Big Dogs House

What If Government Made You Buy This?

Jan 4, 2011 Political

The Republicans are set to introduce legislation to repeal Obamacare and its takeover of health care in this country. The measure will pass in the House but will not pass in the Senate but Republicans there plan on a roll call vote to get everyone on the record. Considering how voting for Obamacare ended the careers of many long time Democrats, some have to be worried about the vote (which might explain why so many Democrats and their allies in the media are saying how bad taking up repeal would be).

One of the things in the law that people oppose is the individual mandate which requires everyone to buy health care insurance. The Democrats have twisted and abused the Commerce Clause in order to force people to buy a product. This is unconstitutional and against what the Commerce Clause was intended for. I think the law will die in the courts as this mandate is ruled unconstitutional.

Without the money from those required to buy health care, the entire law unravels.

Democrats are lining up to tell us, once again, that it is perfectly legal for the government to force someone to buy something. I wonder though, how they would react if a future Congress and president enacted a law requiring everyone to buy a handgun.

I might have written about this before but I think it is worth mentioning again. Everyone is impacted by crime and people can be the targets of crime at anytime. Additionally, crime impacts commerce in this country as it costs us billions of dollars each year. The Constitution absolutely affirms our individual right to keep and bear arms. What would happen if a future Congress said that people were required to buy a handgun because deterring crime impacts commerce?

Can you imagine how the very Democrats who say it is perfectly legal to require people to buy health care insurance would react?

I know that many of them would be screaming about how it is unconstitutional and that the government does not have the right to force people to buy things, particularly a gun.

The government does not have the power to force anyone to buy anything.

And Democrats would soon realize that if people were required to buy handguns.

**This issue involves the federal government. At least one local jurisdiction has enacted a law requiring a gun to be kept in every house. Also, when we were founded all males between certain ages were required to have a firearm and ammunition in case the need to call the militia to service arose.

Related:
Two page repeal bill
Republicans move to repeal Obamacare
I am not the only one who had this thought

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: commerce clause, guns, health care, obamacare, Second Amendment

Mayor Daley Out Of Touch With The People

Jun 29, 2010 Political

Mayor Daley is not happy with the decision by the Supreme Court that says the Second Amendment applies to the states. He is an anti gun politician and he wants guns banned. He has no concern for the Constitution or for freedom. He only cares about power and how to get rich through Chicago corruption.

The people of Chicago see things a bit differently. They are happy with the decision. Some indicate that they have weapons to protect themselves even though the weapons are illegal (by virtue of the gun ban). People are willing to break the law to ensure their safety.

Daley cares not one bit and he vowed to enact a new law that will make it extremely difficult to own a gun. These tactics usually involve undue barriers that prevent people, particularly the poor, from getting weapons. The very same tactics that liberals used after slavery to terrorize the freemen.

Why should Daley care? He has armed guards to protect him.

At least the people get it. As one person puts it:

Another neighbor, 50-year-old Charlene Figgins, thinks Chicago Mayor Richard Daley is living in a different Chicago than she is and that he doesn’t understand the citizens’ need for protection.

She says it can take 30 minutes for police to respond to calls for help in her neighborhood. She says the mayor doesn’t have that problem. Chicago Tribune

Or as the bumper sticker says, when seconds count the police are minutes away.

9-1-1, government sponsored dial a prayer…

Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: armed guards, chicago, daley, gun control, liberty, Second Amendment

Supreme Court Decides What We Already Knew

Jun 29, 2010 Political

The fact that the Second Amendment is an individual right is indisputable except to lefties who have trouble understanding what the words “The People” and “shall not be infringed” mean. These are the same folks who refuse to believe in individual rights even though the Founders clearly stated such in their writings.

The issue changed to one of applicability to the states once the left lost its battle against individual rights. Then the issue became, well sure it applied in DC but that is not a state. It does not apply to the states.

The SCOTUS cleared that all up today with a decision that overturned a lower court ruling and remanded the issue back. The SCOTUS, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the states and that is because of the Fourteenth Amendment. For a long time the Fourteenth was not considered to apply to the states but that changed a half century or so ago and decisions have been reached that made the Bill of Rights (with exceptions to some portions) apply to the states. This idea is what allowed abortion to become legal and forced the states to comply. If the rights spelled out in the Constitution did not apply to the states then the Court could not have ruled that abortion was legal because it would be a federal, and only a federal, issue. This ignore the fact that abortion is not a right and is indicated only because it is “settled” law where the right was somehow found.

The Second was never considered though thinking people knew that it was included in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth; “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Which, as an aside, means the Arizona cannot violate Due Process since illegals are NOT citizens of the United States. But that is an issue for another time.

Interestingly but not surprising, gun grabbers are vowing to basically ignore the ruling issued today. Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago has vowed that his city will enact a new law soon that will prevent people from getting guns. This amounts to ignoring the law and is typical for Alinsky progressives. If the courts don’t rule your way then just ignore them. After all, this is what the Obama regime is doing with the drilling moratorium. They have vowed to ignore the court and issue a new moratorium.

How long will they do this before WE THE PEOPLE, decide to ignore the rules they come up with?

As for Daley, he is a first class slug and a hypocrite. While Daley does not believe that the people should be allowed to have guns, his aldermen are allowed to carry them. Richard Daley has about a dozen body guards on his detail and all of them are armed. Why is it that a person who works for the people of Chicago can have armed guards to protect him but will not allow the people to be armed to protect themselves.

No politician is any more important than the lowest in our society because even that person is the employer of the politician. I have little problem with presidents having armed security. Our enemies would love to attack a president and kill him. Other politicians are not that important and their demise would not cause turmoil in this country.

Think about it. If Richard Daley was killed by a would be criminal, would Chicago be in turmoil? No, they would replace him with another corrupt politician and keep on going. But Daley does not have to worry about that because he deems himself more important than the people who pay his salary. He is so against the people for whom he works that he will enact a law to keep people from getting guns because he knows better than our Founders, our Supreme Court and YOU.

Daley has no worries because his armed guards go with him even when he travels out of state. One of Daley’s armed guards caught an escaped criminal near the family vacation spot in Michigan while Hizzoner and the family were there. If you or I had been there we might well have been victims of the criminal.

I have a real problem with people like Daley, politicians who feel they are more important than the average folks and who deserve more protection. And the people are not even asking for taxpayer funded security. All we want is the ability to defend ourselves. This goes for people like Barack Obama who would love to ban guns and put more people in danger because average citizens are much more likely to be victims of crime than most politicians, particularly a president.

The Supreme Court put an end to the idea that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states today and it should be as sacrosanct to liberals as the issue of abortion. If it is settled law then let it be settled and let the people have their guns.

The opinion is a good read and in it Justice Scalia excoriates Justice Stevens as well he should. Stevens (and Breyer) ignore US history and the words of the Founders in their opinion and rely on the actions of other nations as well as their liberal views. Even though the facts are completely spelled out with historical references as to what keeping and bearing arms meant (and still means), these two ignored the facts and presented the progressive view. Justices should provide a legal view, not a political one.

How nice for the dress down of Stevens to be in the record for all time and to be issued on his last day on the Court. As Scalia put it (after destroying Stevens’ arguments):

In a vibrant democracy, usurpation should have to be accomplished in the dark. It is JUSTICE STEVENS’ approach, not the Court’s, that puts democracy in peril.

While today marks a victory for Americans and for freedom one thing is overshadowed. There are four Justices who voted against the Constitution and against the long history of this matter. They voted with the legacy of the Democrats in the south who made gun control laws that applied to blacks in order to control them.

These progressive liberals perpetuate that desire to enslave the citizenry in this nation. And this time they want to enslave all of us, regardless of color.

One last note. Any politician who is in favor of gun control and/or denies people the right to keep and bear arms should not be allowed to own or carry a gun and should NOT receive armed guards.

If you believe that there should be NO guns then there can be none for you. That goes for Obama, Daley and all the other hypocrites who think they are more important than we who employ them.

UPDATE: After the Heller decision Mayor Daley predicted all hell would break loose. That has not happened and gun crime in DC has dropped to pre gun ban levels.

Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: blacks, gun control, Obama, scalia, Second Amendment, slavery, stevens, supreme court, thomas

Al Franken And The Constitution

Oct 5, 2009 Political

Al Franken was questioning Assistant Attorney General David Kris with regard to the Patriot Act and Franken was particularly interested in the roving wire taps. Franken asked a few questions and then pulled out the copy of the Constitution that he received when he was sworn in and cited the Fourth Amendment. He then asked if Kris believed that the roving wire taps were in accordance with the Amendment. Kris explained that they were and cited the courts that have ruled on the issue.

Kris further explained that they actually go above and beyond what the FISA courts require.

It is also important to remember the Fourth Amendment deals with unreasonable searches and seizures.

I wrote long ago about the wire taps and the precedent as well as the court rulings. Carter, Clinton and a host of other presidents have done the same thing because it has been ruled as Constitutional and not unreasonable.

I agree with John at Powerline when he states:

Still, one can only commend Franken for reading that copy of the Constitution they gave him when he assumed office. Maybe he’ll let us know whether he finds anything about owning automobile companies and controlling American citizens’ health care.

I commend Franken for reading the Constitution even if he is fuzzy on what he has sworn with regard to it (“And I was sworn to uphold it, or support it anyway, and protect it”).

I have a copy of the Constitution that I carry with me. Every citizen should have one and every citizen should actually read it.

I would like to know how Franken weighs in on gun ownership and the right to keep and bear arms. I wonder if they get to that debate if he will wave his Constitution and cite the Second Amendment (which is the one that ensures all the others) while proudly affirming that the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Or will he decide that this Amendment is different and does not deserve support. You see, Franken has been against gun ownership and for tighter control and only changed his views when he ran for office:

Franken has expressed past reservation about private gun ownership and admitted to attending marches for gun-control; in Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot And Other Observations, he wrote that having guns in the home was “too dangerous” and included mocking language about needing a shotgun for every room of the house. In 2003’s book Oh, The Things I Know! he also wrote that those who donate to the NRA should volunteer at hospitals that treat gunshot victims. During the campaign, Franken took a more moderate stance, saying he supported the right to own and bear arms for protection and hunting, but it’s unclear how those statements will transfer to his Senate votes. Who Runs Gov

So it would seem that Franken is one of those folks who waves the Constitution but believes that only parts of it apply. He, like many liberals, believe that the Constitution does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. Gun control is infringement and violates the Second Amendment, so I wonder if Al will have his Constitution when that debate ensues.

I also wonder if Al could find that passage in the Constitution that allows abortion (Franken is strongly pro-abortion). Perhaps he could find the part that allows the government to take money from people and give it to other people (he is a proponent of heavily taxing the wealthy to pay for government largess). Like John, I would like to know what part allows government to own car companies and I am particularly interested in where the Constitution first defines the right to free health care and then where it says that the government has the right to force other people to pay for it. I would also be interested in the part that gives government the authority to force people to buy it.

I would like Franken to reconcile his positions that run contrary to the Constitution since he has waved his copy and decided that it should be followed (even if he does not understand when things are being legally followed).

Anyone who has Franken’s ear, please ask him how he can put on such a charade when his positions run contrary to the Constitution.

I would be interested in how he answers the questions though I have a feeling he would rationalize his unconstitutional positions.

Totally unrelated link to The Other McCain

Tags: al franken, constitution, fourth amendment, gun control, Second Amendment

About Guns And Rallies

Aug 23, 2009 Political

There have been several incidents of people with weapons being present at rallies or town hall type events. I have heard no reports that these people were breaking the law. A man in New Hampshire carried a sidearm to a rally and followed the established rule; he had to stay 1000 feet away from the building where Obama was speaking. The local police spoke to him and told him how far away he had to stay and to top it off, he was on private property and had permission to be there. In other words, he was breaking no laws. He was simply carrying his sidearm just as he does any other day.

Several other rallies have featured people carry slung rifles. These people were obeying the law and were evidently legally allowed to carry their arms. The media have gone nuts over this and MSNBC cropped a picture of a man carrying a rifle and then injected race into the debate. Black man in the White House, nuts carrying guns. The inference was that it was some racist white guy.

The photo that was cropped was of a BLACK man carrying a weapon. He was exercising his Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

The problem is, the people who are opposed to guns automatically assume that anyone carrying one is looking for trouble. The man in New Hampshire said that no one around him was troubled by his gun because people in that area are accustomed to seeing people carry weapons. He indicated that the folks bused in from Massachusetts were the ones who had a problem (and of course, the media).

I agree with him. People who are supporters of the Second Amendment have no problem seeing people carrying a weapon. I have no problems seeing people carry weapons. If any of these people had intended harm it is unlikely that they would draw attention to themselves by openly carrying a weapon. They were simply exercising their rights and that is something everyone should be comfortable with.

Anyone who sees a problem falls into the category of people who assume that a person with a weapon is intent on causing trouble. I see this as no different than the people who attend rallies and exercise their Constitutionally protected right to free speech.

The funny thing is that people who really used weapons to intimidate voters were given a free pass by the Obama Justice Department. Black Panther thugs in Philadelphia brandished weapons and intimidated voters. The slam dunk case was dropped by the Justice Department. Interestingly, Black Panthers showed up at the Republican National Convention in Houston with rifles in order to put on a show of force. Paul Begala celebrated them showing up with weapons.

Ken Shepherd at Newsbusters reminded us that 9 years ago during the Texas Republican Party Convention in Houston, TX, a dozen New Black Panther members showed up with rifles and putting on a show of force. Interestingly, Paul Begala celebrated the New Black Panthers’ showing up with weapons. Also, Kyle Drennen highlighted MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer lumping all gun-toting protesters together as white racists, even the black ones. Of note, one guest on Contessa’s show mentioned that there’s “anger about a black person being president,” but failed to mention that every assassination or attempted assassination of a U.S. president was carried out by a Leftist. Red Sounding

As long as they were legally carrying and were not trying to intimidate people then they were exercising their rights (though the show of force and their anger over a Bush decision might be viewed as intimidation). Besides, I doubt they would have had much success causing trouble. A lot of people in Texas carry weapons and the dozen Black Panthers would have been easily outgunned.

Where were these self righteous media types on these issues? Does anyone remember them making a big stink about thugs threatening people with batons? Did they devote any air time to discussing the hatred and impropriety of the acts of these thugs who were actually breaking the law? Where were they when Black Panthers were carrying rifles?

The Second Amendment is designed to keep the power with the people. Our right to keep and bear arms keeps us from being the victims of a tyrannical government.

It is also helpful when confronted by thugs at polling places wielding batons and communicating threats.

Other sources:
NewsBusters
MSNBC Cropped Video of black man with weapon. They clearly identify him as a white man.
ABC 15 News Video that shows the entire man. He is black.
Zomblog Shows the many signs advocating the death of Bush. Another example of media bias.

Tags: constitutional rights, gun control, media bias, Obama, Second Amendment