
« Previous Entries