The Founding Fathers of this country believed strongly in the private ownership of property. After all, many of them owned their own lands before they revolted against the king. Much of the Bill of Rights deals with the rights of the individual when it comes to the police and court system. Protected rights against illegal search and seizure, self-incrimination, the right to face your accuser, and cruel and unusual punishment.
At some point, someone in the government figured out that if you were convicted of a crime, the government could just seize your property. Not just land, but any assets.
It seems like every time I turn around, law enforcement is trying to do something more, trying to blur the line a little more when it comes to catching crooks. Things that don’t look like they violate the Constitution on the surface, but are full of malice as you look deeper.
For example, Homeland Security, and more than a few local law enforcement are purchasing tanks, armored personnel carriers and semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines. The Federal government, across several departments is purchasing billions of rounds of ammunition, while the Pentagon is set to destroy millions more.
Perhaps most disturbing is how law enforcement is starting to act. In New York, they stop and frisk random people, mostly blacks, in complete violation of the Fourth Amendment.
In Los Angeles, the ATF had notified a gun dealer that they wanted their computers and customer lists, because the shop sold what’s called a lower receiver for AR-15s. The company went to court, and got a restraining order against the ATF, but the ATF raided the shop anyway, in defiance of the restraining order. It should be noted that these same lower receivers was what started the siege in Waco, Texas back in 1992.
In Chicago, I believe, they are trying to get a system up and running that can predict crime before it happens. That’s the basis of the movie Minority Report.
And to top it all off, they are beginning to seize the assets of people suspected of committing a crime. That’s right. You don’t actually have to commit a crime anymore to become a criminal. You simply need to be suspected of being one. I read a recent story about a man who owned a hotel, and the Feds want to seize it, saying it was suspected that it was a front for drug dealing and prostitution. The owner of the establishment says that if it is, he has had nothing to do with it, and that he is unaware of any such thing happening.
No matter, say the police. Seizing it from him will put an end to whatever may or may not be going on there.
Shouldn’t law enforcement have to prove, in a court of law, that these things are happening before they can seize it? Shouldn’t that fall under “illegal search and SEIZURE”?
These seized assets are then sold off and the proceeds are put into a fund for law enforcement. Sometimes, these funds are squandered. One police chief in Florida, I believe, bought himself a whole bunch of new toys, including a new office, then laid off some police officers, citing the lack of budget for them.
The police like to keep all things internal. I think this is because if we really knew what was going on, we would blow a collective gasket.
Of course, law enforcement claims that all of this, the seizure of property from people suspected of crimes, cameras, illegal wiretaps, and warrantless searches are all effective tools to nabbing the bad guys.
They are effective tools for nabbing innocent people as well. They might as well say “hey, it would be so much easier if you would just give up your rights”.
And that is exactly what they want. It would be so much easier if we could just tear up that pesky Bill of Rights, or modify some of them to give greater government control.
There are voices out there who say that tyranny is hiding just around the corner. You’re naive if you don’t see it.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
“[CNN’s] Jessica [Yellin], I am not a dictator, I’m the president,” [Obama] said while speaking to reporters in the White House Press Briefing Room.
Do you remember that? It isn’t the first time Obama lamented that he’s not a dictator, or an emperor. However, his history has shown that when he says something, he generally means the opposite. I’m not sure if the man can tell the truth from his lies anymore.
At a recent dinner for kids who had won a recipe contest, when asked what his favorite food was, he immediately said “broccoli”.
Far be it for me to suggest he’s full of shit, but this is the man who eats steaks with wine, burgers, pizza, donuts, excuse me, pastries, and hot dogs. That doesn’t mean that he doesn’t eat healthier foods, but come on, broccoli your favorite food? Seriously?
No reports if his pants actually caught on fire.
Last week, Obama pushed back the employer mandate of his signature healthcare law, but left the citizens in the lurch. We are still required to comply with the mandate, but Obama’s corporate masters aren’t.
The truth is, Obama doesn’t have the power to arbitrarily suspend laws, or not enforce ones he doesn’t like, or rewrite them, for that matter.
Article II, section 3 of the United States Constitution specifically states:
…he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…
So, when Congress failed to pass the Dream Act, it is not within the President’s authority to issue an executive order that suspends immigration enforcement for conditions that exactly mimic the Dream Act.
When Obama signed Obamacare into law, that did not give him the authority to suspend or delay portions of it.
It’s just another sign that Obamacare is not working, and it isn’t even off the starting block yet.
Even the English, back in 1689, didn’t put up with the King arbitrarily suspending laws. In the English Bill of Rights, Parliament wrote:
Going beyond the mere suspension of laws he doesn’t want to enforce, the IRS is doing the bidding of someone in the administration in intimidating political opponents, and the government has decided it needs to investigate itself.
The NSA is spying on us, with the permission of a secret court that Obama swears is transparent.
Now there are more revelations that are even more chilling.
In Obama’s War on Whistleblowers, he has now ordered Federal workers to spy on each other.
That’s right, Big Brother is watching, and if he isn’t available, your co-workers are.
While I normally don’t care what Federal workers do to each other, ordering them to watch each other and report “suspicious” behavior, with penalties if you don’t report something, is bizarre. It seems like something a paranoid schizophrenic would do.
That’s what it all comes down to. This administration has become very paranoid.
Aren’t they creating a hostile work environment? Suddenly, staying late at the office to finish a report due the next day is considered “suspicious” behavior.
Tyrants always tend to be paranoid. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin. All paranoid.
It has already been shown that Obama is a sociopath. Here are some of the signs of a sociopath. How many apply to this president?
- Glibness and Superficial Charm
- Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
- Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as “their right.”
- Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
- Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
- Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.
- Incapacity for Love
- Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.
- Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others’ feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
- Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.
- Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet “gets by” by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.
Not concerned about wrecking others’ lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
- Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.
- Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.
- Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.
Other Related Qualities:
- Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
- Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
- Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
- Conventional appearance
- Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
- Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim’s life
- Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim’s affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
- Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
- Incapable of real human attachment to another
- Unable to feel remorse or guilt
- Extreme narcissism and grandiose
- May state readily that their goal is to rule the world
Some of these may be debatable, as we will never really know for sure, but many are based on the perception of the man. Does he really feel empathy for the parents and survivors of the Sandy Hook shooting, or does he just see them as a means to an end?
He wants to tax and regulate certain businesses into oblivion, while raising the costs on the citizens.
Yet he wants to prevent confusion on employers by illegally delaying implementing some of the provisions on Obamacare, while continuing to stick it to the citizenry by requiring they purchase insurance anyway.
How can he get away with such tactics? Because Congress doesn’t call him on it. Oh, sure, they whine, bitch, complain and kvetch about it, but do nothing to put him in his place.
We have often been told that the President is the most powerful man in the world. He shouldn’t be, and by the standards of the Constitution, he doesn’t have much power at all. Most of the power that are exercised by Presidents today have been stolen from Congress.
We have had troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for years, but never a declaration of war. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I, no declaration of war.
Congress loses its power because it doesn’t exercise them.
That’s how the executive power grows, by stepping in where Congress fears to go.
That’s exactly what Obama has been doing. If Congress won’t act, he will, despite the fact that he doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to do so.
Even if Congress acts, he still does what he wants, despite the fact that he doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to do so.
He builds on what the last President did, even though he and his followers decried it as evil and eroding our civil liberties before he took office.
He is so paranoid of the people, that he, and Congress, are trying to take our rights away from us.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–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.
This government has become destructive to those ends, under the guise of “protecting” us.
I like my rights. I cherish my rights, and am loathe to give them up.
In today’s political climate, that would be considered “unreasonable”.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
We all like scary stories, right?
Here’s one for ya.
Whenever I use my wife’s tablet to search for something on Google, it often comes up and says precise location unknown, or asks if it can use my location in a search.
I always tell it no, if I don’t shut that feature off all together.
There is no reason that Google needs to know my precise location, but that doesn’t guarantee that the information isn’t sent to Google headquarters anyway. In fact, there are no guarantees that that your location information is not being transmitted every time you go somewhere.
There are things about the world today that we just take for granted as just being the way things are. Grocery stores gather data about your purchases through club cards so they can tailor ads to you. You bank doesn’t just keep information about your financial transactions, they keep records about when and where the purchase took place, and in the case of online purchases, your order information is out there as well.
“Metadata is information about what communications you send and receive, who you talk to, where you are when you talk to them, the lengths of your conversations, what kind of device you were using and potentially other information, like the subject line of your emails,” said Peter Eckersley, the technology projects director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital civil liberties group.
The government continues to claim that it doesn’t read the contents of our emails, or know the content of our conversations, but in the case of emails, that data is readily embedded in the code of the email as it is sent.
“Metadata is the perfect place to start if you want to troll through millions of people’s communications to find patterns and to single out smaller groups for closer scrutiny,” he said. “It will tell you which groups of people go to political meetings together, which groups of people go to church together, which groups of people go to nightclubs together or sleep with each other.”
In order to narrow massive amounts of data down to smaller groups, the government has to be able to read some part of the email in order to find the keywords they are looking for.
“That’s certainly enough to know if you’re pregnant or not, what diseases you have, whether you’re looking for a new job, whether you’re trying to figure out if the NSA is watching you or not,” he said, referring to the National Security Agency. Such information provides “a deeply intimate window into a person’s psyche,” he added.
So, if you have been searching for porn, the government knows it. If you’ve been searching for loopholes in Obamacare, the government knows it.
And if you bitch about the government day in and day out, the government knows it.
Well, at least DHS doesn’t have those same search powers.
That’s absolute contempt for the American people if I’ve ever seen it. In the midst of controversy and scandal about the government spying on us, DHS complains that it’s not fair that they don’t have those kinds of spying powers. Who else is going to watch those violent militias out in the middle of nowhere?
I knew Napolitano had balls. I just didn’t realize they were that big.
There is virtually nothing that is hidden from the government anymore.
Courts have ruled that we don’t have an expectation of privacy with these sorts of things, because we don’t make an effort to secure it.
Our financial transactions are done on “secure” lines, but beyond that, what are we to do, exactly? The vast majority of us aren’t programmers, so what are we supposed to do to? Not use the internet? Not have a computer or a smartphone?
Those are some suggestions that some people have made, but in the digital age, that’s just unrealistic.
You can’t even trust your gaming console anymore. Microsoft, producer of the Xbox One had entered into an agreement with the NSA to watch you 24/7.
Of course, once the story broke, Microsoft did a 180 and claims they are dropping the provision that you have to be online every 24 hours. Microsoft is also dropping the provision that you can’t play a used game on your Xbox. In other words, they are trying to put shops like Gamestop out of business, and keep people like me, who purchases used games, from playing them. What’s wrong with buying a game from someone else? Generally, once a game has been played, it just takes up space on the shelf.
But I digress.
At a hearing Wednesday on Capitol Hill, FBI Director Robert Mueller said metadata obtained under Section 215 of the Patriot Act had helped authorities “connect the dots” in investigations that had prevented 10 or 12 terrorist plots in recent years. Mueller defended the collection of metadata, saying there were plenty of safeguards in place that protect Americans’ privacy. He warned against restricting or ending the program.
“What concerns me is you never know which dot is going to be key,” Mueller said. “What you want is as many dots as we can (get). If you close down a program like this, you are removing dots from the playing field.”
But not at the expense of our privacy! The government has no right to watch us like hawks. If you watch their numbers, however, they always jump around. The number has jumped from 1 to 10, to 12, to 50 or so. Everyone knows the one they missed.
No matter where you go, what you do, Big Brother is watching. It used to be chilling to us, the thought that our government would watch us, but it has become a reality. In Orwell’s 1984, there were devices everywhere that constantly fed video feeds back to the Party, and very few places to hide. The hero, Winston, had to go into a little alcove to write unseen about the evils of the government, a crime that was punishable by death.
As with the novel 1984, we are constantly told that it is for our own good, our own interest, our own safety.
So, how does the government react to this?
“Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.”
This was just before the revelations came rolling out.
But the New York Police Department, home to Nanny Bloomberg, is reacting by expanding their surveillance net to fight crime as well as terrorism. And who is in charge of the NY police Departments? Ultimately, it’s the Nanny.
These programs do not have the oversight of all of Congress. They are run by a handful, a select few. There were members of Congress who were surprised when they were told all of Congress knew of these programs. There were those in Congress who were trying to tell that there was something bad happening.
Now it has been revealed that the FBI has been flying drones above us for at least the last 3 years.
Does it make you feel better to know that your government is watching you if it means you are safe?
Are you willing to surrender your rights so you can feel safer, more secure?
Can you guarantee that these will never be expanded in the future, and abused even more?
Do you really want to do that to your children?
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Today’s scandal du jour: A top secret court order granted to the NSA by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court went into effect on April 19, 2013 and ordered Verizon to hand over the phone records of millions of Verizon customers.
You’ve never heard of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court?
Most people, including myself, never heard of it before.
Apparently it was established under the Carter regime, the regime that brought us the Education Department and FEMA.
I’ve heard a lot of people talk about secret courts before, but I kind of just shrugged them off. After all, that could never happen in this country, right?
Apparently I was the one who was wrong.
By confiscating everyone’s phone records, the government is not looking for terrorists. They are spying on everyone.
This should come as no surprise on the heels of the Department of Homeland Security saying that they don’t need probable cause to search your laptop, phones or other electronic devices if you are entering the country. They only need a hunch.
Who’s in charge of the government now?
Apparently Darth Holder and Darth Napolitano.
“We have altered the terms of your rights. Pray we don’t alter them any further.”
What is going on?
This is not freedom. This is intimidation, and a government that feels we are guilty until proven innocent.
Don’t give me the garbage about how they are trying to protect us, that it is for our own good.
I would rather take my chances, thank you very much, than to have to live under this government oppression.
To top it off, you have South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham saying that bloggers should not have the same First Amendment protections like “real” journalists.
“Who is a journalist is a question we need to ask ourselves,” he said. “Is any blogger out there saying anything—do they deserve First Amendment protection? These are the issues of our times.”
I blog for fun. I don’t consider myself a journalist.
I do, however, consider myself a loudmouth who was not blessed with the wisdom to shut my mouth.
There are those, however, who do consider themselves journalists. I didn’t realize, especially in the digital age that you had to have a license or work for a media outlet to report on news stories.
Obviously I need to sign up for a license as soon as I sign up for my Second Amendment gun permit.
Of course, as soon as he started receiving flack for this, he tried to take it back:
Just to be clear, every blogger is entitled to constitutionally-protected Freedom of Speech.
No shit? I have First Amendment rights even though I’m not a journalist?
Thank you for granting me those rights, Senator.
And this man is part of the “greatest deliberative body in the world”.
The man couldn’t debate his way out of a wet paper bag.
And, in light of all the scandals, MSNBC host Martin Bashir has to throw gas on the fire.
“Republicans are using [the IRS scandal] as their latest weapon in the war against the black man in the White House,” he suggested. ”IRS” is the new “N****r.”
According to Bashir, obviously, Obama should be given a pass on everything because he’s the first black president, and if you are upset with the IRS intimidating you, then you are racist.
I wonder if these idiots realize how ridiculous they sound?
These government agencies are out of control. The IRS, the NSA, the secret court of FISC, the State Department, the Federal Reserve, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security. All out of control.
Was Obama aware of everything that was going on in these agencies? I believe he had some clue, but was never told the full story to protect him.
That does not really matter. The man is in charge of these agencies, and if he cannot keep them under control, then it shows that he is a) weak and ineffectual, and b) the government has grown way too big and must be reduced in size.
But, if we lay off government employees, won’t that make unemployment go up?
Republicans and other right wingers are calling for Obama’s impeachment.
Slow down. There has to be enough evidence to convict. Watergate took place in 1972. The impeachment hearings were gearing up in 1974, two years after. It takes time to gather irrefutable evidence, so be patient while the evidence is gathered.
However, much as I hate to say it, not all of this is Obama’s fault.
Homeland Security and the Patriot Act were Bush’s handywork. He shares some of the blame for the bloating of government.
And in response to the Facebook posts floating around asking if we miss Bush yet, I say, no, not really.
I miss Reagan. I miss the booming economies of Reagan/Bush/Clinton, although I don’t miss Clinton per se but I miss the economy.
The Constitution specifically limits the government, but this is what happens when the government chooses to ignore it in the name of “national security”.
We must do whatever it takes to downsize this bloated and out of control government before it is too late.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 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 )
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 )
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 )
Once again, the Oregon Public Employee’s Unions are trying to tamper with the voting system here in Oregon.
Oregon law requires that anytime ballots are sent to voters and a potential tax increase is on the ballot, the envelope must be stamped in red: CONTAINS VOTE ON PROPOSED TAX INCREASE.
The Oregon Education Association (the Oregon Teacher’s Union) has convinced the legislature to look at the issue, and perhaps take action.
This is absolute bullshit. Back when Measure 37 was in effect, the measure that allowed people to decide how to use their own property rather than the government, they came up with a ballot measure to repeal it, and they used focus groups to determine what ballot title would most likely influence voters to vote for the repeal.
Now they are wanting to further dumb down the voters by not letting them know that the ballot contains a tax initiative.
Why would they want that? Because voters are more active when Oregon has a tax initiative on the ballot, and it gets defeated. So they are trying to trick the public by keeping this information quiet.
IT IS NOT THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT TO TRICK THE CITIZENS INTO VOTING THE WAY THEY WANT!
Of course, the Union has a vested interest in the vote. The vote is about reforming the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). The Democrat controlled legislature is doing their crony union supporters bidding by reviewing the system.
The PERS system is slowly killing this state, and it needs to be reformed. The public employees in this state get better benefits than other retirees in this state, and better than most public employees in neighboring states.
A long time ago, we voted in a measure that said that if government revenues exceeded the budget by a certain amount, we got got the difference returned to us. This went for both corporations and individuals.
Opponents have long searched for a way to kill the “kickers” as they are called. They have succeeded in taking the corporate kicker away, but continue to search for a way to take the individual one away. They they can funnel that money into a “rainy day” fund.
Like government would ever save money for a rainy day. No one buys that line of bull.
Government trying to deceive the citizens at the behest of a public employees union. Why does that not surprise me?
I believe that all public employees unions should be abolished. PEUs pit government workers, our supposed servants, directly against the taxpayers. They often make more than the private sector does, and obviously get better benefits, especially when they retire.
This kind of chicanery is exactly why the Public Employee’s Unions should be busted.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
The long weekend is over, but I never really take a rest from politics, even if I don’t write anything. I often participate in debates, sometimes heated, and sometimes I learn a thing or two.
The main thing I learned from a friend this weekend is that if someone is talking about gun control, they’re not talking about the Second Amendment.
How can you have a discussion on gun control without a discussion of the Second Amendment?
A friend of mine on Facebook started asking if we were fooling ourselves about the gun control debate, to which I responded “There is no debate. Shall not be infringed. End of discussion”.
Of course, he didn’t like that answer, so he started pulling out stats. Homicides dropped 50% per capita in Illinois (not Chicago, but the entire state) and they tightened gun restrictions. Texas, on the other hand, loosened theirs and homicides dropped by a third. So his conclusion was that whether gun laws work or not depends on the area.
People never look at the obvious stat to me: Incarceration. Maybe homicides are falling because people who commit these crimes are being locked up in huge numbers. Chicago is an area where firearm homicides are too common. This will continue, because the victims and the people of the community live with the fear that if they talk to the police, they are next, so the perpetrators have no fear of being caught. Until the people of Chicago take their neighborhoods back and start helping the police, this will only get worse. It saddens me that anyone has to live with that level of fear.
I also learned that if you believe the government is trying to take your rights away, you are crazy, and if you say so, you are ranting. I guess I rant a lot, because I believe the government is trying to take our rights away. Not all at once and not in a rush, but slowly, over time so we won’t notice.
The police everywhere are working hard to subvert the Second Amendment as well as the Fourth.
The Chicago Police Superintendent, Garry McCarthy said that lobbying groups backed by legal guns owners (the NRA, et. al.) are corrupt:
“If there was special interests affecting police work, I believe that would be called corruption. So, if it has do with donating money versus a popular vote, I think we have a bigger problem in this country and somebody’s gotta wake up to that,” said McCarthy.
He also went on to say that he believes the Second Amendment is a threat to public safety.
Here’s the real gem: McCarthy went on to express his belief that judges and legislators should rely on public opinion polls when interpreting our Constitution.
Because the Constitution is all about opinion polls.
Mr. McCarthy, you really need to read your Constitution. The First Amendment specifically protects the right of the people to petition the government to address grievances. The NRA gives money to candidates who they believe will further their interests. Nothing wrong with that. No one says the candidate has to take it.
Notice that it is the people who are corrupt in his eyes, not the government or the candidates who take the money.
How do these idiots get into these positions?
Actually, I think he’s less idiot and more “I would rather see guns in the hands of the police than in the hands of citizens” type person. Most people like to complain that gun control laws only target law abiding citizens, not criminals. It’s not just that, but disarming the population makes it easier for a police state to rise.
I also learned that if you are required by law to let the sheriff into your home for a “look-see”, that’s not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
I always thought the Fourth prevented such drop in inspections.
I’m not banging on all of our police officers. There are many who are very nice, conscientious people who take their jobs seriously. They put their lives on the line daily, and I am sure the job is very stressful, not just on them, but their families. However, there are some cops who get on power trips and abuse their suspects, thinking they are above the law.
Look at the Chris Dorner situation this last week. LAPD shot up two cars and injured 3 innocent people in their hunt for Dorner. I’m not condoning what Dorner did, but the LAPD did not make themselves look good. Then there was the whole cabin fire thing. The Sheriff’s Department denies burning it down intentionally, but the audio suggests differently.
Then there are the drones that will be taking to the skies in large numbers. Some states and cities are banning them, but not all. Law enforcement is lobbying hard for them, just as they are lobbying for warrantless wiretaps and the ability to snoop on you on the internet. The Department of Homeland Security is interested in smaller drones, you know, the ones we can’t see while they are in flight.
I have no problem in calling them out in a search, like they had wanted to in the Dorner hunt, but I do take issue with them wanting to fly them all day, every day, just because.
Then we have the president, who has decided that he is judge jury and executioner of American citizens if he, or some other “well informed, high level” government official decides they are an “imminent” threat. That these people were overseas is of little consequence. How long before another President decides that if the government could do it over there, they can do it here?
It’s been a busy weekend. We’ve learned even more about the governments attempts to subvert our rights:
- The First Amendment right to petition the government to redress our grievances: Threat to public safety/corruption
- The Second Amendment: Threat to public safety; attempted confiscation by Missouri and Minnesota of all firearms.
- Third Amendment: Right to privacy subverted by spy drones.
- The Fourth Amendment: Washington’s attempt to get police into homes without probable cause/warrants, government spying on internet activity, spy drones
- The Fifth Amendment: Executive branch’s judge/jury executioner drone program, attempted confiscation of legal firearms by State governments.
- The Sixth Amendment: National Defense Authorization Act of 2012; see section 1021 and 1022. Allows the government to detain anyone for indefinite amount of time without Due Process, speedy trial, facing ones accusers, or going before a judge.
- The Eighth Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment. Does anyone seriously think that bails and fines are not excessive these days?
I told my friend that just because the government may have acted like this in the past is not a valid excuse for them to continue, that it is not a valid reason for us to sit back and take it. There comes a time when we must say “Enough!” and stand up to the government and tell them that good government does not come from an opinion poll, nor does it come from oppressing the rights of the people. It does not come from government borrowing money hand over fist to pay for everything. The government is not a friend, and definitely not a sugar daddy.
If speaking out in defense of one’s rights makes me crazy, then I guess I’m crazy.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
« Previous Entries