– Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
I have always believed that a point of view depends upon whose ox is being gored. With the Second Amendment the media are silent with regard to what our Founders intended and will help push an agenda for anti gun (and anti American) liberals. In order to ignore what our Founders said and what they clearly intended the media will gladly tell us that the Constitution is a living document and that it must evolve with the times. Things change for the media when the right under attack is the one that affects them the most.
The idea that the Constitution is a living document is an incorrect assessment of the Constitution. It is not a living document subject to interpretation based on a particular point in history. It is the Supreme Law of the Land and the Founders did not intend for it to be interpreted this way or that. What they did was give us a method to change it should things change or should new situations arise.
In any event, the media love to bash the Second Amendment and tell us how things have changed. That point of view changes when the right attacked is the one that affects the media.
In light of the Justice Department’s infringement of the AP’s First Amendment right the media, at least the AP, have suddenly decided that the Constitution is not a living document and that the infringement by the Justice department is wrong. Here is what Gary Pruitt, the president and CEO of the AP, had to say about the incident:
Pruitt told CBS’ ”Face the Nation” that the government has no business monitoring the AP’s newsgathering activities.
“And if they restrict that apparatus … the people of the United States will only know what the government wants them to know and that’s not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment,” Washington Post
Well isn’t it interesting that Pruitt mentions what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment? When it comes to the Second Amendment the media will tell us that things have changed, the framers could not have anticipated modern firearms (they did anticipate which is why they do not mention a specific type. People can have what the government has). They tell us that it is a living document and that we need to advance with the times. They dismiss any argument that claims if people are disarmed there will be no way to fight a tyrannical government as if the government is wonderful and would do no wrong.
It looks like the AP incident and Pruitt’s words now reveal that the media were wrong. The incident shows the tyranny of government and Pruitt indicated that this kind of tyranny leads to people only getting the information government wants it to.
I imagine it will be difficult for many anti gun zealots to see that these two issues are one in the same. Many, and I imagine Pruitt would be among them, will not see how the framer’s intent applies as much to the Second as it does to the First (and all parts of the Constitution for that matter). They will continue to dismiss the valid concerns of gun owners and tell us how we need to change with the times while crying foul over what the government did to them.
Mr. Pruitt, conservatives are on your side because we know all parts of the Constitution need to be defended against all enemies foreign and domestic. We know that the erosion of one right will lead to the erosion of another until the domino effect takes place. We wake up one day and are North Korea where people are disarmed, totally dependent on government and fed only the news government wants.
Mr. Pruitt, you and others in the media are responsible for this. You media folks pushed an agenda for liberals for decades. That was the anti gun agenda and it allowed for the slow erosion of the right to keep and bear arms. You folks in the media carried their water on this issue while cheerfully claiming that things have changed, this is a living document, the framers could not have anticipated the future, blah, blah, blah…
While you were helping with the slow erosion of our Second Amendment right you were putting in place the mechanism that allowed government to start going after the other rights. You allowed the camel’s nose to get under the tent and now you are feeling the effect of your failure.
Without a Second Amendment there will be no protection for the First or any other. Without a well armed citizenry there will be government tyranny. You helped bring this upon us by ignoring or dismissing the framer’s intent when it came to our right to keep and bear arms.
– Adolph Hitler, Hitler’s Secret Conversations 403 (Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens trans., 1961)
You in the media became stenographers for the liberals in government. You abandoned your obligation to the people and stopped being our watchdog. YOU enabled government to encroach further and further on our rights and into our lives. You failed us and now you are reaping what you have sown.
How about you get on board and start supporting the Second Amendment the way you want the First supported? How about you push the message of the people and tout the intent of our framers with regard to the right to keep and bear arms? What say we the people and you the media work together to keep government in check?
Let me help you out with it:
- “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
- “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.” –Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)
- “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
- “No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]
- ” … to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
I along with most conservatives do not like what took place with regard to the AP. We do not like the violation of a Constitutionally protected right because we support all of those rights. It is time for the AP and all other media outlets to get back to doing their jobs.
You can’t cry that your Constitutional right has been violated when you willfully ignore your responsibilities under that right.
Never surrender, never submit.
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.
After every act of terror that involves radical Islamists we are reminded by the left not to rush to judgment and that we cannot condemn an entire religion or its followers for the acts of a few. I agree that people should be judged individually. I also know that when a large group of those people or their individual governments support their acts then it is OK to paint them with a broad brush.
Unfortunately, the very people who tell us not to judge all Muslims by the acts of a few are the same people who condemn all gun owners for the acts of a few people with guns who do bad things. The reality is that most people who do bad things with guns have already broken countless laws to do so and usually do not own the guns legally. This fact escapes the gun grabbers as they paint all gun owners, law abiding citizens who exercise a constitutionally protected right, with a broad brush.
After the Newtown shooting, where a gunman who used guns he stole to murder a number of people (mostly children,) Barack Obama wasted no time condemning the act and then vowing to pass tougher gun laws. These laws would only affect law abiding gun owners as they are the only ones who would follow them. The guns that would be banned and the hoops people would have to jump through would only infringe on the people who obey the law. The people who do bad things will still get guns, won’t worry about the gun being on some approved list, and would not go through a background check.
That did not stop Obama and his anti gun zealots from vowing to pass tough gun laws. Some states did just that and ended up only harming those who did no wrong. In fact, some people were then targeted to have their guns confiscated. This all happened to people who did no wrong.
Now we have a terrorist attack that happened in Boston during the Boston Marathon. While we were cautioned not to rush to judgment Obama’s stenographers in the media wasted no time blaming the right wing, gun owners, rednecks, people who hate taxes, white people, and any other group they could paint as a right wing entity. I did not hear Obama asking them not to rush to judgment.
It turns out the bombers are followers of Islam. That should come as no shock as most of the acts of terror are committed by followers of that religion (notice I said most – added for liberals who have trouble with comprehension). The Muslims involved in 9/11 murdered more people than the gunman in Newtown. Hell, they murdered more than the recent mass shootings combined. George Bush did not say we should ban Muslims; he just went after those who intended to do us harm.
Since Barack Obama sees fit to go after all gun owners for the acts of a few deranged people I want to know if he will now ban Muslims.
You see, he was quick on the trigger after Newtown but slow and cautious in his response to the Boston bombing. Unlike his call to action on tougher gun control after Newtown, he was vague and asked us not to rush to judgment. He did not even use the word terror in his first address.
It is now abundantly clear that those who did this are Muslims. Will B. Hussein Obama now apply the same standard he did with regard to Newtown and ask Congress to ban Muslims from the United States?
In this country when a person drives drunk we go after that person not alcohol or cars. When a person stabs a bunch of people we go after the person using the knife, not the knife. When a gun is involved things get murky because the liberals go after the guns of all citizens.
Well Muslims have murdered more Americans than gun wielding morons in mass shootings.
If Obama is to apply the same standard then he must go after Muslims and work with Congress to get them banned.
The mantra from the left is; if we only save one child…
Well, banning Muslims would do just that (so would outlawing abortion).
This might not be a popular position but neither is gun control and the fact that it is not popular has not stopped Obama and the rest of the anti gun crowd from working to disarm us. Hell, they even lie about support.
I can’t say for sure but I bet more Americans support a Muslim ban than a gun ban.
I don’t support either (I believe in going after those involved in bad stuff) but if I had to choose I know America would be a lot safer with armed citizens than it would with Muslims (especially if it was disarmed).
Obama will probably not ban Muslims. What the they do is from the same textbook his buddy Bill Ayers uses.
Never surrender, never submit.
Mar 13, 2013 Political
A woman in New Jersey was at a meeting to protest her property tax assessment which was done by a contracted agency. She expressed her displeasure (and quoted the Constitution) because her home was assessed without anyone ever entering it to appraise it.
She was told to sit down and shut up and listen. Then, employees of the assessment company escorted her out of the building. An earlier report indicated he made a threat about her assessment being even higher (a threat to screw her over by increasing her assessment because she protested).
The county assessor called the police and said she threatened to bring a gun back to the meeting, a claim she denies. Someone gave the police her car tag number and she was tracked down and arrested for making a terroristic threat (a BS charge) and was told she had to surrender her firearms of her bail would be set too high for her to pay.
The police took her two handguns for “safe keeping” which likely means she will never see them again.
This is how the tyrannical police state is unfolding. The state makes a claim and the citizen is arrested. Were any of the people at the meeting interviewed to check the veracity of the claim? Did the police find out if she ever said she would bring a gun back?
She claims that she never said the word gun and never made any threats. She claims that the assessor and the worker for the company were the ones acting out.
If this woman is telling the truth, and there is no reason right now to believe she is not, then her rights have been trampled on. This is how tyranny works. Make an example out of someone and others will fall in line. It matters not how this ends up because the others at the meeting got the message as intended.
I hope that she is exonerated and gets her firearms back.
But, if the police investigate and find that the assessor and the assessment worker were the ones acting out will THEY be arrested and charged with making terroristic threats? The guy who threatened that her tax assessment would be higher should be at the top of the list.
If the assessor is found to have acted inappropriately then she should be fired.
Perhaps the homeowner will have grounds for a lawsuit that will bankrupt the township and the company that employs the assessor.
How long before the actions of the tyrannical government lead to an uprising? I think this is what government wants but I also think it is a dangerous path to take.
I hope it never comes to this but we need to pray for the best and expect the worst.
Especially with tyranny at all levels of government.
Never surrender, never submit.
The public schools in Marietta GA have installed panic buttons that can be pushed in the event of an emergency. The buttons were installed in the wake of the Newtown Connecticut shooting and their purpose is to immediately place a call to 911. The police say that once the button is pushed they will send everything they have until they figure out what is going on.
The panic button will not reduce the number of people murdered and it is nothing more than a feel good measure.
How can that be?
It is quite simple. Notification of 911 was not an issue in Newtown. Records indicate that a call was made within a minute of the incident. That is as fast as recognizing a problem, getting to and pushing a panic button. The problem is it took nearly 20 minutes for police to arrive. By the time they got there the children and teachers had all been murdered.
To recap, notification was not the problem, response was.
A panic button addressed a problem that never existed in the first place.
Governments at all levels across this nation have been working on gun control. This is allegedly in response to the Newtown shootings but the reality is that the shootings were a catalyst to put into place that which the socialist left has wanted all along; a disarmed America. Armed Americans are a threat to their evil intentions. It is nearly impossible to enslave an armed population. The left (the same left that supports murdering unborn children) knows this and will walk on the graves of murdered children (children who were murdered because of government policies) in order to disarm the law abiding. This is why the federal government, through its agents in the VA, are classifying veterans as unable to own a gun. Veterans will defend this nation against the domestic enemies so the government is working to keep them from being armed.
The anti gun crowd wants us to call people with guns and let them come address the issue. Give up your guns and you can just call 911 when there is a life threatening issue. Guns were already banned in this school so how did the gun ban there work out?
Their answer is for you to call the police and wait for them to arrive. During the wait you end up murdered like those in Newtown. Once again, almost all of the murders in that school took place after the police were notified.
One armed person in that school could have reduced the number of lives lost. If the right person had been armed (or more than one person) then it is likely no one in the school would have been murdered.
The politicians who want gun bans are surrounded by armed guards. Obama, Biden (who is no friend to gun owners, no matter what he claims), Bloomberg, and countless others have armed security details for themselves (and in some cases their families) while they work at keeping you from being protected by the same tool their guards have at their disposal.
Our money is protected by guns, our gold is protected by guns, there are armed guards at nearly all government buildings and politicians have armed guards. For some reason they seem to think that these things are more important than us or our children which is why they want us disarmed and they designate our schools as gun free.
My children and grandchildren are more important than any of these things including the politicians and they deserve as much or more protection. Our children deserve to be protected by people with guns.
Banning guns will not stop gun crime any more than prohibition stopped the manufacture, distribution and use of intoxicating beverages (our politicians drank during prohibition). Gun bans will be no more effective than laws against illegal drug use. Criminals simply do not obey the law.
Gun control is about control of people and has nothing to do with guns.
It is time to push a button. Not a panic button in a school and not one that alerts government agents with guns.
It is time to push the button that musters patriots who will fight the tyranny of government.
Never surrender, never submit.