Hillary: Gun Rights Way Out Of Balance
May 7, 2014 Political, Second Amendment
Hillary Clinton was at the National Council for Behavioral Health conference and she addressed firearms in this country. She said the nation’s gun culture had gotten “way out of balance” and the idea that everyone could have a gun was not in the “best interest of the vast majority of people.”
Who is Hillary to determine what is in the best interests of people and, for that matter, how is she even qualified to make such a claim? There is no way to quantify this and it is nothing more than an emotional statement followed by a few examples of shootings, many of which were committed by people who were not allowed to own a firearm.
There is also a flaw in this claim that everyone could have a gun. The first problem is that not everyone can. Felons and the mentally ill are not allowed to own them. How do they get them? Some are not caught on the government background check (the same government that let the 9/11 terrorists in the country) and most buy them illegally. Just because something is banned, illegal or forbidden does not mean people won’t have access. I think the experience with prohibition demonstrates that quite clearly as does the problem with Heroin overdoses.
The second problem is the statement “could have a gun” as if a right is something the government is allowed to dole out regardless of circumstances. In other words, we have laws that forbid some folks from owning firearms because they have shown they should not have them. To Clinton government should decide if you could have the gun no matter what you have demonstrated.
If you are a law abiding citizen who is not otherwise prohibited you CAN have a firearm regardless of what Hillary thinks.
If Hillary is so willing to decide that the gun culture is out of balance and needs government action what other right will she infringe upon?
She had a real tough time of it when her hubby was caught having sex with an intern. Drudge broke the story. Hillary is getting a lot of press about her failure in Benghazi (she did not do too well with that 3 am phone call) so what if Hillary decided that the information culture has gotten out of balance and the idea that everyone can post information is not in the best interest of the vast majority of people? Perhaps people would need to jump through the same hoops they do to purchase a firearm. Perhaps information will be as regulated as firearms and the only people with access will be the politically connected.
What if Hillary decided that there are too many religions in America and religion is way out of balance and the idea that everyone could worship as they see fit is not in the best interest of the vast majority of people? Perhaps she will deem that there are too many religions and only certain ones are worthy to exist. Maybe she will force people to go through the same process to join a religion as to purchase a firearm.
Rights are not something the government deemed we could have and they are not something that government granted to us. They preexist our government and they are protected (not granted) by our Constitution.
This is the problem with liberals. They think they know what is best for you and who can blame them considering the number of people willing to be enslaved by the government?
Liberals want control and they know they can’t get it outright so they incrementally take rights away from a population too busy worrying about American Idol than what is going on in this country. Liberals keep upping the ante and then one day rights are gone because people sat by and allowed them to be eroded away by a tyrannical government.
I think, to paraphrase Hillary, the political class has gotten way out of balance and this notion that elites can make a career out of politics is not in the best interest of a vast majority of people.
The difference between our statements is I am correct.
I am willing to bet that the four Americans who Hillary allowed to be murdered in Benghazi would have loved to have a bunch of Americans (citizen or soldier) with guns the night they lost their lives because of her incompetence.
Hillary’s incompetence is responsible for more American deaths than all my guns combined.
And how many armed guards watch over her anyway?
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: benghazi, gun rights, Hillary Clinton, liberal, lies, moron, political elite, sex scandal
Obama Supports Voter ID
Jun 27, 2013 Political
But only in Africa.
It is well known that Barack Obama does not support voter ID laws in the US. He and his administration have fought every attempt at voter ID since he was elected. Hell, the lack of voter ID and the corruption of groups like ACORN are responsible for his election and reelection.
Without voter fraud Democrats have a hard time winning.
Obama was beside himself when the Supreme Court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act because that removed a weapon the regime had to force states into lax voter conditions. Now states will not be held to a decades old standard that probably no longer applies.
Texas jumped right in and reintroduced its voter ID requirement moments after the decision. Liberals screamed about an activist court (like one that negates the will of the people in Prop 8) and lamented about how horrible this all is. Liberals do not like voter ID because it makes it harder to cheat.
But while Obama is on his African vacation (where he will not visit his place of birth) he made a comment about the voter ID laws in Africa. He likes what they have done and the fact they have spent million of dollars to get young people ID cards, a prerequisite to voting.
Funny how Obama is all for things for other people but not the citizens of the US. He likes voter ID in Africa but not at home. He is arming the Syrian rebels (the citizens fighting against the government) but wants to disarm the American citizens [the subject of whether the animals in Syria should be armed is a different discussion].
It seems to me that there should be a huge push for voter ID laws in this country and we can cite Obama’s own words for support. As for the gun issue, he can try to take them but will fail miserably. We decided that issue in 1776 and we remember how we did it.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Maryland Has A Queer Disregard For The Constitution
Feb 22, 2012 Commentary, Political
The People’s Republic of Maryland lacks true leadership. It is headed by a Democrat governor who thinks that he has the authority to rule in opposition to the will of the people (much like Obama does at the national level) and he has a supporting cast of Democrats in the Capitol who are more than willing to be his sock puppets.
The Governor, Martin O’Malley (the Teflon Leprechaun), is looking to strengthen his bona fides so he can run on the national stage. He wants to be president someday. I would say he wants to be president when he grows up but he will never grow up. He has spent most of his final term in office pushing a liberal agenda that will play well on the national stage. He has mismanaged our money, raised taxes and is working on raising taxes yet again.
One of his signature acts is to get gay marriage passed in the state. He is looking to do this so he will appeal to the larger audience of liberals in the country and he is doing it much the same way Barack Obama was able to pass Obamacare. He bribed (or engaged in arm twisting) people including at least one Republican to vote for the bill. It has been speculated that Delegate Wade Kach was offered a six figure state job for his vote. No matter what, he and Delegate Robert Costa need to be replaced in the next election.
The issue of gay marriage is a state issue and though I oppose it, the state has a right to work on passing it (or not passing it). However, the issue belongs in the hands of the people and not the legislature. The definition of marriage needs to be part of the Maryland Constitution so it needs to be part of the referendum process. The PEOPLE, not political hacks, should get to decide the issue.
What infuriates me about this issue is that the politicians in Maryland worked like zealots to get this issue to the floor for a vote but work just as hard to deny Maryland Citizens their right to keep and bear arms. Maryland’s law does not allow people to easily get a permit to carry a handgun. The state’s laws are written specifically to violate the Second Amendment by infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. Fewer than 1000 permits have been issued from the tens of thousands of applications (and it is costly). Maryland requires people to show a reason they should be allowed to carry because in this People’s Republik the Second Amendment is not reason enough.
Every year Republicans introduce legislation to change this in an attempt to get Maryland closer to a “shall issue” state. Unfortunately, Democrats block this by not allowing it to ever see the light of day.
Delegate Joseph Vallario (who has been in office since 1975) refuses to let the bills make it to the floor. He is allowing his personal views to keep him from doing his duty as a legislator. He is supposed to do the business of the people and he is doing just the opposite.
Vallario has opposed gay marriage and refused to allow that bill to the floor though this year it has changed. Why? Because he is a sock puppet of the governor! Bills the governor likes eventually make it to the floor. It is no coincidence that O’Malley, who is protected by half a dozen armed police officers, is opposed to private citizens carrying handguns.
Maryland politicians have trouble understanding the Constitution. The Second Amendment is violated and while the US Constitution mandates a Republican form of government in all states, that applies in name only with regard to Maryland. We are governed by dictators.
The Declaration of Independence says that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
They no longer have my consent.
I look forward to a ballot box revolution though, in truth, that would require an informed and educated electorate.
We sorely lack one of those…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: gay marriage, gun rights, joseph vallario, lies, Maryland, morons, O'Malley, police state, republik
Liberals Are Pro Choice
Feb 13, 2012 Political
Except when they are not…
Liberals will fight tooth and nail to support abortion on demand. It, according to their twisted view, is a Constitutionally protected “right.” that must be protected at all costs. It is such a sacrament of the left that it is a major line of questioning when a conservative is nominated to the Supreme Court.
We have heard the arguments. It is a woman’s right to choose. It is her body and it is her decision and no one has a right to interfere with her right to choose. Liberals believe this right exists above the right of the unborn child to live. Yes, liberals even believe this right is more important than the murder of an unborn child who cries in agony as it is aborted.
It is all about the right to choose and liberals believe strongly in that.
Except when they don’t.
Liberals do not believe that people have a right to eat or drink what they want. The FDA went after an Amish farmer who was selling raw milk (unpasteurized) to people. The FDA spent two years investigating the Amish farmer and even set up fake buys in order to catch him. The government is concerned because raw milk can cause disease. This is true but it is also true that it is the right of the people to choose whether or not they want to take that risk. Abortion is allowed even though it almost always results in murder but people cannot choose to drink raw milk that might result in illness.
The FDA and the judge who ruled invoked interstate commerce to enforce the ruling but make no mistake about it, that was just the means to enforce the true issue and that was to deny people the right to drink whatever kind of milk they wanted. The Amish are free to sell the milk to people in Pennsylvania and the FDA can’t stop that but it can use interstate commerce to force people to stop doing something the government thinks is unsafe.
It boils down to the fact that government, particularly liberals (the FDA is inherently liberal), does not like people being free to do things that government finds wrong. Abortion, no problem because liberals bow to the gods of pro choice organizations but freedom to eat or drink what you want, not so much. One only needs to look at Nanny Bloomberg in New York to see that. No salt, no trans fats, no anything that Bloomberg thinks is unhealthy.
And that is not all. Liberals do not believe in our right to choose to keep and bear arms. Of these issues, the right to keep and bear arms is the only one in the US Constitution and liberals ignore it completely. Barack Obama is hell bent on removing our right and stripping the Second Amendment from the Constitution. He and his liberal pals do not believe that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual one even though our Founders explicitly stated that it was and the SCOTUS has ruled that it is (except some Justices on the court. The LIBERAL ones, of course). You have no free choice when it comes to owning and carrying a firearm.
Why is it that liberals think there is no choice in what we can eat or drink and think there is no choice in owing an carrying a firearm but the right to choose an abortion is undeniable?
It is because liberals only believe in things that destroy freedom and destroy life. They are more than happy to sanction murder as an absolute right but are loathe to allow rights that involve freedom.
Liberalism is the ideology of destruction. You might say it is the culture of destruction.
Look for it to get worse as more freedoms are violated and more life destroying “rights” are created out of thin air.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: abortion, amish farmer, fda, freedom, gun rights, liberals, lies, raw milk
Supreme Court Rules on Second Amendment Tomorrow
Jun 25, 2008 General
Tomorrow the Supreme Court will rule, for the first time in its history (on this particular issue), on whether the Second Amendment means an individual’s rights or the collective right of a militia. Anyone with brains knows that this is an individual right. The Bill of Rights discusses those things that the federal government may not take away from the people. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights, it says what rights (that have already existed) may not be infringed upon. The Second Amendment uses the words “…the right of the people…” The phrase “the people” is used throughout the Constitution to mean all citizens and not the militia so why would the Second Amendment use of “the people” refer to a militia. Sure, the word militia is mentioned but not as a precondition for gun ownership. I read a comment at a site and I copied it. I cannot remember where I saw it but it is a good description:
All reasonable people fully understand that the Second Amendment clearly guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and declares that there shall be no infringement. It also states that a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. As the militia were understood at the time to be all able-bodied men, this amendment therefor[sic] presumes that if all men may be armed, the militia will be armed should it need to defend the commonwealth. Yet, though the armament of the militia proceeds from the armament of the populace, and it is a necessary precondition that if the militia is to be armed, the men must be armed, it is neither necessary nor a condition that the men be members of a militia in order to keep and bear arms.
I always believed that if we want to know what the Amendments mean we should read the words of those who wrote them. They clearly described what they meant when they wrote the words. Go to Walter Williams’ site for a list of quotes from the founders. This should clear up any misconceptions.
The Supreme Court is reported to have decided this in 1939 in the Miller case and that is what lower courts have used to justify upholding gun bans. However, Miller is not settled law because the SCOTUS remanded it back to the lower court and the issue was not about an individual right. Miller claimed he had a right to carry the weapon under the Second Amendment. The Court ruled that the sawed off shotgun did not fit the definition of a military type weapon that would be used by a militia. Since it did not (in the court’s opinion even though sawed off shotguns had been used in the military) Miller’s argument was not valid and the case was remanded. Notice what people ignore. If the gun had been ruled a weapon used by the militia, Miller would have had a right to carry it even though he was not in the militia.
The Court actually did have a ruling that demonstrated guns were an individual right and not a collective militia one. It was in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case. When the justices ruled against Scott they wrote:
The Court also presented an argument describing the feared results of granting Mr. Scott’s petition [for freedom]:
“It would give to persons of the negro race, …the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, …the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” Wikipedia [emphasis mine]
The Justices stated that if he were a free man he would be allowed to keep and carry arms wherever he wanted which means that all Free Men were allowed to keep and carry arms.
“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]
The ruling tomorrow should put an end to this foolish debate about having to belong to the militia to own weapons (but our militia is defined as all men 17-45 and all women in the National Guard so a lot of people should be carrying weapons). I am fairly confident that the Justices will rule that keeping and bearing arms is an individual right but if they don’t there will be a lot of instant criminals in this country.
They can come for my guns, they will get the ammo…
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.”
Adolph Hitler, Hitler’s Secret Conversations 403 (Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens trans., 1961) [from Williams’ site]
Tags: gun rights, militia, Second Amendment