About Guns And Rallies
Aug 23, 2009 Political
There have been several incidents of people with weapons being present at rallies or town hall type events. I have heard no reports that these people were breaking the law. A man in New Hampshire carried a sidearm to a rally and followed the established rule; he had to stay 1000 feet away from the building where Obama was speaking. The local police spoke to him and told him how far away he had to stay and to top it off, he was on private property and had permission to be there. In other words, he was breaking no laws. He was simply carrying his sidearm just as he does any other day.
Several other rallies have featured people carry slung rifles. These people were obeying the law and were evidently legally allowed to carry their arms. The media have gone nuts over this and MSNBC cropped a picture of a man carrying a rifle and then injected race into the debate. Black man in the White House, nuts carrying guns. The inference was that it was some racist white guy.
The photo that was cropped was of a BLACK man carrying a weapon. He was exercising his Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.
The problem is, the people who are opposed to guns automatically assume that anyone carrying one is looking for trouble. The man in New Hampshire said that no one around him was troubled by his gun because people in that area are accustomed to seeing people carry weapons. He indicated that the folks bused in from Massachusetts were the ones who had a problem (and of course, the media).
I agree with him. People who are supporters of the Second Amendment have no problem seeing people carrying a weapon. I have no problems seeing people carry weapons. If any of these people had intended harm it is unlikely that they would draw attention to themselves by openly carrying a weapon. They were simply exercising their rights and that is something everyone should be comfortable with.
Anyone who sees a problem falls into the category of people who assume that a person with a weapon is intent on causing trouble. I see this as no different than the people who attend rallies and exercise their Constitutionally protected right to free speech.
The funny thing is that people who really used weapons to intimidate voters were given a free pass by the Obama Justice Department. Black Panther thugs in Philadelphia brandished weapons and intimidated voters. The slam dunk case was dropped by the Justice Department. Interestingly, Black Panthers showed up at the Republican National Convention in Houston with rifles in order to put on a show of force. Paul Begala celebrated them showing up with weapons.
Ken Shepherd at Newsbusters reminded us that 9 years ago during the Texas Republican Party Convention in Houston, TX, a dozen New Black Panther members showed up with rifles and putting on a show of force. Interestingly, Paul Begala celebrated the New Black Panthers’ showing up with weapons. Also, Kyle Drennen highlighted MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer lumping all gun-toting protesters together as white racists, even the black ones. Of note, one guest on Contessa’s show mentioned that there’s “anger about a black person being president,” but failed to mention that every assassination or attempted assassination of a U.S. president was carried out by a Leftist. Red Sounding
As long as they were legally carrying and were not trying to intimidate people then they were exercising their rights (though the show of force and their anger over a Bush decision might be viewed as intimidation). Besides, I doubt they would have had much success causing trouble. A lot of people in Texas carry weapons and the dozen Black Panthers would have been easily outgunned.
Where were these self righteous media types on these issues? Does anyone remember them making a big stink about thugs threatening people with batons? Did they devote any air time to discussing the hatred and impropriety of the acts of these thugs who were actually breaking the law? Where were they when Black Panthers were carrying rifles?
The Second Amendment is designed to keep the power with the people. Our right to keep and bear arms keeps us from being the victims of a tyrannical government.
It is also helpful when confronted by thugs at polling places wielding batons and communicating threats.
Other sources:
NewsBusters
MSNBC Cropped Video of black man with weapon. They clearly identify him as a white man.
ABC 15 News Video that shows the entire man. He is black.
Zomblog Shows the many signs advocating the death of Bush. Another example of media bias.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: constitutional rights, gun control, media bias, Obama, Second Amendment
I Don’t Have To Wait On Sotomayor
May 26, 2009 Political
After years of having Bush judicial nominees hammered by Democrats in the Senate as soon as they were nominated the Republicans decided they would wait to pass judgment on Obama’s first judicial nominee. They pretty much have to because Obama selected a Latino who happens to be a woman so if the Republicans jumped all over her right now they will be painted with every brush in the liberal arsenal. Racist, sexist, blah, blah.
I don’t have to wait because, despite Obama’s claims about her qualifications (which seem to be only her ethnicity and her sex) I have already determined she is not qualified based upon several things.
First she is an activist judge and she is a racist. Obama did say he wanted someone who would empathize with those before the court. Empathy is an emotion and the courts are supposed to base decisions on the law and not emotions. Sotomayor is on record as saying that the court is where policy is made. This is absolutely untrue in our system. I am not saying it does not happen but her acceptance of that premise disqualifies her.
That statement is not the only place she disclosed that life experiences dictate rulings. Sotomayor stated; “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” New York Times
In one fell swoop she managed to show that her rulings are guided by life experiences (empathy or sympathy depending on the circumstances) and that she is a racist. Her comment about white males is out of line. Imagine if Justice Alito had stated; “I would hope that a wise white man with good family values and experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion that a Latino woman who has not lived that life.” (Sotomayor was also involved in a case where whites filed a discrimination suit. She was not in favor of their rights)
The liberals would go nuts. Ted Kennedy would have stroked out with his “concern” for women. Alito would have been labeled a misogynist pig and Borked out of contention. But I am willing to bet this issue will be left untouched by Republican Senators and if they address it the left will attack. Remember, you can only be a racist or sexist if you are a Democrat. One only needs to see how Kennedy or Clinton were treated compared to Justice Thomas. A murderer and an adulterer were defended and a man who had unfounded allegations thrown at him was slammed.
It is obvious that Sotomayor is fuzzy on how the judicial system works and though she claims to be in favor of staying in line with the Constitution she is either lying or does not understand the document. It is obvious from her statements of making policy and life experiences that she is an activist but the icing on the cake for me is her position on the Second Amendment.
Sotomayor does not believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right and believes it only applies to the federal government so the states can do what they want which would make it different than any other Amendment in the Bill of Rights and runs contrary to the equal protection clause. I know there are many anti gun zealots out there who believe the same thing but the reality is that gun ownership is an individual right and the right existed before the Constitution and before we were a country. The Second does not say the government gives the right, it states that THE RIGHT (meaning it already exists).
How is it that the Bill of Rights is a list of INDIVIDUAL rights but the Second Amendment is not one? How can that be? How is it that the Founders are on record as stating that gun ownership is an individual right but our activist judicial system has ignored that? A list of Founder’s quotes on the Second Amendment is here. Here is a sample:
“Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as 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 [emphasis mine]
The quotation states the people which is the phrase that means all of us and private arms. This means the people and the arms do not have to be part of the militia especially when the first part discusses raising military forces to pervert power and injure fellow citizens (not members of the militia). The words of the Founders echo this sentiment. The Bill of Rights contain individual (civil) rights. To say the Second is not an individual right like the rest perverts the Constitution and demonstrates a misunderstanding of it.
I know that the argument has been made that the issue is settled law and gun control advocates point to the Miller decision. This is what was decided:
In the case of U.S. v. Miller, the 1939 Supreme Court ruled there was no Constitutional basis for Miller to own a sawed-off shotgun without registering it under the National Firearms Act (GPO 1193). Miller’s argument was based upon the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” and as such, was not required to register his shotgun (ibid). After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that:
“[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view” (1194).
Continuing, the Court defined the militia as a force consisting of “civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion” and that it was “comprised [of] all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” who, “when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time“ (emphasis added) (ibid).
Whereas the Court had ruled that the firearm in question was not exempt from registration, it also highlighted two key points that reinforce the notion the Second Amendment provides for private firearm ownership. First, the Court states that the militia was composed of “civilians primarily,” which is contrary to gun-control activist’s views that the militia of the Constitution equates to the National Guard (i.e. “professional soldiers”) of today. Second, the Court states that those civilians, when called into service, “were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves,” which is only possible if private firearm ownership is permitted. Lythosants
People claim that this is the only definitive adjudication of the Second Amendment (until Heller) but that is not true. If one looks at the Dred Scott decision then one can see the court acknowledged that carrying a weapon was an individual right. The merits of the case and whether they got it right is a subject for another time. The important thing here is this argument against granting Scott’s petition:
“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.”
~snip~
The Territory being a part of the United States, the Government and the citizen both enter it under the authority of the Constitution, with their respective rights defined and marked out, and the Federal Government can exercise no power over his person or property beyond what that instrument confers, nor lawfully deny any right which it has reserved.
A reference to a few of the provisions of the Constitution will illustrate this proposition.
For example, no one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the Territory peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.
Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel anyone to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding. [emphasis mine] Cornell Law
This is case law and it is an opinion by the Supreme Court. It clearly states that firearm possession is an individual right and this is affirmed by discussing a negro (not a militia member) would be allowed to keep and carry a firearm. Dred Scott is not brought up in the gun debate as anti gun forces work very hard to deny us our basic right. The same people who will fight to the death to protect a “right” that is NOT in the Constitution (abortion) will fight just as hard to deny one that IS in there and is clearly defined.
Sonia Sotomayor is not fit to serve in the Supreme Court. She rules by empathy rather than the rule of law, is a racist and lacks a fundamental understanding of the Constitution.
Maybe she sat in on one of Obama’s lectures. I hear he was a Constitutional law professor.
The Republicans in the Senate need to do their homework and come prepared to batter her on the Second Amendment. She needs to be beaten as hard and as badly as Alito and Roberts were with the issue of abortion. She needs to be hammered on her racist views just as Sam Alito was for his membership in the Concerned Alumni at Princeton (CAP). Kennedy portrayed Alito as a racist for belonging to that group. The Republicans need to hammer on Sotomayor for her racist views as well. If any Democrat objects, take him out back and shoot him (a tongue in cheek remark clarified for the benefit of Meathead).
Drudge has a headline asking if Republicans can vote against a Latino nominee. Why not? They are not voting on Miss Latin America or for an ethnic issue, they are voting to put someone on the highest court in the land. What they are is of no consequence; what they believe and how they administer the law is.
Besides, it is not like the Republicans are going to get much of the Hispanic vote. That demographic is captured by the promise of Democrats to give away other people’s money and to give them amnesty. They will vote for the party that gives away what is not theirs and enslaves people in the name of diversity and the common good.
So hammer Sotomayor because it won’t make one bit of difference with regard to election day.
Besides, it is better to lose an election doing what is right than to win one while selling out the country.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: activist judge, alito, constitution, democrat, law, Obama, policy, republican, roberts, Second Amendment, sotomayor, unqualified
And Maryland Still Infringes On Gun Rights
May 6, 2009 Political
The state of Maryland has an oppressive set of rules with regard to issuing a hand gun carry permit. The Second Amendment states that the right shall not be infringed but Maryland infringes. In order to get a carry permit one must demonstrate that something of value is carried (jewels, narcotics, guns, money) and the gun can only be carried when the items are being transported. One may also receive a gun permit from the lord masters if there are documented threats or assaults upon the individual. You have to be a victim AND PROVE IT, before you can defend yourself.
These preconditions infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms and even though the idiot governor of the state claims we have a permitting process, he is ignoring the obvious barriers placed to prevent people from carrying.
Why should the governor worry? He has an armed State Police Officer with him all the time. The governor has the executive protection unit so he is always protected. If it is so safe, as he claims, then why does he need protection?
Not everyone has the oppressive rules forced upon them. Police officers can get a permit to carry a weapon off duty (a personal weapon, not an issued one). Friends of the well connected like the governor and the State Police Superintendent can get permits (and getting on their bad side can result in them being revoked). Judges can get a carry permit.
The rest of us are on our own, forced to call the government sponsored Dial A Prayer (911). While the governor has a police officer there all the time, the rest of us only see them AFTER the crime has been committed.
An off duty correctional officer was waiting for carry out food in Baltimore a little after midnight (a few nights ago) when three young kids approached him and brandished what turned out to be a toy gun. The officer drew his weapon and fired striking one of the kids in the stomach. The other two fled. The one who was shot faces charges when he recovers from his injury.
I watched the news report on this and at the end the reporter stated that officials state a government issued weapon was not used, the officer fired his privately owned weapon for which he had a permit to carry.
Being in a special class allowed this guy to defend himself. Yes, it was a toy gun but that was unknown at the time and in Baltimore it could have been real. All that gun control has resulted in shootings all the time. If this had been a regular, non connected, citizen the robbery might have taken place. The law abiding people in this state are not allowed to defend themselves unless, of course, they are well connected and can get a gun permit.
The officer would never have gotten a permit to carry that weapon if he were not a correctional officer.
The rules in Maryland INFRINGE.
The protected elite do not care because it is not their families being shot down in the streets.
And the anarchy that results from gun control gives them more reason to infringe even deeper. They can use the crime to justify the oppression.
Just the way they like it.
Source:
WJZ
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: crime, elite, gun control, Maryland, Second Amendment
Obama’s Radical Agenda Unfolds
Jan 25, 2009 Political
During the campaign Barack Obama was careful to ensure he was vague about his plans. He never detailed anything and he took positions that anyone with a brain knew were positions he oppsed in the past. He became a proponent for individual gun rights when all his career he was against the idea. He supported the Heller decision when he had openly stated that he was in favor of the DC gun ban. He said he was not out to take our guns when his entire career has been spent trying to ban them. From the White House website:
Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
The real problem is that Obama and his group of liberal, anti gun zealots will decide what common sense is. They will impose gun rules and say “Oh, that is just common sense.” One only needs to look at the gun bill Bobby Rush has introduced to know it is about control and not about common sense. It is about creating a national ID card system for gun owners that Obama and his anti gun Attorney General nominee can use to confiscate weapons or to restrict ownership. The Second Amendment is a right that “…shall not be infringed.” Obama’s belief in “common sense rules” INFRINGES. The bill from Rush INFRINGES. Gun control does not work. If it did then Chicago would not have the number of GUN murders that it does.
I know that liberals like the idea of gun control and this whole idea of “common sense” rules. If they are happy with that then perhaps we could start getting a national ID for those who wish to be part of the press (MSM). You would need the AG to issue a license to allow you to write or speak about issues. If the AG found some reason that you should not have that right then you would not get an ID. This way the MSM can’t print incorrect stories that incite riots (like flushing Korans) and end up with people getting killed.
Maybe we can have some “common sense” rules on the use of free speech. People would have to apply to the AG for a picture ID allowing them to speak freely. If the AG found out you ever went to a psychiatrist or some other mental health provider you would not be allowed to speak about anything in public. These common sense approaches are needed to keep dangerous people from saying things that incite riots or cause panic. Members of Congress would especially need this so that idiots like Chuck Schumer don’t cause runs on the banks by saying stupid things.
Imagine the uproar if the government tried to regulate those rights with “common sense” rules. Look at how liberals lose their minds at any attempt to provide common sense regulation to abortion. Obama has taken steps in his first few days to make abortions easier to obtain and to make Americans pay for abortions all around the world. The same liberals who cry when people are killed in war are providing a service to murder their children in the womb, all at American taxpayer expense. Liberals lose their minds when states try to enact rules on abortion (which is not a right enumerated in the Constitution) and fight to have no restrictions whatsoever. Obama does not believe in restrictions on abortions and thinks it is OK to murder a kid born after an unsuccessful abortion. A 13 year old girl can’t be given a Tylenol in school without parental permission but Obama and the libs believe this same 13 year old girl should be able to get an abortion without the permission of her parents. In fact, they don’t believe she even has to tell them.
No common sense restrictions or we are infringing on a woman’s right to choose, a right that is not spelled out in the Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is clearly spelled out in the US Constitution and it is a right that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. That one needs “common sense” rules, according to the Leader Hussein. This is the liberal mindset. They want to take guns because that takes away the means to resist. It takes away the necessary check on government. It takes away the ability to fight tyranny.
Same Sex Marriage Is A State’s Issue And Should Remain That Way
Obama said he was opposed to same sex marriage and I don’t think his position on that has changed. However, he is opposed the the defense of marriage act and he wants to get rid of it. If he does, states would be forced to accept the marital status of same sex couples based on the law in the state they were married. If a same sex couple from Massachusetts went to Utah then the people of Utah would be forced to accept the married status and afford them the same rights as married couples even if nearly everyone in the state opposes the idea. This is a wrong move. States have rights and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution clearly makes this issue one for the states. No state should be forced to comply with something that an overwhelming number of citizens of those states oppose. It is not a matter of fairness as the left would have you believe, it is a matter of the law and who gets to make those decisions.
Obama wants to impose the federal will on the states. Within minutes of his swearing in the White House website was changed and his radical agenda displayed. Under the label of “civil rights” Obama lays out all the radical things he wants to do. These are the radical things he has wanted to do all along but did not express because he knew he could not win an election if he openly stated these goals.
Some of these things would force religious institutions to do things contrary to their beliefs. Religious hospitals would be forced to perform abortions or face fines and penalties from the government. Religious institutions have already gotten out of the adoption business because of the government forcing them to assist gay couples in getting children. It will not be long before religious organizations shutter their doors and stop helping people. This is the agenda Obama has planned.
He plans on ensuring that states are forced to comply with his and the LBGT agenda for America. Obama plans on slowly eroding the rights of states and the rights of citizens until all rules come from a centralized government. We are moving toward an Oligarchy and along the way there is going to be a great backlash. It will either be during elections or it will be in armed resistance. This is why he wants to take your guns.
The radical agenda will continue as they try to sneak things past. One day we will wake up and it will all be in place and we will be asking; How? It starts when they begin eroding our rights and it ends with us under one collective government where we are ruled by a few elitists. They do it by inserting things like money for universal health care into a stimulus package. They will continue until one day we wake up and all our health care decisions are made by government and paid for by the taxpayer. Again, we will ask; How?
By 2010 we will have one of two courses. Obama and the libs will have taken control of our lives and removed any chance of resistance or their acts will cause such a backlash that they lose a great number of seats in the midterm election.
Keep and eye on this. Anyone who votes for the bailout and other items designed to take our freedoms away needs to be removed from office.
Related:
Vatican calls Obama arrogant
Bloomberg
Ms. Underestimated
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: erosion of rights, gun control, Obama, oligarchy, scoialism, Second Amendment, universal health care
Obama Wants Our Guns
Jan 16, 2009 Political
It didn’t take long. The Sainted One is not even the president yet and already a bill has been introduced to control gun ownership in this country. Representative Bobby Rush (D-IL) has introduced legislation that would make it very difficult for people to obtain firearms. His plan calls for the Attorney General to manage a gun control program which requires gun owners to obtain a license, with picture and thumbprint, in order to be considered. The Attorney General will decide if the person may be issued the license and failure to have or renew a license is a felony punishable by up to 2 years in jail.
This is a blatant assault on the Second Amendment rights of the people in this country. If this makes it to Obama and he signs it then millions of gun owners will be required to apply for a license to own guns. There is no doubt in my military mind that this will also have a cost associated with it. The Attorney General will, if this bill passes, have a database of all gun owners including those who applied and were rejected. The Nazis had such a system and then they disarmed the Jews. This led to the Holocaust. A people disarmed become slaves. This bill will create a national ID for gun owners. Liberals are opposed to a national ID in general but I guess it is OK if it keeps track of the evil gun owners. The bill is in honor a a Chicago kid who was killed on a school bus:
[O]n the afternoon of May 10, 2007, Blair Holt, a junior at Julian High School in Chicago, was killed on a public bus riding home from school when he used his body to shield a girl who was in the line of fire after a young man boarded the bus and started shooting. (In the Findings and Purpose portion)
Chicago already has some of the nation’s most stringent gun control laws. Those laws did not prevent this tragedy because criminals do not obey the law. Does Rush actually think that a criminal will apply for a license and does he think a criminal is worried about a 2 year sentence for owning one when the crimes they commit will lead to more time than that? Keep in mind folks, this law will only affect law abiding citizens and they do not go around using guns illegally.
If you are a gun owner and you voted for Obama then you should turn your guns in and join the peace movement. The warnings were there and they were made public for anyone who paid attention. Barack Obama is a Socialist and the way Socialists rule is to take away the people’s means to resist.
I know that Obama did not write this (at least his name is not on it) but it is odd it came from a politician from his home state and he will most assuredly sign it if it makes it to his desk. He has already stated that the right to bear arms is subject to common sense regulation. In his little mind, this will be common sense. The Democrats are in control and they want to remove any means of resistance that the citizens have available to them and that means that we are in danger of losing our guns.
If this bill gets traction we gun owners are in for a fight. The person that Obama has nominated for Attorney General believes in gun control. He does not believe that gun ownership is an individual right and he will not easily approve any license. For those who might have forgotten, the Second Amendment states:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
This bill infringes on the right to keep and bear arms. What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do they have trouble understanding? It is also important to note that gun ownership is necessary for the security of a free state. It would appear they don’t quite want that.
If this bill passes the idea of a peaceful transition of government might become a thing of the past.
As for Bobby Rush, he deserves the firing squad.
Big Dog Salute: Stop the ACLU
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.[/tip]
Tags: blair holt, bobby rush, chicago, gun control, infringement, Obama, Second Amendment