John 12:24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit."
Showing posts with label erosion of liberties. Show all posts
Showing posts with label erosion of liberties. Show all posts
12 May 2022
18 October 2019
25 July 2018
It Could Never Happen Here, Right?
I wouldn't hold my breath on that point.
And people wonder why Second Amendment activists are so determined. Well, wonder no more.
Registration (Or Failure Thereof) Leads to Confiscation in South Africa
Just a snippet:
The effects of yesterday's ruling are far-reaching. It is estimated that there are at least 300 000 firearm owners who - either negligently or intently - failed to renew their firearm licences. These people will have to hand their firearms in at their nearest police stations, from where they will be destroyed.
And people wonder why Second Amendment activists are so determined. Well, wonder no more.
09 November 2015
Congressional Gun Control Hypocrisy Shines On Capitol Hill
From Bullets First:
Posted by Tony Oliva on Oct 9, 2015 in Email Featured, Fallacy, Featured, Gun Control FAIL, Hypocrisy, Legislation
It’s jaw dropping when the perfect storm of Congressional tone
deafness, meets the mindset of the oligarchy with the illogical fallacy
of gun control.
To what am I referring?
On Thursday, Senate Democrats gathered on the steps of the Capitol to announce a new push for tougher gun-control laws.
While Democrats exploiting the death of children and unarmed victims for their own political gain is not a new phenomenon, the abject hypocrisy in how they do it is always mind boggling to me.
You see, these Democrats, including NY Sen Chuck Shumer and Oregonian Sen Ron Wyden, made the announcement while surrounded by a dozen armed guards who were in ADDITION to the regular detail of Capitol Police who protect Congressmen.
So in Washington DC, whose city council is doing EVERYTHING they can to subvert he rulings of the courts in order to deny the Second Amendment to its citizens, these Senators have the gall to prance around with their own, heavily armed, tax payer funded, private use army while the peons of the “servant class” have to fend for themselves unarmed, to announce MORE restrictions upon the right to keep and bear arms.
The hypocrisy of it all would be hilarious if it weren’t so tragic.
And the restrictions of course wouldn’t do anything to stop criminals from using guns to kill people because the last time I checked murder was still illegal and that doesn’t stop the criminals. The gun control measures just make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to exercise their God given rights.
Gun Controllers love to throw scary sounding words around when they push for more Constitution shredding. That’s why we have the bogus term “Assault Weapon” applied to sporting rifles.
The measures proposed by the Democrats include old favorites (yet in reality non existent things) like the “gun show loophole” mixed in with new ones like the “illegal gun pipeline.”
Unless Chuck Shumer is talking about the time the Obama Administration smuggled weapons to the Mexican Cartels in Operation Fast and Furious, I don’t have time for his nonsense.
And of course, the ubiquitous “improved background check.” Simply put, be treated like a criminal and give the government MORE information before exercising your rights.
Yet somehow, if you support the idea of require ID’s in order to vote you are a vile racist who is trying to usurp democracy. Gun Controlling Democrat hypocrisy knows no bounds.
The most egregious thing that was said while these Senators were armed behind their wall of guns was muttered by Sen Wyden of Oregon.
Unlike you, We the people don’t go around with a small army on the taxpayers dime.
We are on our own. But We like it that way. So you can take all your rights infringing garbage and your tragedy exploiting bull that you and your kind have facilitated in the first place and pound sand.
You want to do something to stop further mass shootings? Outlaw gun free zones. Oregon forces Christian bakers to bake wedding cake for gay couples. At least the 2nd Amendment is an actual RIGHT.
But that is a discussion for another time.
Next time gun controllers want to push for gun control they should do so without the army of hired guns. I mean, its DC and its all about gun control…it should be the safest city in America…
Why then does it have a crime index of 4…with 100 being the safest?
Food for thought.
Read more at http://bulletsfirst.net/2015/10/09/congressional-gun-control-hypocrisy-shines-on-capitol-hill/
Posted by Tony Oliva on Oct 9, 2015 in Email Featured, Fallacy, Featured, Gun Control FAIL, Hypocrisy, Legislation
To what am I referring?
On Thursday, Senate Democrats gathered on the steps of the Capitol to announce a new push for tougher gun-control laws.
While Democrats exploiting the death of children and unarmed victims for their own political gain is not a new phenomenon, the abject hypocrisy in how they do it is always mind boggling to me.
You see, these Democrats, including NY Sen Chuck Shumer and Oregonian Sen Ron Wyden, made the announcement while surrounded by a dozen armed guards who were in ADDITION to the regular detail of Capitol Police who protect Congressmen.
So in Washington DC, whose city council is doing EVERYTHING they can to subvert he rulings of the courts in order to deny the Second Amendment to its citizens, these Senators have the gall to prance around with their own, heavily armed, tax payer funded, private use army while the peons of the “servant class” have to fend for themselves unarmed, to announce MORE restrictions upon the right to keep and bear arms.
The hypocrisy of it all would be hilarious if it weren’t so tragic.
And the restrictions of course wouldn’t do anything to stop criminals from using guns to kill people because the last time I checked murder was still illegal and that doesn’t stop the criminals. The gun control measures just make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to exercise their God given rights.
Gun Controllers love to throw scary sounding words around when they push for more Constitution shredding. That’s why we have the bogus term “Assault Weapon” applied to sporting rifles.
The measures proposed by the Democrats include old favorites (yet in reality non existent things) like the “gun show loophole” mixed in with new ones like the “illegal gun pipeline.”
Unless Chuck Shumer is talking about the time the Obama Administration smuggled weapons to the Mexican Cartels in Operation Fast and Furious, I don’t have time for his nonsense.
And of course, the ubiquitous “improved background check.” Simply put, be treated like a criminal and give the government MORE information before exercising your rights.
Yet somehow, if you support the idea of require ID’s in order to vote you are a vile racist who is trying to usurp democracy. Gun Controlling Democrat hypocrisy knows no bounds.
The most egregious thing that was said while these Senators were armed behind their wall of guns was muttered by Sen Wyden of Oregon.
“The victims and their families deserve better than a Congress that shrugs its shoulders and waited for the next tragedy. They deserve action.”No Senator, they don’t need “action” they need the Government to get the hell out of the way and let law abiding citizens exercise their right to keep and bear arms in order to protect themselves.
Unlike you, We the people don’t go around with a small army on the taxpayers dime.
We are on our own. But We like it that way. So you can take all your rights infringing garbage and your tragedy exploiting bull that you and your kind have facilitated in the first place and pound sand.
You want to do something to stop further mass shootings? Outlaw gun free zones. Oregon forces Christian bakers to bake wedding cake for gay couples. At least the 2nd Amendment is an actual RIGHT.
But that is a discussion for another time.
Next time gun controllers want to push for gun control they should do so without the army of hired guns. I mean, its DC and its all about gun control…it should be the safest city in America…
Why then does it have a crime index of 4…with 100 being the safest?
Food for thought.
Read more at http://bulletsfirst.net/2015/10/09/congressional-gun-control-hypocrisy-shines-on-capitol-hill/
11 September 2015
Proposed Law Would Force Parents to Disclose Gun Ownership to School District
From Townhall.com:
Michael Schaus | Dec 20, 2013
Michael Schaus | Dec 20, 2013
Apparently, liberals have a plan to bring an end to school shootings:
Make disclosure of firearm ownership mandatory for all families enrolled
in public education. According to the Missouri Torch:
A pre-filed bill in the Missouri Senate would require parents of public school students to report to the school if they own a gun.
Why don’t we just cut right to the chase, and write a law instructing would-be mass-shooters to report their intentions well ahead of time? Or, heck, we could just outlaw the act of killing innocent school children. And I’m sure criminals, owners of illegal weapons, and potentially dangerous sociopaths will be more than happy to follow along with such equally ridiculous legislation. Right?
More than being an egregious violation of personal privacy, the bill highlights the impotence of progressive “solutions” to violence conducted with firearms. Compulsory disclosure of gun ownership provides the authorities with such little actionable or useful information it is almost not worth mentioning.
Of course, in in places like New York, such disclosure of firearm ownership is actually aiding authorities. Without a public registry of firearm licenses, authorities in NYC would have a far more difficult time confiscating weapons from law-abiding gun owners who have accidently run afoul of newly enacted gun laws.
The Missouri proposal, however, does not call on parents to disclose the specific firearms they own… See, according to Liberals, all guns are evil – and all gun owners merit increased scrutiny and surveillance by authorities. (Wow… And you wonder why people with guns don’t like more gun laws… Weird.)
The Missouri Torch reported:
Naturally, the question arises: What the heck is this proposal actually supposed to accomplish? Aside from giving schools (read: government) a list of the county’s child-bearing gun owners, actionable intelligence (and almost any other kind of intelligence as well) is non-existent.
More than likely, the bill is a reflection of the increasingly ambitious campaign to delegitimize gun ownership. After all, it’s not as if it is designed to prevent maniacs from shooting up a school. The good news is that the bill’s author, Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal, has introduced this bill before…
And it went no-where. But her ambitions are telling of liberal impotence, and the left’s intrinsic inability to address the fundamental issues facing the nation.
There is no doubt that violence is a real, and tragically too regular, occurrence in the world. And while some schools are deciding to arm resource officers, permit concealed carry, and even hire additional security, the liberal solution is put up more “no guns” signs and ask parents about their personal interest in firearm ownership.
Heck, we should be recruiting gun-owning parents to volunteer (with rifle in hand) as “campus watch” guards. Most parents I know would be happy to guard their child’s life with a gun. But something tells me that’s not what the bill’s sponsor had in mind.
A pre-filed bill in the Missouri Senate would require parents of public school students to report to the school if they own a gun.
Why don’t we just cut right to the chase, and write a law instructing would-be mass-shooters to report their intentions well ahead of time? Or, heck, we could just outlaw the act of killing innocent school children. And I’m sure criminals, owners of illegal weapons, and potentially dangerous sociopaths will be more than happy to follow along with such equally ridiculous legislation. Right?
More than being an egregious violation of personal privacy, the bill highlights the impotence of progressive “solutions” to violence conducted with firearms. Compulsory disclosure of gun ownership provides the authorities with such little actionable or useful information it is almost not worth mentioning.
Of course, in in places like New York, such disclosure of firearm ownership is actually aiding authorities. Without a public registry of firearm licenses, authorities in NYC would have a far more difficult time confiscating weapons from law-abiding gun owners who have accidently run afoul of newly enacted gun laws.
The Missouri proposal, however, does not call on parents to disclose the specific firearms they own… See, according to Liberals, all guns are evil – and all gun owners merit increased scrutiny and surveillance by authorities. (Wow… And you wonder why people with guns don’t like more gun laws… Weird.)
The Missouri Torch reported:
This act requires a parent or guardian to notify a school district, or the governing body of a private or charter school, that he or she owns a weapon within 30 days of enrolling the child in school or becoming the owner of a weapon. The written notification only needs to include the names of the parent and any child attending the school and the fact that the parent owns a weapon.
Naturally, the question arises: What the heck is this proposal actually supposed to accomplish? Aside from giving schools (read: government) a list of the county’s child-bearing gun owners, actionable intelligence (and almost any other kind of intelligence as well) is non-existent.
More than likely, the bill is a reflection of the increasingly ambitious campaign to delegitimize gun ownership. After all, it’s not as if it is designed to prevent maniacs from shooting up a school. The good news is that the bill’s author, Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal, has introduced this bill before…
And it went no-where. But her ambitions are telling of liberal impotence, and the left’s intrinsic inability to address the fundamental issues facing the nation.
There is no doubt that violence is a real, and tragically too regular, occurrence in the world. And while some schools are deciding to arm resource officers, permit concealed carry, and even hire additional security, the liberal solution is put up more “no guns” signs and ask parents about their personal interest in firearm ownership.
Heck, we should be recruiting gun-owning parents to volunteer (with rifle in hand) as “campus watch” guards. Most parents I know would be happy to guard their child’s life with a gun. But something tells me that’s not what the bill’s sponsor had in mind.
25 August 2015
The Dangerous "Background Check" Lie
By Alan Korwin, American Handgunner
A Gun-Transfer Ban For Everytown Means Death To Liberty.
Half the media doesn’t even know it’s deceiving you when it talks about so-called “universal background check” bills. The other half knows it’s lying.
They know this code phrase means a national gun-transfer ban, plus universal gun registration — total government control over all guns held privately in America.
Without total registration, universal background checks don’t work. A comprehensive gun-owner list is the whole point of getting falsely reported “background bills” passed. One man — multi-billionaire former NYC mayor Mike Bloomberg — is pushing the bills and funding operations, with shell corporations, hired hands, advertising, federal cooperation and mountains of his cash.
His goal is to make you subject to arrest if you hold someone else’s gun — a “gun transfer” — with or without a sale, like he just snuck through in Washington State. Sounds impossible but it’s stone-cold true. He did that by deceiving the public with a $10 million false advertising campaign. He told the public one thing, for a law that did something else. When people found out, after they passed it, they were furious. Too late. Let’s do this by example, so you understand what we’re talking about.
Let’s say you buy a Colt Python from some regular Joe at a gun show, or my next-door neighbor, or in a class, it doesn’t matter where. Gun-show loophole is just a buzz phrase the media uses to bamboozle — the proposed bills always cover every inch of the nation.
Loophole is a synonym for liberty. Never forget that. Gun-show liberty. Bloomberg, an anti-freedom bigot of the worst kind, hides behind a privately armed army, assaulting your right to arms, while exercising his. He wants to kill a liberty you currently have, willing to blatantly lie to get his way, spending obscene fortunes to bully us.
But I digress.
Joe says he’s the Python’s original owner, bought it at retail from Tony’s Gun Store (where you shop sometimes) and you believe him. You’ve known Joe for years and he’s always seemed like a right guy. That might all be true, or not, you have no way of knowing. You now have the Python, it’s sweet, no paperwork, cash and carry. That’s got a name. It’s called freedom. Two free people doing business. You don’t even have to buy it — if Joe just hands it to you you’re both guilty under Bloomberg’s bill.
That handoff scares the crap out of the left and gun scaredy cats because both of you might be criminals! And there’s no controls! Joe the criminal could have just sold (or handed) you, the criminal, a stolen gun and the police won’t even know! Everyone in the world might be criminals, selling each other g- g- g- guns!
What they miss of course is if new background checks were required and everyone was a criminal, the exact same deal could take place anyway, without the check, like it does now. Laws stop nothing. Law enforcement does. That’s what’s missing, insiders understand this and the “news” omits it (too conveniently), leaving voters misled. We’ve already made all of those actions illegal — the criminals, the transfer, the sale and the stolen gun. But I digress again.
Perfectly Legal
I’ve just described the private transfer of property between two free citizens in a free country, the same as the transfer of a Bible, gold coins, this publication or any legal property. In most states nationwide this is 100 percent legal. There’s no victim, no one is harmed and no crime is committed. Laws against it would ban liberties most of us currently enjoy, without affecting criminals who do all that now — even though it’s banned. All Bloomie’s new law would do is outlaw you. Anti-rights bigots and ignorami are hell-bent to outlaw these transfers for you.
Getting back to your shiny new Python, since you really have no idea where it’s been, let’s suppose several possibilities.
First, Joe is telling the truth, second Joe got the gun like you just did, from someone he knows (so he really doesn’t know its background), and third Joe stole the gun or it’s tainted in some other way (smuggled, traded for outlawed drugs, used in a crime, etc.) all of which are already highly illegal with harsh penalties. What does all this mean for you, background checks and gun registration? Will new laws requiring more government interference make anyone safer or help stop crime?
Loophole is a synonym for liberty.
Never forget that. Gun-show liberty.
If Joe, the gun and you’re all legal, which is typically the case, no amount of extra government helps
anything, but it does raise everyone’s costs, diverts resources away from policing and into record keeping, and eats up time. As long as you use your sidearm righteously, no blood, no foul.
If some new private-transfer ban gets enacted, Joe and you can obey and travel somewhere during business hours, go through the red tape, pay the fees, fill out the papers, clerks in West Virginia (where the sprawling FBI campus for this has been built) enter the records, and nothing changes except — you have the Python, owned or borrowed, and now the government knows it.
There’s only one thing the government can actually do with that information besides store it. They can decide to come and take your Python, now that they know you have it, should they decide to do so. They would have to ban Pythons first though, to make the confiscations “legal.” Sorta.
But if Joe and you decide not to go through the rigmarole and just transact the property, who’s to know? Without a universal gun-registration system in place, the private-transfer background check accomplishes nothing — because there is no way to tell who owned what beforehand. The government obviously needs a list of where America’s 300 million guns are today before the system really works — they even said this themselves. And then, it just identifies innocent people who own property, with no connection to any crimes committed. How does writing everyone’s name on a government list help stop crime? (Hint: It doesn’t.)
How accurate do you think a government record of 300 million guns will be? Guns that look alike, distinguished by tiny characteristics, owned by Americans who want nothing to do with the system, with easily bollixed serial numbers in an obese inventory that’s constantly in flux, run by low-wage dead-end clerks who are tired and waiting for the Friday bell, just like any work force.
In this database — errors are felonies. If the system says Joe owns a Python and he can’t produce it with federal jackboots at his door, that’s a potential crime, and he has some jawing to do. If Joe sends anyone to your door you may admit to having it or deny it or clam up and demand an attorney.
Don’t forget, nobody here harmed anyone; this is a database problem. And I haven’t even gotten up to the part where criminals with guns cannot be part of the system — because they would have to self-incriminate to register. That’s prohibited, since they can’t have frickin’ guns in the first place.
No, the universal-background-check scam has one purpose — to control all of America’s privately owned guns. It has nothing to do with crime, blatantly violates the Second Amendment, is completely beyond any power delegated to government and should be rejected outright as an illegitimate public policy choice in this country.
A Final Thought
Bloomberg, and the leftist approach he represents, is misguided. To prevent criminals from potentially buying guns outside civil controls, they would subject everyone who isn’t criminal to submit to control, drastically reducing freedom. This is unacceptable from the perspective of liberty. Liberty is the higher requirement.
The public is guilty of nothing and cannot legitimately be subjected to such demeaning treatment. To prevent criminals from obtaining guns, they must be caught in possession, as hard as that is, which is why they are — and remain armed — historically, and possessed of other contraband despite laws to the contrary. Burdening the innocent, and drastically curtailing currently enjoyed freedoms will not improve the situation and are intolerable acts.
A Gun-Transfer Ban For Everytown Means Death To Liberty.
Half the media doesn’t even know it’s deceiving you when it talks about so-called “universal background check” bills. The other half knows it’s lying.
They know this code phrase means a national gun-transfer ban, plus universal gun registration — total government control over all guns held privately in America.
Without total registration, universal background checks don’t work. A comprehensive gun-owner list is the whole point of getting falsely reported “background bills” passed. One man — multi-billionaire former NYC mayor Mike Bloomberg — is pushing the bills and funding operations, with shell corporations, hired hands, advertising, federal cooperation and mountains of his cash.
His goal is to make you subject to arrest if you hold someone else’s gun — a “gun transfer” — with or without a sale, like he just snuck through in Washington State. Sounds impossible but it’s stone-cold true. He did that by deceiving the public with a $10 million false advertising campaign. He told the public one thing, for a law that did something else. When people found out, after they passed it, they were furious. Too late. Let’s do this by example, so you understand what we’re talking about.
Let’s say you buy a Colt Python from some regular Joe at a gun show, or my next-door neighbor, or in a class, it doesn’t matter where. Gun-show loophole is just a buzz phrase the media uses to bamboozle — the proposed bills always cover every inch of the nation.
Loophole is a synonym for liberty. Never forget that. Gun-show liberty. Bloomberg, an anti-freedom bigot of the worst kind, hides behind a privately armed army, assaulting your right to arms, while exercising his. He wants to kill a liberty you currently have, willing to blatantly lie to get his way, spending obscene fortunes to bully us.
But I digress.
Joe says he’s the Python’s original owner, bought it at retail from Tony’s Gun Store (where you shop sometimes) and you believe him. You’ve known Joe for years and he’s always seemed like a right guy. That might all be true, or not, you have no way of knowing. You now have the Python, it’s sweet, no paperwork, cash and carry. That’s got a name. It’s called freedom. Two free people doing business. You don’t even have to buy it — if Joe just hands it to you you’re both guilty under Bloomberg’s bill.
That handoff scares the crap out of the left and gun scaredy cats because both of you might be criminals! And there’s no controls! Joe the criminal could have just sold (or handed) you, the criminal, a stolen gun and the police won’t even know! Everyone in the world might be criminals, selling each other g- g- g- guns!
What they miss of course is if new background checks were required and everyone was a criminal, the exact same deal could take place anyway, without the check, like it does now. Laws stop nothing. Law enforcement does. That’s what’s missing, insiders understand this and the “news” omits it (too conveniently), leaving voters misled. We’ve already made all of those actions illegal — the criminals, the transfer, the sale and the stolen gun. But I digress again.
Perfectly Legal
I’ve just described the private transfer of property between two free citizens in a free country, the same as the transfer of a Bible, gold coins, this publication or any legal property. In most states nationwide this is 100 percent legal. There’s no victim, no one is harmed and no crime is committed. Laws against it would ban liberties most of us currently enjoy, without affecting criminals who do all that now — even though it’s banned. All Bloomie’s new law would do is outlaw you. Anti-rights bigots and ignorami are hell-bent to outlaw these transfers for you.
Getting back to your shiny new Python, since you really have no idea where it’s been, let’s suppose several possibilities.
First, Joe is telling the truth, second Joe got the gun like you just did, from someone he knows (so he really doesn’t know its background), and third Joe stole the gun or it’s tainted in some other way (smuggled, traded for outlawed drugs, used in a crime, etc.) all of which are already highly illegal with harsh penalties. What does all this mean for you, background checks and gun registration? Will new laws requiring more government interference make anyone safer or help stop crime?
Loophole is a synonym for liberty.
Never forget that. Gun-show liberty.
If Joe, the gun and you’re all legal, which is typically the case, no amount of extra government helps
anything, but it does raise everyone’s costs, diverts resources away from policing and into record keeping, and eats up time. As long as you use your sidearm righteously, no blood, no foul.
If some new private-transfer ban gets enacted, Joe and you can obey and travel somewhere during business hours, go through the red tape, pay the fees, fill out the papers, clerks in West Virginia (where the sprawling FBI campus for this has been built) enter the records, and nothing changes except — you have the Python, owned or borrowed, and now the government knows it.
There’s only one thing the government can actually do with that information besides store it. They can decide to come and take your Python, now that they know you have it, should they decide to do so. They would have to ban Pythons first though, to make the confiscations “legal.” Sorta.
But if Joe and you decide not to go through the rigmarole and just transact the property, who’s to know? Without a universal gun-registration system in place, the private-transfer background check accomplishes nothing — because there is no way to tell who owned what beforehand. The government obviously needs a list of where America’s 300 million guns are today before the system really works — they even said this themselves. And then, it just identifies innocent people who own property, with no connection to any crimes committed. How does writing everyone’s name on a government list help stop crime? (Hint: It doesn’t.)
How accurate do you think a government record of 300 million guns will be? Guns that look alike, distinguished by tiny characteristics, owned by Americans who want nothing to do with the system, with easily bollixed serial numbers in an obese inventory that’s constantly in flux, run by low-wage dead-end clerks who are tired and waiting for the Friday bell, just like any work force.
In this database — errors are felonies. If the system says Joe owns a Python and he can’t produce it with federal jackboots at his door, that’s a potential crime, and he has some jawing to do. If Joe sends anyone to your door you may admit to having it or deny it or clam up and demand an attorney.
Don’t forget, nobody here harmed anyone; this is a database problem. And I haven’t even gotten up to the part where criminals with guns cannot be part of the system — because they would have to self-incriminate to register. That’s prohibited, since they can’t have frickin’ guns in the first place.
No, the universal-background-check scam has one purpose — to control all of America’s privately owned guns. It has nothing to do with crime, blatantly violates the Second Amendment, is completely beyond any power delegated to government and should be rejected outright as an illegitimate public policy choice in this country.
A Final Thought
Bloomberg, and the leftist approach he represents, is misguided. To prevent criminals from potentially buying guns outside civil controls, they would subject everyone who isn’t criminal to submit to control, drastically reducing freedom. This is unacceptable from the perspective of liberty. Liberty is the higher requirement.
The public is guilty of nothing and cannot legitimately be subjected to such demeaning treatment. To prevent criminals from obtaining guns, they must be caught in possession, as hard as that is, which is why they are — and remain armed — historically, and possessed of other contraband despite laws to the contrary. Burdening the innocent, and drastically curtailing currently enjoyed freedoms will not improve the situation and are intolerable acts.
19 February 2015
GOA: Help Stop ATF's Ammo Ban!
| |
07 October 2014
It Can't Contradict Itself
I just swung by the local post office, trying to find a correctly-sized shipping box, and I noticed once again the signs prohibiting firearms and other deadly weapons on USPS property.
This, next to a dozen or so good ol' Alaskan boys with an assortment of Leatherman pouches and Buck knives. No weapons? Yeah, right. Try to find an Alaskan without a knife; I'll wait.
But as an intellectual exercise, I wonder:
a) since the General Government* is a creation of the States and the Constitution they adopted, it follows that the G.G. cannot exceed its own Constitutionally-established authority; and
b) said Constitution states that the people have a pre-existent right to keep and bear arms, and prohibits Congress from making any law which infringes upon that right; and
c) any entity created by a contract has only the powers which the signers codified in writing therein; so therefore,
The USPS prohibition against firearms is prima facie unconstitutional. The federal judge who likewise ruled, a few months back, that the G.G. has the right to declare some of its land off-limits to firearms was wrong, too. Or, to put it another way, a federal entity must not restrict a federally-protected right on federal property - it's a contradiction to do so; it's the one place where those rights should be the most zealously guarded.
I do understand the concept of creating a weapons-free zone around a VIP, such as the President; it makes sense to establish a safe perimeter. But that's not tied to the land ... it moves with the person.
That being said, it's the law of the land whether Constitutional or no. I won't violate it, because incurring the wrath of the G.G. is definitely not a good idea, when it can be avoided.
But it is another aggravation; there seem to be an awful lot of them these days.
*Thomas Jefferson's preferred title for it; who am I to second-guess him?
This, next to a dozen or so good ol' Alaskan boys with an assortment of Leatherman pouches and Buck knives. No weapons? Yeah, right. Try to find an Alaskan without a knife; I'll wait.
But as an intellectual exercise, I wonder:
a) since the General Government* is a creation of the States and the Constitution they adopted, it follows that the G.G. cannot exceed its own Constitutionally-established authority; and
b) said Constitution states that the people have a pre-existent right to keep and bear arms, and prohibits Congress from making any law which infringes upon that right; and
c) any entity created by a contract has only the powers which the signers codified in writing therein; so therefore,
The USPS prohibition against firearms is prima facie unconstitutional. The federal judge who likewise ruled, a few months back, that the G.G. has the right to declare some of its land off-limits to firearms was wrong, too. Or, to put it another way, a federal entity must not restrict a federally-protected right on federal property - it's a contradiction to do so; it's the one place where those rights should be the most zealously guarded.
I do understand the concept of creating a weapons-free zone around a VIP, such as the President; it makes sense to establish a safe perimeter. But that's not tied to the land ... it moves with the person.
That being said, it's the law of the land whether Constitutional or no. I won't violate it, because incurring the wrath of the G.G. is definitely not a good idea, when it can be avoided.
But it is another aggravation; there seem to be an awful lot of them these days.
*Thomas Jefferson's preferred title for it; who am I to second-guess him?
15 June 2014
28 January 2014
Quote of the Day
"Since the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the natural rights protected in the Bill of Rights generally have been insulated from interference by the states, as well.
"All natural rights are of paramount importance to all persons. They are individualized personal gifts from the Creator and have been recognized as such in American law since Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed with them by Him.
"One of those rights guarantees the free exercise of religion.
"Indeed, the Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment was written to ensure that the new government could not coerce persons to behave differently than their religious views informed their consciences, or to punish them for not conforming to a government-mandated religious orthodoxy."
~ Judge Andrew Napolitano, from an editorial in the Washington Times
25 September 2013
The Cruz Crusade
The Cruz Crusade
By Alan
Caruba
Back in May, in a commentary titled “Ted
Cruz for President”, I took note of the reasons why he would be eligible to
run for President in 2016, citing the opinions of legal scholars and others. The
odds have just gone up that he will not only make a run for the office, but can
win. He will have to do it, at this point, by overcoming the opposition of the
elites in the Republican Party who have managed to lose the last two elections
for that office.
I wrote, “As Solicitor
General (for Texas), Cruz authored more than 80 U.S. Supreme Court briefs and
argued before it 43 times, securing a number of landmark national victories
defending U.S. sovereignty against the U.N. and the World Court, the Second
Amendment, the constitutionality of the Texas Ten Commandments monument, the
words ‘under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, and other key
decisions.”
In the early years of
the American government, what was high on the list of priorities for the job of
President was leadership. From Washington to Grant to Eisenhower, Americans
voted for men who had demonstrated that quality in combat. They saw it in Ronald
Reagan and they saw it in George W. Bush’s response to 9/11 and stuck with him
when he took us to war in Iraq.
Ted Cruz, a freshman
Senator, demonstrated that with extraordinary endurance as he gave voice to the
many reasons the Affordable Care Act—Obamacare—is an attack on the lives and the
livelihood of all Americans.
He has been attacked
by the Republican establishment and even by some in the media you might consider
friendly to his crusade in order to get Americans to understand how deleterious
Obamacare is to our nation’s economy, to the free market—free enterprise system,
to the relationship we take for granted with our personal physicians, and to the
right to privacy that lies very much at the heart of our healthcare and
political system.
I am not a legal
scholar, but is obvious to me from my reading in American history that the
Founders never envisioned that the Constitution would be misconstrued to say
that the government has the right to tell us what we MUST PURCHASE and that, of
course is what Obamacare does. When you take away the fundamental right to
purchase or NOT purchase under penalty of a fine, you take away a fundamental
freedom, you take away liberty.
Ted Cruz understands
that and it is a wonder to me that everyone else does not understand it as well.
It is true that the House of Representatives, controlled by the Republican
Party, has passed a multitude of laws to repeal Obamacare. The most recent law
would defund Obamacare while funding the government.
Because the Senate is
controlled by Democrats, however, those laws die there. Indeed, the former
greatest deliberative body in the world does not deliberate much anymore. It
takes its marching offers from an offensive clique of men led by Harry Reid
(D-NV). The widespread public rejection of Obamacare has a number of Democratic
Party Senators, up for election soon, breaking with the Party to vote with
Republicans on some bills.
Ted Cruz has given
them a lesson in true leadership and in true
courage.
A new generation of
Americans is being required to learn the lessons of those first Americans who
distrusted the tendency of power to become tyranny. In a book by Timothy
Sandefur that will be published in January by the Cato Institute, “The
Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to
Liberty”, he writes that “A government that enables a single tyrant or a
powerful group of influential insiders to exploit power to benefit themselves
would expose citizens to the same dangers of violence and oppression that would
exist in a country ruled only by warlords and
strongmen.”
We have been
witnessing the tyrannical misuse of power by President Barack Obama through the
instrument of Executive Orders, through the revision of the provisions of
Obamacare that bypass the role of Congress, and, it can be argued, by the
party-line vote that passed—unread—a 2,700 page act that has since ballooned to
27,000 pages of regulation, strangling and destroying one sixth of the nation’s
economy, healthcare, as it destroys jobs and business growth in other
sectors.
The reason the Tea
Party movement came into being was a protest against Obamacare before it was
enacted and resistance to it since. It is the Tea Party movement, as seen in
those elected to office in the Senate and the House in 2010 that has been
leading the fight to defund and repeal Obamacare.
Ted Cruz is leading a
crusade that is composed of patriots.
© Alan Caruba,
2013
29 October 2012
Our Tax Dollars At Work, and Other Things
Regular readers are aware that Alaskans do a LOT of business through Amazon and other on-line retailers, due to limited shopping resources here.
Granted, there are a LOT more stores here, now, than there were a decade ago when we arrived.
But as a convenience, things I order for our daughters are routinely shipped to my office, rather than home (for obvious reasons). A box of items intended for Christmas came in today's mail.
The oh-so-considerate mail carrier managed to cram a 9" wide package into my 8.8" mailbox, and I had to cut it open with a knife to remove the contents, in the building's lobby, before I could pull the package shell through the opening.
Cretins, politicians and public "servants" ... but I repeat myself.
* * * * *
It's snowing lightly this afternoon, and there's snow in the forecast for much of the week. I'm not complaining, mind you: one look at the Atlantic weather map is enough to make me thank God that we're in no danger, here.
* * * * *
I've heard several people talking quietly, among themselves, about what they plan to do to "any blankety-blank U.N. observers" on election day. Seriously, they're using language that made this old sailor blush.
The Alaska State Troopers reliably estimate that 60 percent of Alaskans are armed. IF there are any U.N. personnel up here to (cough, cough)monitor(cough) the election, I'd leave the blue helmets at home ... if I were you.
* * * * *
I know that Mitt Romney has promised to grant waivers to all 50 states, excusing them from enacting ObamaKare. I know he's promised many things ... but I wonder how far a Romney administration would go toward rolling back the nigh-unbelievable predations on our Constitutionally-enumerated rights, the DHS, TSA, warrantless wiretaps, no-knock raids, and the indefinite detention of Americans on an executive's say-so?
The list is incredibly long, and there's much that should be done. I know the economy is one of the biggest irons in the fire right now, but has he mentioned things like that?
Granted, there are a LOT more stores here, now, than there were a decade ago when we arrived.
But as a convenience, things I order for our daughters are routinely shipped to my office, rather than home (for obvious reasons). A box of items intended for Christmas came in today's mail.
The oh-so-considerate mail carrier managed to cram a 9" wide package into my 8.8" mailbox, and I had to cut it open with a knife to remove the contents, in the building's lobby, before I could pull the package shell through the opening.
Cretins, politicians and public "servants" ... but I repeat myself.
* * * * *
It's snowing lightly this afternoon, and there's snow in the forecast for much of the week. I'm not complaining, mind you: one look at the Atlantic weather map is enough to make me thank God that we're in no danger, here.
* * * * *
I've heard several people talking quietly, among themselves, about what they plan to do to "any blankety-blank U.N. observers" on election day. Seriously, they're using language that made this old sailor blush.
The Alaska State Troopers reliably estimate that 60 percent of Alaskans are armed. IF there are any U.N. personnel up here to (cough, cough)monitor(cough) the election, I'd leave the blue helmets at home ... if I were you.
* * * * *
I know that Mitt Romney has promised to grant waivers to all 50 states, excusing them from enacting ObamaKare. I know he's promised many things ... but I wonder how far a Romney administration would go toward rolling back the nigh-unbelievable predations on our Constitutionally-enumerated rights, the DHS, TSA, warrantless wiretaps, no-knock raids, and the indefinite detention of Americans on an executive's say-so?
The list is incredibly long, and there's much that should be done. I know the economy is one of the biggest irons in the fire right now, but has he mentioned things like that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)