May 15, 2013 Political
Liberals who want more gun control will tell you they support the Second Amendment. They will tell you that nothing they are doing will interfere with people and their right to keep and bear arms. This is a lie because the things they enact infringe. Maryland is a prime example where the Nazi Governor and his minions have imposed unconstitutional gun laws that restrict law abiding people. The tragedy is that these gun laws will do no good which will lead to calls for even more gun control.
Liberal logic (if you can call what liberals use logic) demands supporting the Second Amendment.
In light of this week’s revelation that the Department of Justice has obtained phone records from the AP the media is up in arms and there will be backlash. The first thing to note is that what Justice did might not be illegal under the law.
But what they did is much larger in scope than anything that has happened before and though the reason given is to find the source of a leak the reality is it gives the appearance that the First Amendment right of the media has been violated. It looks like Justice is trying to intimidate the media (in this case specifically the AP but indirectly all media) and is sending a message that it will go through huge amounts of records to get what it wants.
The media are out discussing how this took place and expressing their outrage while those at the AP have expressed anger, shock and disbelief. They feel their communications are being monitored and that their rights have been violated.
They have the support of conservatives who are also wary of these kinds of government tactics. In other words, conservatives support these organizations in their belief that even if it is legal to do (and that is a questionable thing right now) the idea of trampling on a right is sickening.
I only wish the media and other liberals outraged by the AP records scandal felt the same way about other rights. When other rights are violated, particularly if the violations affect conservatives, the liberals say it is OK and justified. Look at how the former head of the NAACP and others have reacted to the IRS violations of the rights of conservative groups. They have said that it is OK because those groups are racist. First of all, they are not racist BUT even if they were they have the same rights as everyone else.
Racist groups like the KKK, the Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers all have rights and those rights should not be violated just because we do not agree with the message.
Once we start rationalizing the violation of our rights it becomes easier to rationalize other violations until pretty soon we have no rights left.
The left loves to push gun control even though most gun control laws violate the Second Amendment. They rationalize that it is for safety or for the children or that no one needs certain types of firearms. This allows them to continue eroding our Second Amendment right until the judiciary is comfortable removing those rights based on what we have allowed to creep in.
I wish that these liberals would be as outraged by the violation of the Second Amendment as they are at the alleged violation of the First. We on the right support ALL rights and do not like when any of them are violated. It is high time the left jumped in and supported us the way we are supporting them.
Perhaps they now know how those of us who believe in and support the Second Amendment feel each and every day as we battle the forces of evil that are hell bent on denying us that which has been endowed by our Creator. Perhaps, but I won’t hold my breath.
So the AP scandal shows that liberals, if they actually had any integrity, would fight for the Second Amendment (and all other rights) as hard as the one that affects them the most.
Interestingly, the Gosnell abortion/murder case gave Harry Reid the chance to show why there should be less gun control instead of more.
Dr. Kermit Gosnell was an abortion doctor who murdered babies born alive and performed late term abortions in violation of Pennsylvania law. He was found guilty of murder and a number of other charges and will spend the rest of his life in jail.
Harry Reid wants us to believe that pro life supporters have forced women to go to clinics like the one run by Gosnell. He says that people have been pushed into holes like that clinic because of people who picket abortion clinics. Reid also blamed this all on restrictive laws.
He believes that having less restrictive abortion laws would have prevented the murders Gosnell committed.
Interestingly, Reid and his ilk are the ones who think that MORE restrictive laws will curb gun violence. Yes, to Reid and other gun grabbers more restrictive laws will stop gun crimes but less restrictive laws will end the crimes like those committed by Gosnell.
If we were to apply Reid’s logic to gun ownership (and publicly carrying them), then we can conclude that less restrictive laws will prevent more gun crimes. In fact, this has actually been proven time and again.
Reid is incorrect about Gosnell. We do not need less restrictive laws for abortion. The crimes committed by Gosnell had nothing to do with laws being too restrictive. They had to do with this; First Gosnell is a monster. Second, Gosnell performed late term abortions (after the time PA says they can be performed) so women who waited too long or did not know went to him because he would do it. They went to him because he would skirt the law.
His clinic was not filthy because of laws that are too restrictive and he did not have all those aborted kids in containers because the law was too tough.
His clinic was in that condition and he was doing what he was doing because it was not inspected by the government agency responsible for ensuring medical businesses are clean and operate according to established law (and medical standards). The Health Department (or whichever agency PA has given the task) did not make unannounced visits to ensure his clinic was clean and up to standard. Less restrictive regulations would not correct this and it did not happen because people protest abortion clinics. It happened because the laws in place were not followed; the laws requiring health inspections as well as the laws regarding late term abortions. Any inspection at any time would have caught these problems early on.
Keep in mind; they were only brought to light because a woman died at his clinic because of his negligence.
Harry Reid is wrong because his root cause analysis is wrong. He is right that less restrictive laws would lead to fewer problems if this were applied to gun control because that has been shown time and again. Criminals do not obey the law.
Gosnell got away with his crimes because the state did not enforce the law (which, by the way, is why many gun crimes happen).
So the media is now positioned to defend rights. Good, defend them all and apply the same standard to the Second Amendment as to the First.
Harry Reid is now on record saying less restrictive laws would lead to fewer problems. Good, beat him and the other anti gun zealots over their heads with Reid’s words. Make them apply the same standard he wants to apply to abortion. He might be wrong about why they happened but there is no doubt he believes fewer laws would mean fewer problems.
It is ironic how all of this has come to light at this time.
I think it is quite possible that these items (including the IRS scandal) were made public (and Reid commented on Gosnell) because they want to draw focus away from Benghazi.
I have read a lot of liberal sites where they are calling the AP scandal the only real scandal of the Obama regime. If the left can get the public to believe the AP phone records scheme is the only scandal and then later show Justice acted legally then the other scandals (which are REAL scandals) will be swept away.
I do not put anything past these criminals but we should use their words and deeds to our advantage. Who knows, maybe we can change their minds and get them to see where they have been wrong. We might be able to make them leave the liberal plantation.
Hell, a few pro abortion folks have changed their views after the horror of Gosnell.
Never surrender, never submit.
Feb 14, 2013 Political
There is no doubt that liberals do not like the Constitution which they view, as Obama said, as deeply flawed. They hate the Second Amendment and the fact that it protects the right to keep and bear arms, a right that preexisted the document. The Founders protected that right because they saw firsthand what a tyrannical government can do to people.
Liberals love to go after law abiding citizens when some lunatic uses a firearm illegally. The left is more than happy to punish the millions of people who did nothing wrong. Their idea on gun violence would be like solving drunk driving by banning sober people from buying cars. The big difference, of course, is that keeping and bearing a firearm is a right and driving is a privilege so even though banning sober people from owning cars is moronic, it would not be unconstitutional.
What government gives you government can take away. Government allows us the privilege of driving. The right to keep and bear arms is a God given RIGHT. Government cannot take away that which was given by God (absent a valid reason like committing a crime in which case one surrenders the right as a consequence of an action).
Obama has always hated firearms (except those used to protect him and his family). He has never wanted people to have them and has worked to get rid of them. Every time some nut uses a firearm to commit a crime Obama calls for common sense laws to prevent such things. No such laws exist and those laws enacted would only harm lawful owners. Obama seems unable to comprehend the fact that criminals do not obey the law. Obama should be aware of this because all the laws against drug use did not stop him and his Choom Gang from using drugs. Would tougher laws against drugs have prevented little Barry Obama from using pot and cocaine to get stoned with his buddies?
Liberals across the nation have trotted out laws to infringe on the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. In Missouri the Democrats have crafted a bill that would outlaw all firearms designated as assault weapons and all magazines designated as high capacity. People would have 90 days to surrender (render permanently inoperable or remove from the state) all such firearms or face criminal charges (another reason not to have a registry of firearm owners).
I would like to think this bill would not pass but in this day and age the Constitution means nothing to politicians, particularly the progressives/liberals, and government at all levels is becoming more tyrannical. I can only imagine that if this were to pass there would be many clashes between those who try to confiscate and those who say no.
The real danger is that this is an Overton Window. The liberals introduce this outlandish legislation and people revolt. Then they back off to what they really wanted and people say it is OK believing they averted a disaster. It is an incremental approach to banning firearms.
Say NO to this kind of stuff. There are no qualifiers in the Second Amendment that allows government to determine the size or type of firearm or magazine. There are laws that prohibit government from keeping a registry of firearm owners. As an aside, Democrats are willing to ignore those laws while expecting us to believe that criminals (private sector criminals, as opposed to those in government) will follow any law banning firearms, magazines or ammunition.
Many law enforcement officers across the nation are making it known they will not follow any law that infringes on the Second Amendment. This is for federal laws. We need such people strongly asserting that they will not follow state or local laws that infringe.
We, as a people, need to stand up and fight the tyranny. We have the soap box, the ballot box and the bullet box. What we choose depends on what government does.
Do you still think government will not deny your rights or confiscate your firearms? Do you think that it could not happen in America?
How would it have played out if those people were organized and fought back? How would it have played out if they were prepared and had in mind that government might confiscate firearms? How would it have ended if they had been ready before the police and NG organized?
The government is preparing. Are you ready and how will YOU respond?
Never surrender, never submit.
Jan 11, 2013 Political
Obama opposes guns for self defense even in the home:
As a state senator in Illinois, President Obama opposed legislation providing an exception to handgun restrictions if the weapon was used in the defense of one’s home. White House Dossier
Even Pravda warns against giving up our guns:
These days, there are few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bear arms and use deadly force to defend one’s self and possessions. Pravda
Do you have a responsibility to fight if they come for your guns?:
You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights. The DC Clothesline
It will likely get really ugly in the near future. People need to decide where they want to be and what they are willing to fight for. If the government can impose its will and remove God given rights like the right to keep and bear arms then it can remove the right to peaceably assemble, practice religion, speak freely, petition government for redress of grievances, the freedom of the press, right against unlawful searches, and on and on.
Once one right is deemed OK to sacrifice then all others are able to get the same designation. Without the means to fight against tyranny we become slaves to government. I don’t know where I read it but someone wrote that armed societies sometimes have mass shootings but unarmed societies have mass genocide.
How true that is. Governments have murdered more people than madmen with firearms.
The Constitution places limits on government and government’s power comes from the consent of the governed.
They need to be reminded of that from time to time.
Never surrender, never submit.
Dec 28, 2012 Political
Senator Dianne Feinstein is a disgrace to her office and is an enemy of the United States. She took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States but she has violated that oath time and again. Feinstein’s latest violation is in legislation she intends to introduce during the next session of Congress.
That legislation is aimed at violating the Second Amendment of the Constitution by restricting what guns citizens may own with outright bans on certain types of firearms and background checks with fingerprinting of those who have firearms and are grandfathered in. She is also proposing a forced buyback program where people who own firearms that she wants banned would be required to sell them to the government.
Dianne, you are in violation of your oath. The Second Amendment to the Constitution is not ambiguous. It clearly states that the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed. Notice that nowhere does it state that people may keep and bear only the arms that government approves of. Notice that it places no restriction on the people whatsoever. It places restriction on the government and you, lady, are overstepping your authority and YOU are violating your oath.
Let me school you since you are obviously not well educated. The Second Amendment is not about hunting or sport shooting. The Second Amendment ensures that the people, who constitute the militia, are able to be armed to ensure the security of the free state. That security is not only from outside invaders but from intrusion BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT. The people are to have the arms commonly associated with those the military would use so that if called to serve they would have the appropriate firearms. There is no restriction on those arms and you are not allowed to place any such restrictions.
Our Founders knew that all governments become tyrannies over time and that as governments grow they begin to impose upon the people. The right to keep and bear arms preexisted the Constitution and our founding as evidenced by the words …THE RIGHT of the people. Had our Founders been granting us a right they would have used those words but they knew that people had the God given right to be armed for their defense and for defense against a tyrannical government so they acknowledged the preexisting right in the Second Amendment. This is a right that you cannot take away.
You can’t do it by legislating what arms may be held, if any at all. You cannot do it by requiring people to be on some kind of national registry and you cannot do it by banning the things that are used in conjunction with firearms such as ammunition and magazines.
You simply do not have the power or the authority to to do this and your attempt is a violation of your oath of office.
Given that you are deliberately working to usurp the Constitution and to deny citizens of this great nation their God given and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms you are in violation of your oath. As such, you have committed a crime against the people.
I therefore call for you to be impeached. The House of Representatives must bring those charges and I have drawn this one for them to work from:
Senator Dianne Feinstein has willfully violated her oath of office and is violating the Constitution of the United States. Her efforts to ban firearms violate the Second Amendment and her attempt to disarm citizens is an affront to a free society and cannot go unpunished. Not only are her actions high crimes she is also committing treason. The militia is designed to ensure the security of the free state. Disarming THE PEOPLE makes this country weaker and vulnerable to attacks from outside sources but more importantly, to attacks from our own government. her actions are reprehensible and reflect unfavorably on the Senate, the Congress and the United States.
Dianne Feinstein is working to make millions of citizens criminals by enacting legislation that violates the Constitution and will not be adhered to by patriots of this great nation.
Her actions are also hypocritical as Dianne had her own concealed carry permit (unclear if she still has it), a rare item in California, while she works to disarm the rest of us.
It is time for this nation to rid the Congress of parasites who are bound and determined to ruin this great nation.
We can start by impeaching Dianne Feinstein for her crimes against the people.
People of America, fill out one of these forms (in the pdf located on this page) and submit it to your Representative requesting that it be acted upon. It might not go anywhere but they need to see millions of us standing up to the tyranny.
Never surrender, never submit.
Dec 27, 2012 Political
Filmmaker Michael Moore is stirring up the ashes of racism and saying that this is the reason we have so many guns in our society. His claim is that most guns are bought by white people who fantasize about shooting an invader and that our image of those invaders is black folks.
Moore further states that the US has never been invaded so we really do not need 300 million guns in our homes. He further states:
“I get why the Russians might be a little spooked (over 20 million of them died in World War II). But what’s our excuse?” Moore said. “Worried that the Indians from the casino may go on the warpath? Concerned that the Canadians seem to be amassing too many Tim Horton’s donut shops on both sides of the border?” CNS News
As an aside, I could not help but laugh at the donut shop comment since it looks like Moore has been a victim of excessive donut consumption for some time…
First things first. If Moore contends that we have never been invaded so we don’t need guns in our homes I will counter with, the reason we have never been invaded is BECAUSE we have guns in our homes. I think the quote attributed to Japanese Fleet Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto puts it best; “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”
So Michael, perhaps the reason we have never been invaded is because any potential enemy knows he would have to deal with millions of armed citizens.
But the meat of this issue is Moore’s misunderstanding of the reason we own guns and the reason we have a Second Amendment. While we are armed to protect our homeland the reason behind the Second Amendment is to ensure that the people have the means to fight our own government should it become tyrannical. We used our firearms to fight England when the King became oppressive and did things to us we did not like, one of which was the attempt to take our arms.
We are armed so as to keep our government in check. We are armed so we have the means to resist a government that ignores the Constitution and tries to impose its will on us contrary to the tenets of our founding.
Michael, we have a Second Amendment to protect all the other Amendments and to protect ourselves against our own government.
That is why we need to keep and bear arms. It guarantees the security of the free state.
Our Founders felt it was necessary to acknowledge the God given right to keep and bear arms for protection (a right that predated the Constitution as evidenced by the words, “the right”) against our government. Since they were much wiser than Michael Moore will ever be I think I will go with their plan.
This has nothing to do with racism. The mass murder in Newtown involved a white guy and white students. If Moore wants racism then perhaps he should look at the inner cities where blacks are killing blacks each and every day. The racist government has enslaved them in an inner city prison and then taken their ability to defend themselves. Therefore, the innocent become victims of the criminals who don’t obey the law.
Moore admits that laws banning guns will not stop the violence but he wants to take our guns nonetheless. To him it is the right thing to do. Only a liberal idiot would espouse doing something that will not work and say it is the right thing to do. Like Obama and his idea of taxing the rich. It won’t fix anything but it makes him feel good because that is the “right thing to do.”
Obama is protected by people with guns. Moore uses an armed guard (who was arrested for illegally carrying his firearm in New York) and people like Dianne Feinstein have or had carry permits all the while working to disarm the rest of us.
We put armed people at banks to guard our money but we make our schools gun free zones and do not allow people there to be armed for the protection of our kids.
Unless, of course, your child has the last name Obama.
The government in charge of us tried to take our firearms once before. We all know how that worked out. Does this government really want to ignore the Constitution and try to disarm us? Is it ready for a backlash that it cannot possibly control?
Time will tell but my money is on the people.
From our cold dead hands…
Never surrender, never submit.