Posts Tagged ‘Bill of Rights’

Democrats, Liberals, Progressives love dead kids.

February 18, 2014

Since the other post got fouled up somehow here is a repeat.

Agenda drives the left, in all things. The more dead kids there are, the more fodder for the leftest agenda. Alinsky would be proud. The more that we learn about the mass killers the more we find out how they are drugged, and supporters of leftest ideologies. I for one am going to start referring to the entire lot of them as murderers. Because that is what they are.

When others talk of full blown revolution I will no longer speak about temperance. I’m not, after all, that kind of a Christian. More power to the people of America as envisioned by those that established this great nation!

A bunch of kid killers support the Free Fire Zones. Let us be diligent in reminding them about that at every turn!

Some things that were missed; The Bill of Rights

December 16, 2013

The obamanites and other Tory’s would simply crap their pants if all would have passed!





Amendments Offered in
Congress by James Madison
June 8, 1789

First. That there be prefixed to the Constitution a declaration, that all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people.

That Government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their Government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.

Secondly. That in article 1st, section 2, clause 3, these words be struck out, to wit: “The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative, and until such enumeration shall be made;” and that in place thereof be inserted these words, to wit: “After the first actual enumeration, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number amounts to ——, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that the number shall never be less than ——, nor more than ——, but each State shall, after the first enumeration, have at least two Representatives; and prior thereto.”

Thirdly. That in article 1st, section 6, clause 1, there be added to the end of the first sentence, these words, to wit: “But no law varying the compensation last ascertained shall operate before the next ensuing election of Representatives.”

Fourthly. That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.

The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.

The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

No soldiers shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor at any time, but in a manner warranted by law.

No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or one trial for the same offence; nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor be obliged to relinquish his property, where it may be necessary for public use, without a just compensation.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The rights of the people to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusation, to be confronted with his accusers, and the witnesses against him; to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

The exceptions here or elsewhere in the Constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the Constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

Fifthly. That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit:

No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.

Sixthly. That, in article 3d, section 2, be annexed to the end of clause 2d, these words, to wit:

But no appeal to such court shall be allowed where the value in controversy shall not amount to —— dollars: nor shall any fact triable by jury, according to the course of common law, be otherwise re-examinable than may consist with the principles of common law.

Seventhly. That in article 3d, section 2, the third clause be struck out, and in its place be inserted the clauses following, to wit:

The trial of all crimes (except in cases of impeachments, and cases arising in the land or naval forces, or the militia when on actual service, in time of war or public danger) shall be by an impartial jury of freeholders of the vicinage, with the requisite of unanimity for conviction, of the right of challenge, and other accustomed requisites; and in all crimes punishable with loss of life or member, presentment or indictment by a grand jury shall be an essential preliminary, provided that in cases of crimes committed within any county which may be in possession of an enemy, or in which a general insurrection may prevail, the trial may by law be authorized in some other county of the same State, as near as may be to the seat of the offence.

In cases of crimes committed not within any county, the trial may by law be in such county as the laws shall have prescribed. In suits at common law, between man and man, the trial by jury, as one of the best securities to the rights of the people, ought to remain inviolate.

Eighthly. That immediately after article 6th, be inserted, as article 7th, the clauses following, to wit:

The powers delegated by this Constitution are appropriated to the departments to which they are respectively distributed: so that the Legislative Department shall never exercise the powers vested in the Executive or Judicial, nor the Executive exercise the powers vested in the Legislative or Judicial, nor the Judicial exercise the powers vested in the Legislative or Executive Departments.

The powers not delegated by this Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively.

Ninthly. That article 7th be numbered as article 8th.


SOURCE




 

House Leadership Ignores Gun Owners, this is why you never trust a RINO!

December 4, 2013
Slams through Plastic Gun Ban Reauthorization

The battle continues, and now moves to the Senate

“There is opposition to changing existing law from conservative lawmakers and gun rights groups such as Gun Owners of America.” — USA Today, December 3, 2013

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

Someone once said that the only thing anyone ever learns from history is that no one ever learns anything from history.

Straight from bumbling the shut down, the House leadership yesterday, by a voice vote, slammed through a straight ten-year reauthorization of the poorly drafted 1988 plastic gun ban.

Read GOA’s oped on this subject in this morning’s USA Today.

At least, argue House Republicans, this “straight authorization” of a bad law will prohibit New York Democrat Chuck Schumer from using the reauthorization as a vehicle to enact new, more extensive gun control.

Maybe.

But the House leadership has now handed Schumer a legislative vehicle for passing his gun control.  This means he and Harry Reid could choose to take their ban on 3-D printer guns -– which, by the way, would also ban many metal gun manufacturers -– and send it back to the House.

Just hours after the House reauthorized the anti-gun law, Schumer held a press event in support of expanding the plastic gun ban.

If they do this, then Boehner and his leadership team will once again be swimming in a river of pain –- inflicted by a liberal media that finally sees an opportunity for passing its much-desired gun control agenda.

So the first thing we’re doing is to organize a Senate filibuster of any Schumer effort to pass and/or expand the House bill.

Given that the Senate is currently bogged down in a fight over the defense authorization legislation, we may be able to make it very difficult for Schumer to use the House-passed bill as a vehicle for new gun control.

So please stay tuned.  We thank you for all your activism up to this point.  But just realize that this battle is not over yet.

GOA IN THE MEDIA

Meanwhile, GOA Director of Communications Erich Pratt authored the Opposing View this morning in USA Today.

Among other things, Pratt argued that the plastic gun ban is an unconstitutional infringement of our liberties that is not only ineffective, but could eventually be expanded by an anti-gun administration to ban even more guns.

But what about the issue of smuggling guns onto planes?

Pratt says that renewing a ban on plastic firearms will “not stop criminals from making them or stealing them,” any more than Chicago’s gun restrictions have been effective in stopping shootings there.

Not only that, says Pratt, “smuggling guns onto planes will still be against the law, with or without a plastic gun ban.” And airport X-ray machines will still be able to detect them.

Bottom line, says Pratt, Congress solved the problem of terrorists carrying weapons onto planes after 9/11 — not through additional gun bans, but by “allowing pilots to use guns to defend themselves and their passengers.”

Again, you can read the entire column here.

 

NAGR: What the NRA should be! No compromise with your rights, ever!

November 12, 2013

While there are many Second Amendment support groups the most well known, and reviled by those that suffer from the mental illness hoplophobia really does very little for the day to day supporter of the Bill of Rights. That being the National Rifle Association. Please don’t get me wrong about the NRA. They are possibly the very first safety organization of any type in history, and it is doubtless that the firearm safety programs started by them have saved countless lives, as well as reduced severe injuries all around the world, and have served the vital function of providing a working template for virtually all safety programs.

Feared by many politicians, the NRA has clout. However, when it comes to politics? The NRA is a true failure. They refuse to fight the tough fights. Only getting into those in which the probability of success is high. Indeed, the refusal to actually get involved in the dirty work led to the formation of Gun Owners of America as well as others. Wyoming Gun Owners, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and others like them get into the trenches and fight. Also, The National Association for Gun Rights has been getting results that have been quite impressive as of late. Please watch the video for more about NAGR, and donate what you can to each of the groups mentioned above.

 

Musings After Midnight — Drastic Action: A Proposal and a Critique

August 22, 2013

Probably going to turn this into a series. Should have done that a long time ago.

Well, good evening, my good friends, and welcome to another segment of Musings After Midnight. I hope all of you are well, which is more than I can say for myself. Another bout with inflammation of the eyes has beset me of late, stemming from an underlying inflammatory condition that can effect multiple body systems. This, of course, carries with it some rather peculiar difficulties that must be worked around.

But over all, the situation is improving with treatment, although progress is rather slow.

Summer is now in its final days, and here in the South we have been abundantly blessed with one of the mildest seasons I ever remember. In fact, I never remember a summer that has been this unseasonably mild. Rarely has the temperature gone above 90 degrees, which for this area is highly unusual. We have also been the recipients of an amazing amount of rainfall, totally obliterating a drought that has beset us for several years and shattering rainfall records that have stood in place for nearly a century.

If all summers could be like this in this area, I would have no complaints about the weather, although my heart does go out to those who have been hit with flooding. I could do without this much rain, but the temperatures have been wonderful.

And now, down to business.

Things have gotten demonstrably worse politically since we last met together. Obama not only continues to ignore the Constitution but has doubled down in his disdain for its provisions, particularly its clear limitations on executive power. He has made a complete mess out of foreign policy, pushing through and exploiting a precarious situation in Egypt to get a member of the Muslim Brotherhood in power, and now sides with that terrorist organization against the military that ousted him and seeks to maintain stability in a nation that is precariously close to disintegrating into Islamic extremism along the lines of Iran, Libya, and Yemen.

On the home front, Obama defied the Constitutional mandate for presidents to follow the law by granting a delay to the implementation of the employer mandate in his infamous and unconstitutional ObamaCare program. The law he and his cronies wrote expressly fixes the date of implementation. Yet by executive fiat he decides that he will delay the implementation of the employer mandate while refusing to grant the same delay to the individual mandate. This is a clear violation of the law, a violation of the Constitution, and is a high crime/misdemeanor.

In the midst of all of this, Congress does nothing. We already know that Senate Democrats, who control that chamber, are worthless. But now we know that the Republican leadership in the House — Boehner, Cantor, and McCarthy — are just as worthless.

As I have stated before in previous Musings After Midnight, the ballot box has completely failed us at this point. So-called “Tea Party” candidates turn out to be complete duds once they get in office, except for Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul.

But one major development that has occurred since the last time we talked is that at least one major conservative thinker has concluded the same thing we have, that the electoral process in America today has failed. The difference is that he has a more orderly Constitutional process for correcting it.

First, I want to consider the proposal and then offer a critique.

Mark Levin, radio talk show host, attorney, and former member of the Reagan Administration, has just released a new book that shot up to number one on the Amazon best seller list called, The Liberty Amendments. Already the book has created quite a stir in the conservative/libertarian world. Some have immediately slammed the book and its proposals while others have enthusiastically embraced them.

Levin’s basic premise is that the Constitution itself has provided a remedy for predicaments exactly like ours when the ballot box has failed us. And make no mistake. Levin agrees that the ballot box has failed. He has lambasted the president, the Congress, and the Supreme Court for their systemic failures to uphold the very Constitution they are sworn to protect and defend. And he also debunks the notion that merely electing more conservatives to Congress will correct the problem, or that electing a conservative president with a conservative Congress will correct it.

As we have seen over the past 12 years, any Tom, Dick, and Harry can sound and act like a conservative to get elected or even to get appointed to the Supreme Court. George W. Bush and a Republican Congress (2001-2006) are prime examples. Can you say, Patriot Act? And John Roberts at the Supreme Court is perhaps the joke of the centuries.

So, what are citizens to do in order to stop this brazen tyranny and get the nation back on course? If another election or two are not guaranteed to do the trick, then what will?

Levin proposes a list of amendments to the Constitution that he calls “the liberty amendments.” And how does he propose to get these amendments approved? By using the provisions set forth by the Constitution itself in Article V.

Article V is referred to as “the amendment process.” Some erroneously refer to the amendment process remedy as a “Constitutional Convention,” the very name of which is enough to strike fear in the hearts of patriots who fear that having such a convention will possibly result in a runaway mob that approves measures that obliterate sacred protections of hard fought liberties.

Detractors of Levin’s book are already going into hysterics over the proposal. Some of that hysteria was evident today on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show not only by the host but by his guests.

But Levin correctly observes that Article V is erroneously viewed as a “Constitutional Convention” that can either discard portions or the entirety of the Constitution. The provision of Article V is more correctly referred to as “an amendment convention,” or “a convention to add amendments to the Constitution.” Such a process is bound by certain time honored limitations. A convention of this sort cannot vote on whether or not to abide by the Constitution. That is off the table and has already been decided. The agenda of the convention is set before the meeting commences. In fact, the convention is called only to consider and decide on proposed amendments, despite Cornell School of Law’s contention that this is up for debate and that the issue has never been decided.

The process itself, however, would seem to work against the possibility that such a convention would go rogue. For example, a specific proposal to amend the Constitution must originate with the states, precisely, two thirds of the state legislatures are required to call such a convention, and any proposal coming out of it eventually must be approved by three fourths of the state legislatures or three fourths of state amendment conventions (yes, a state can call an Article V convention).

Here is the precise wording of Article V of the Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Cornell provides this interesting tidbit of annotation to Article V:

The Convention Alternative.—Because it has never successfully been invoked, the convention method of amendment is sur[p.900]rounded by a lengthy list of questions.21When and how is a convention to be convened? Must the applications of the requisite number of States be identical or ask for substantially the same amendment or merely deal with the same subject matter? Must the requisite number of petitions be contemporaneous with each other, substantially contemporaneous, or strung out over several years? Could a convention be limited to consideration of the amendment or the subject matter which it is called to consider? These are only a few of the obvious questions and others lurk to be revealed on deeper consideration.22 This method has been close to utilization several times. Only one State was lacking when the Senate finally permitted passage of an amendment providing for the direct election of Senators.23 Two States were lacking in a petition drive for a constitutional limitation on income tax rates.24 The drive for an amendment to limit the Supreme Court’s legislative apportionment decisions came within one State of the required number, and a proposal for a balanced budget amendment has been but two States short of the requisite number for some time.25 Arguments existed in each instance against counting all the petitions, but the political realities no doubt are that if there is an authentic national movement underlying a petitioning by two–thirds of the States there will be a response by Congress.

Regardless of what one thinks about the prospects of such a convention or what may or may not happen therein, Levin’s book, in my opinion, is essential reading for anyone interested in liberty and in putting a stop to the growing tyranny and its concomitant encroachments on the liberties of the people. The book is sure to spawn a lively debate, even among conservatives and libertarians, a healthy exercise for a nation in which a sizable portion of the population has been conditioned to think they have absolutely no power or recourse at their disposal to fight the dictates of a growing oppressive, monolithic surveillance state.

Now, on to the critique.

I have great respect for Mark Levin. He understands the liberty movement, is sympathetic to its goals and objectives, and speaks our language. But he has invited critique with the belief that his is by no means the final word and that the nation needs to have a lively and healthy ongoing discussion concerning these issues.

It is in this spirit that I offer the following observations.

In the first place, having a convention to propose amendments is no guarantee that any of them actually will be followed even if they gain the approval of the necessary number of state legislatures. Granted, merely having the discussion, the debate, and the convention will enhance the chances that such amendments will be enforced. The attention of the entire nation will be focused on the issues addressed in those amendments, and thus, there will be a natural tendency to gauge the extent to which their provisions are adequately implemented.

However, that alone is not enough to guarantee adherence by Congress, the Courts, the president, or even the states. The lawlessness that ravages our land at the present hour provides ample proof that an alarming number of citizens, states, and elected officials do not care what the law says. Nancy Pelosi, for example, has proposed that the state of California officially be designated as a “sanctuary state” for illegal aliens, in defiance of federal law. Barack Obama himself has refused to obey several direct court orders. Congress has failed to hold him accountable.

It is very difficult to imagine any of these people suddenly deciding to obey Constitutional directives just because an Article V convention was held and the states approved. Regardless of how popular Levin’s proposed amendments may be in some states and with some elected representatives, this in no way guarantees that the current crop of lawless despots will leave or change their ways. Pelosi, Reid, Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin, and others will continue to be the very same criminal vermin they have always been. Barack Obama will not stop lying or defying the Constitution, or ignoring court orders when they are inconvenient to him.

Further, it is also very hard to believe that a majority of voters in California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, or Illinois will change the way they vote. They are going to continue to send to Congress the very same tyrants they have for at least 10 to 20 years. Term limits will help, for sure. But the removal of one entrenched tyrant career politician will only result in his/her being replaced by another tyrant. Massachusetts got rid of Ted Kennedy when the senator died of cancer. But they replaced him with a Republican whose only sensible act was voting against ObamaCare, and now they have turned around and placed a kooky, loony bird liberal in that Senate seat, who is even worse than Kennedy or Brown.

In short, if the Constitution is not now being followed, then how on earth will several more amendments to it guarantee that they will be followed?

Lawless, elected thugs will ignore the new amendments as thoroughly as they do the current document.

America has not followed its Constitution in over 100 years. Most conservatives/libertarians believe that the Constitution was discarded as soon as the Income Tax was approved, along with the establishment of the Federal Reserve. While I agree that both of these acts are deplorable and unconstitutional, I take it back even further. As soon as Abraham Lincoln, as great as he was, made it illegal for a state to withdraw from the union, the Constitution was on its death bed. The Framers were able to secure the approval of the Constitution only upon the promise to many patriots that the authority of states would never be usurped and that they could leave at any time. Lincoln broke that sacred promise although his heart was in the right place with regard to slavery.

Not long afterward the nation saw the advent of the Progressive Movement, which viewed the Constitution as a great roadblock to its agenda. And when one takes an objective look at the most well known progressives at the time, one is immediately struck by the fact that in one accord they believed the Constitution posed a problem for them. Woodrow Wilson was one of the worst. So was FDR. And in reality, so was Teddy Roosevelt.

Wilson stated openly while he was a college professor that the Constitution was too restrictive in its approach to government. Years later before he was elected president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said the very same thing…in 1926. Both Wilson and FDR advocated putting the Constitution on the back burner, ignoring it, or outright defying it, in order to pursue an agenda that would result in a powerful, controlling centralized government-industrial-military complex — one of the very things our Framers wanted to avoid. Thus, by the time we went to war with Germany in the 1940s, there was actually little philosophical-economic difference between the United States and Nazi Germany or the Communist Soviet Union. The only difference was a matter of degrees.

Lyndon Baines Johnson solidified and expanded what FDR and Wilson started with his Great Society. And here we’ve been ever since attempting to figure out how we lost so many of our freedoms, when the answer has been right in front of our eyes all along, and in fact, was set in motion by our very citizens in the voting booth.

Bill Buckley, one of my mentors, was famous for having said that he would rather be governed by the first 500 names in the Boston phone book than those who have been elected to Congress. At one time I agreed with him. That day is long gone. I no longer trust my fellow citizens in the voting booth. They invariably make boneheaded decisions that culminate in more and more tyranny for me. So, why would I want to trust you with my liberties?

Frankly, it sickens me to no end to have to say these things, but it is the truth. We have been betrayed not only by our courts, our presidents, and our elected representatives in Congress, but by our fellow citizens as well. Promise them a $200 subsidy for national healthcare, a government apartment on the cheap, and a Social Security check, and they will vote for a modern equivalent of Chairman Mao.

Don’t get me wrong. I have long advocated for political solutions to our current quagmire even while we make preparation for more convincing solutions. To give up on that entirely would be a travesty and a big mistake. Thus, I hope Levin is right and that eventually we can get what he has proposed. I will do my part to work toward it. But I am not willing to pin all my hopes on that, for the reasons listed above.

In a very real sense, Levin is showing some naivete in his proposal. If we could trust the electorate as we once could, then yes, he would be 100 percent correct. If we were not facing the current dire straits brought on by evil men in high places, then yes, his treatise would be a most welcomed and refreshing solution. But reality tells me something entirely different, something that Levin may not be able or willing to accept. The enemy has not only gotten through the gate but he has become entrenched in command central. And most Americans are simply not informed enough to recognize him as the enemy.

The moral and ethical decay that has afflicted, infested, and infected modern American society makes it well night impossible for normal remedies to work effectively. Evil interlopers intent to do harm will say and do anything to get elected or to become entrenched in places of power in the unconstitutional Fourth Branch of government, the vast, nameless bureaucracy that controls most everything behind the scenes along with their allies and financiers in shadowy, duplicitous organizations such as the Center for American Progress, Tides Foundation, the organizations formerly known as ACORN (which, by the way, are still there), and at least several hundred others. These groups know no bounds, no limitations, no restrictions ethically, morally, politically. Their only focus is on the agenda, the end game, to change America from a Constitutional Republic to something else that is a strange combination of Communism, Fascism, Nazism, or more appropriately, collectivism. The individual person does not count. Persons are entirely expendable as long as the end game is achieved. Thus, you and I have no rights. We are mere pawns in a deadly game designed to turn us from citizens into subjects or slaves to the state.

Thus, a convention designed to approve commendable amendments to the Constitution, as noble an idea as it may be, will not change anything as long as we do not address the deadly cancer that is growing in the very center of the nation. And in this case, only radical surgery will do the trick.

This means Resist, Defy, Evade, Smuggle, and Sabotage.

The kind of enemy we fight is not reasonable, nice, respectful, or fair. Our only recourse, thus, is to thwart their march into tyranny at every hand, and then, when we get the chance, rout them out by sheer force. Force the criminals in public office to pay the price for their crimes. Place them on trial. Imprison them. And if they murdered the innocent in their pursuit of the “progressive vision,” implement the death penalty if Congress decides this is a fair punishment for their murderous actions.

Sounds rather harsh, doesn’t it? Well, would you rather be a slave with no rights? Would you prefer that government goons kill thousands if not millions of citizens, like Stalin and Chairman Mao? Would you rather political dissidents be thrown into the ovens?

If not, your choices are limited. Either get rid of the monsters that would do these things to you and me, or get set for a bloodbath initiated by a government that is just as oppressive and dangerous as anything we have ever seen.

It really is as simple as that.

SOURCE

Simply Stop Watching Us!

June 18, 2013

The revelations about the National Security Agency’s surveillance apparatus, if true, represent a stunning abuse of our basic rights. We as a free people need to demand the U.S. Congress reveal the full extent of the NSA’s spying programs. Further, we should demand of our appointed leaders that it cease and desist! It’s bad enough when those on the left in government say that we, loyal Americans, are terrorists, for disagreeing with their insane policies. Now though, they choose to use the force of the federal government against us.

While mostly known for support of the Second Amendment Conservative Libertarian Outpost has always, and will always stand for the entire Bill of Rights. I urge any and all to contact their Senators and Congresspersons to not only put a halt to this egregious use of power but to punish those responsible. No “Nuremberg style” defense allowed either! This went well beyond any sort of “just following orders” or doing my job.

Tools for doing this are available at the NRA homepage as well as Gun Owners of America. Or contact them directly by phone. If perhaps your representatives are some of those that recently have voted, or even that they hinted that they were in favor of more gun control remind them that it is the Second Amendment that protects the rest of the Bill of Rights. While we normally call for polite and courteous contact this may well be the time to blow their collective heads away with the force of your feelings about this!

And just what did the NRA do? Not Much!

April 28, 2013

During the recent fire fights having to do with freedom, liberty, and the Bill of Rights as usual the mainstream media portrayed the National Rifle Association as being the leader when it comes to Second Amendment rights. However, as usual, they led from behind. No surprise there. So, just who did the leg work? Certainly Gun Owners of America, as well as The Second Amendment Foundation. What many do not know however is just how influential The National Association for Gun Rights has become. Enjoy, and next time you want to help the cause send a few dollars towards NAGR instead of the NRA.

Sign the No Deals Petition

The Chuck Schumer Fan Club!

April 11, 2013

What follows is a list. One that simply should not exist. It is one of the few exceptions that makes abortion on demand, as well as tar and feathering an American tradition that should be revitalized and applied most judiciously.

Sens. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), Susan Collins (Maine), Bob Corker (Tenn.), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Dean Heller (Nev.), John Hoeven (N.D.), Johnny Isakson (Ga.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), John McCain (Ariz.), Pat Toomey (Pa.) and Roger Wicker (Miss.).

Some would call their support of the dismantling of The Bill of Rights treason. Count me among those that would. For the nitpickers, I use the common definition of the word treason, not the wimp model followed by lawyers and such…

Gun ban advocates must decide if they’re willing–and able–to kill 50,000,000+

March 23, 2013

This id from Kurt Hoffman’s Examiner. Kurt is indeed one of the best writers on the internet, and AIRBORNE of course!

A new WorldNetDaily/Wenzel poll finds that only 20 percent of American gun owners would surrender their firearms if ordered to by the government (although an additional 16 percent claimed to be “unsure”–probably not the sort who would be determined enough to face the consequences of defying such an order). From WorldNetDaily:

The scientific telephone survey was conducted March 7-12 and has a margin of error of 2.92 percentage points.

“Among gun owners, 64 percent said they would not relinquish their guns, while 20 percent said they would and another 16 percent of gun owners were unsure on the question,” he said.

In some respects, additional details of the poll carry few surprises. Those who identify themselves as “conservative” are far less likely to surrender their guns than those who call themselves “liberal,” Republicans are less likely to submit to disarmament than Democrats, men less likely than women, whites less so than other ethnic groups, and southerners are less likely than inhabitants of other regions.

But if we step back away from the minutiae of the demographic breakdown, we have somewhere between 64 and 80 percent who will not comply with any confiscatory gun bans. And make no mistake, the specter of confiscatory bans is not “paranoid, right-wing delusion,” as can be seen be seen in the obscenely misnamed “SAFE Act,” in New York, an active program of confiscation of registered firearms in California, and proposals for similar abominations at the federal level:

From Senator Feinstein’s early plans for her “assault weapon” ban, (and remember, that’s “just the beginning”), to the Obama administration’s own National Institute of Justice declaring that “assault weapon” and “high capacity” magazine bans cannot accomplish anything without confiscation, to Rep. Eliot Engel‘s (D-NY) perennial confiscatory ban of “armor piercing” handguns, the gun prohibitionist lobby very clearly considers confiscation to be a realistic goal, and not just an abstract fantasy for the distant future.

What this poll shows, though, is that aspiring gun banners need to do some math homework. 64 to 80 percent of an estimated 80 million gun owners (a common, if tough to verify, estimate) works out to 51 to 64 million freedom loving, angry–and armed–Americans who intend to stay armed. Taking the math a bit further, that’s about 102 to 128 million hands that are not cold and dead, and will be holding guns until they are.

The WND article quotes Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA):

Meanwhile, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who has sponsored a bill that would ban certain types of weapons, said in Congress last week, “We cannot allow the carnage … to continue.”

She has never seen wholesale “carnage,” but if she really wants a good look, an attempt to disarm the American citizenry would get her a ringside seat for a level of carnage America hasn’t seen since the 1860s–except that there are no ringside seats for aspiring tyrants. She will be in the ring.

Who is going to disarm us? Who is going to kill us, in order to make that possible? Here’s something to think about before you answer. There are not enough jackbooted thugs to make it happen. There are not even enough grave diggers to bury the JBTs who might try. We were ready to rumble as three percent of America’s gun owners. At 20 or more times that, there won’t be enough targets to go around.

Your move, statists. Molon Labe.

SOURCE

Owning firearms is a First Amendment exercise, too!

February 8, 2013

By Alan Gottlieb

Following the hysteria generated by gun prohibitionists in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, a nationwide rush on gun stores began as citizens bought semiautomatic modern sporting rifles, handguns and ammunition, in effect “making a political statement” about proposals to ban such firearms.

Making political statements is what the First Amendment is all about.

The so-called “assault rifle” has become a symbol of freedom and the right of the people to speak out for the entire Bill of Rights. Banning such firearms, which are in common use today, can no longer be viewed exclusively as an infringement on the Second Amendment, but must also be considered an attack on the First Amendment.

Many people now feel that owning a so-called “assault rifle” without fear of government confiscation defines what it means to be an American citizen. Their backlash against knee-jerk extremism is a natural reaction to overreaching government.

What should one expect in response to this heightened rhetoric and legislative hysteria? Citizens in other countries react differently to government intrusion into their lives, but Americans are uniquely independent. Among firearms owners, talk of gun bans and attempts to limit one’s ability to defend himself or herself against multiple attackers by limiting the number of rounds they can have in a pistol or rifle magazine turns gun owners into political activists.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) did not intend her gun ban proposal to cause skyrocketing sales of semiautomatic rifles and pistols, but that’s what happened. She must live with the consequences of her shameless political exploitation of the Sandy Hook tragedy.

President Barack Obama never envisioned the rush to purchase rifle and pistol magazines, but telling American citizens they shouldn’t have something is like sending a signal they need to acquire those things immediately.

Vice President Joe Biden never imagined his efforts would result in a tidal wave of new members and contributions to gun rights organizations, making the firearms community stronger and more united in opposition to any assault on the Second Amendment.

Freedom of association is also protected by the First Amendment.

Perhaps they should take a day off and visit the monuments at Lexington and Concord, and reflect on what prompted those colonists to stand their ground. It was the first time in American history that the government moved to seize arms and ammunition from its citizens, and it went rather badly for the British.

Beneath the surface many Americans are convinced that we may be approaching a point when the true purpose of the Second Amendment is realized. Underscoring this is a new Pew Research Center poll that, for the first time, shows a majority (53 percent) of Americans believe the government is a threat to their rights and freedoms.

Exacerbating the situation is a perceived indifference from the administration toward the rights of firearms owners who have committed no crime, but are being penalized for the acts of a few crazy people.

It is time to lower the rhetoric and allow cooler heads to prevail. The demonization of millions of loyal, law-abiding Americans and the firearms they legally own must cease. If we are to have a rational dialogue about firearms and violent crime, we must recognize that the very people who could be most affected have a First Amendment right to be heard.

Recall the words of Abraham Lincoln, who cautioned us more than 150 years ago that “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” A half-century before him, Benjamin Franklin taught us that “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Their spirits are calling to us now.

Alan Gottlieb is founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 168 other followers

%d bloggers like this: