Posts Tagged ‘right to keep and bear arms’

Democrats Have Already Largely Seized Your Rights With Their Twisted, Hypocritical Rationales

March 24, 2014

If you want to know the point of this article in a nutshell it is this: liberals LOVE to call conservatives “fascists” because they are shameless liars.  The truth is brutally simple: fascism is impossible in any society where there is an armed citizenry free to resist it.  Fascism becomes inevitable ONLY when the wicked get their way and abolish the people’s ability to resist fascism.  And if you want to understand where liberals got their trick, turn in your Bible to the place where Jesus’ enemies accused Him of getting His power from Satan rather than from God.  The liberals tactic is as old as the devil.  Did Hitler want an armed people capable of resisting his small, limited government or did Hitler want a giant all-powerful State ruling supreme over a disarmed people?  The founding fathers made the armed people the champions and the government that wanted to take away their arms the oppressor; liberals twist it around to make the government that wants to disarm the people the champion and the armed people the oppressor.

We’re rapidly heading for a truly fascist America, and the people who are taking us there are doing so by twisted, hypocritical rhetoric.

Let me give you some examples.

Blackstone’s formulation put it this way:

It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer

TalkLeft found this quote regarding the fundamental presumption of innocence of an American citizen in our system:

“The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law

Okay.  That’s been the principle around which the liberal ACLU has represented pure, unadulterated scumbags.  Liberals LOVE enabling crime and thereby undermining society by wrapping themselves in a sacred principle only to pervert that principle.

But let’s see if these same liberals are consistent when we attempt to apply this reasoning to another fundamental constitutional principle, such as the 2nd Amendment: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  That’s the guarantee.  It’s better that ten people with nefarious intent get guns in their hands than that one innocent American lose his right to keep and bear arms in a free nation.

Now, I’ve never been convicted of a single crime.  In fact, I’ve never even been CHARGED or ACCUSED OF committing a single crime.  But when it comes to my ability to actually exercise my constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms, well, let’s just throw that “presumption of innocence” liberals claim to love out the window.  Because there AINT any.  I am presumed to be a potential mass-murdering psychopath who needs to have my rights stripped away for the good of the people.  The presumption of guilt is mine.  And liberals will not even LET me prove my innocence.

It’s the Constitution that liberals ultimately presume is truly guilty.  And where the Nazis failed trying to destroy it from outside, fascist liberals have largely succeeded by destroying it from within.

A rape victim - after literally being berated by a Democrat for her audacity in thinking she should have a right to protect herself with a gun – put it this way:

“How does rendering me defenseless protect you against a violent crime?”

For all their “war on women” bullcrap, Democrats presume women who have been violently raped to be guilty and to be unworthy of having one of the most central rights that the U.S. Constitution guaranteed: the right to keep and bear arms, to defend yourself and your property, without being infringed upon by the State.

The very last thing the Democrat Party wants is for a woman who is about to be raped shoot her would-be rapist.  They would MUCH prefer that she be raped and then become a whiny pathetic victim demanding that other women be raped by taking away their rights to defend themselves and prevent their rapes.

The Democrat Party IS the party of fascism.  They’ll talk about people’s “rights” to take sodomy up their rear ends and to murder their babies and to be a welfare parasite for life.  But they don’t give one flying DAMN about your actual rights guaranteed by the Constitution such as your gun rights and your religious freedom.  Far from it.  They want to take your actual constitutional rights away and give you their sodomy rights right up your ass whether you like it or not.

When you read the writings of the founding fathers, there is absolutely no question in the mind of anyone with the IQ of at least a ripe tomato that they intended the 2nd Amendment to be the people’s protection against government tyranny.  And you demon-possessed liberals read those quotes from our founding fathers and try to argue that they were on the side of those who wanted to take guns away from the American people.

But Democrats have been insidiously usurping our rights to have guns in every way imaginable.  Most of us have no idea how Democrats have already largely taken away your gun rights.

Here’s another example: wind turbines kill about 40 million birds - including endangered birds - every year.  Democrats don’t mind that one bit; it’s the small price of their insane “green” hatred of fossil fuels – and they frankly don’t care how many human beings they hurt with high energy prices any more than they give a damn about the millions of birds they kill.  But when a few birds die because they ate a carcass that had been killed with a lead bullet, well, we just have to take away your right to use bullets, don’t we???  It doesn’t matter how expensive it is or how hard it is to get the bullets they allow you to have.  The harder and the more expensive it is, in fact, the better.

I used to reload ammunition to cut down on costs.  I have a press and a number of dies to reload various cartridges.  They are nearly useless now, thanks to Democrats following the pattern of the Nazis to strip away guns and the ability to actually use them.

In order to buy just four ounces of gun powder (not very much, I assure you!) I have to fill out a form with the ATF in Democrat-owned California.  I have to state why I need gun powder and describe which guns I need gun powder for.  And then I have to wait for (at least!) twenty days.  And I have to do that every single time rather than just once and have my paperwork on file.

That’s a giant roadblock.  But there’s another, even bigger problem: I can’t even GET primers any more (see here too).  You just can’t buy them.  Anywhere.

And if you don’t reload, not only has your ammunition gone up massively in price, but try to even find it.  It’s like ObamaCare where you pay more and more to get less and less.  And I’m not talking about “dangerous” handgun or assault weapon ammunition: I’m talking about stuff like .22 plinking ammunition or – because Democrats have assured me that they’re not trying to take away my right to hunt – 30/30 Winchester (which has taken down more deer than any cartridge in America) ammunition.

Go to a store and try to buy it.  Good luck.  Hunting ammunition.  Again, even .22 ammo!  Democrats have so regulated it and so undermined ammunition in so many ways that you just can’t get it.  I spent six months in vain trying to buy 30/30 ammo at Wal-Mart and finally managed to snag three boxes.  As I was leaving, a guy went to the counter and asked if there was any 30/30 ammo.  And I heard the clerk say that guy just bought the last one.  And every single time I’d been in Wal-Mart for the previous six plus months I’d gone to that ammo shelf and looked for it in vain.

It’s not that you can’t buy it.  It’s just that it’s ALWAYSout of stock” in Obama’s God damn America.  Which is another way of saying “you can’t buy it.”  Not in Obama’s God damn America.

Democrats’ hypocrisy is simply stunning.

Fascists are always hypocrites.  The two go together hand in steel government gauntlet.

In effect Democrats are saying, “You have a right to your gun – as long as your gun is nothing more than a paper weight.  At least until we can take your paper weight gun away from you, too.”

Think about that logic: if I take away your cell phone carrier but allow you to keep your phone knowing full damn well your phone is USELESS, have I not taken away your cell phone???  You’re damn right I took it away when your phone is nothing more than a paper weight like people’s guns are these days.

Again, where’s my damn presumption of innocence that ought to allow me to exercise my constitutional rights in peace, you know, without being “infringed.”  Democrat fascists took it away from me.

To be a Democrat is to be a DEMOn-possessed bureauCRAT, I keep saying.  And here’s your hypocrite-without-shame-without-honor-without-decency-without-integrity-without-honesty-and-without-virtue-of-any-kind alert: let’s consider another example of Democrats blatantly contradicting themselves by their own twisted rationales with the right to vote.

Democrats tell me that to require ANY form of ID or ANY limitation whatsoever that would restrict people from voting such that only people who are lawfully registered to vote can vote ONCE is somehow a violation of the Constitution.  They tell me that ANY RESTRICTION AT ALL is a barrier to people’s constitutional rights.  You can’t ask for ID; that would be immoral.  You can’t require a voter ID card that has any cost to it even if you have subsidize the price of the card for the poor; that would be evil.

Apply that to my constitutional right to keep and bear my arms and try to stop laughing at the massive hypocrisy.   In order for me to even have a CHANCE at exercising my constitutional right to keep and bear arms, I have to pass so many ID checks I feel like Big Brother lives with me and then I have to pay right out my ass for the privilege of his constant companionship.

The right to vote is actually a dangerous thing: the NAZI Party was ELECTED.  You get more death and more evil electing evil leaders than you will EVER get with people being allowed to defend themselves.  The communists murdered more than 100 million people in peacetime.  The Democrats have so far murdered more than 55 million innocent babies by applying the same moral “logic” that the Nazis used to murder Jews and the Democrats leading up to the Civil War used to enslave blacks (they’re not really “human” so we can do what we like with them).

Do you know why Democrats cited that principle about preferring the guilty to go free rather than have one innocent person punished by the system?  It wasn’t that they give one flying damn about protecting the rights of the innocent – far from it as I have just PROVED.  It was rather that they wanted to create a crisis so they could “Never let a crisis go to waste.”  They wanted to deliberately destabilize the system (see here and here for examples).  They wanted to inflict America with millions of guilty people who would turn the nation upside down so that they could exploit the chaos and unrest created by the guilty to seize more and more power for their beloved fascist State.  In the same way that they want to inflict millions of illegal immigrants on America to overwhelm our system, to inflict millions of welfare parasites on our social support system, to inflict millions of sick people who won’t pay for their health care on our health system.  That’s all they wanted.  It was like ObamaCare: they wanted “to control the people.” Period.  Or to put it in Obama’s dishonest terms when he promised that you could keep your health plan and/or your doctor, “I guarantee it.”  “Period.  End of story.”

It takes integrity to be consistent.  And Democrats just don’t have any of either.

So they’ll implement their fascism in one area with one rationale.  And then they’ll implement their fascism in another area with a different rationale that blatantly contradicts the first rationale.  And they’ll do it over and over and over again until they have all the power and all the guns and the people have no power and no guns to resist them.  Because that’s who they are.

Democrats have been building toward a plan and a purpose for decades now: they want the Antichrist and the Mark of the Beast and they won’t be satisfied until they get the Antichrist and the Mark of the Beast.  They want a big-government liar who will literally be worshipped and they want a fascist State that is so powerful that it can literally take over complete control of all purchases such that no man or woman can buy ANYTHING unless that person has been approved by the State.

We may win in 2014.  I hope – but doubt – that we may actually get our way in the next presidential election as the sheer horror of the Democrat’s fascism begins to be felt (at least the parts that Obama hasn’t waived and waived again to try to cynically protect Democrats from the consequences of their policies on millions of Americans as they lose their health care, get dumped into inferior ObamaCare, and pay huge premiums and suffer amazingly high deductibles for the privilege.  But the same Bible that doesn’t mention America in prophecy because we’ve economically and militarily and politically imploded due to Obama’s incompetent fascism also assures us that the beast is coming and Democrats will deliriously cheer him and receive his mark.  They will ultimately get their way – and they will burn in hell for it.

And thanks to Democrats, you won’t have any guns or ammunition to protect yourself from his tyranny with when he comes.

If You Like ANY Of The Rights The Bill Of Rights Affirmed, You’d Better LOVE The 2nd Amendment’s Right To Keep And Bear Arms Without Infringement

February 4, 2013

Let’s take a quick look at the Bill of Rights.

Here’s a few things that stand out: the most important ones mention the rights of “the people.”

4th Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

2nd Amendment: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

And you see, the same liberal big government worshipers who feel like they are justified in infringing on a right that shall not be infringed will ultimately feel every scintilla as justified in violating rights that shall not be violated.

Maybe a liberal wouldn’t mind explaining to me why “the right to vote” means not having to show ID when the right to keep and bear arms without being infringed upon somehow necessitates not only an ID but background checks up the whazoo.  Their argument might amount to “the right to vote never killed anybody.”  And I’m saying, SERIOUSLY?!?!?  Dude, the Nazi Party in Germany was ELECTED.  We watched several years back as the Palestinian Liberation Organization – a murderous terrorist organization – was ELECTED.  We just watched as the Muslim Brotherhood – a murderous terrorist organization – was ELECTED in Egypt.  And that organization just imposed fascist sharia law over the nation’s constitution by fiat almost immediately afterward.

The right to vote is FAR more dangerous than the right for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.  And you are a moral idiot to the extreme not to understand that.

Moral idiots are far worse and far more dangerous than intellectual idiots.  Because moral idiots are people with dishonest minds and dishonest minds prefer lies to the truth.  Moral idiots such as those who run our culture today devote their intelligence to advancing lies.  And they are the first to justify extreme policies with the notion that the ends justify the means.

Let me point out that the very biggest moral idiots of all are the so-called “intellectuals” who dominate our universities and our political think tanks.  Thomas Sowell interacted with George Orwell to produce this gem:

“George Orwell said that some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool. The record of twentieth century intellectuals was especially appalling in this regard. Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the twentieth century was without his intellectual supporters, not simply  in his own country, but also in foreign democracies, where people  were free to say whatever they wished.  Lenin, Stalin, Mao and  Hitler all had their admirers, defenders, and apologists among the  intelligentsia in Western democratic nations, despite the fact that  these dictators ended up killing people of their own country on a  scale unprecedented even by despotic regimes that preceded them” – Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p. 2.

And a lot of the people who are such beyond-belief fools are the very same people who continue to be for banning guns “despite the fact that  these dictators ended up killing people of their own country on a  scale unprecedented even by despotic regimes that preceded them.”  They are consistent only in that they are so consistently morally stupid.

The nature of the big government socialist left was, is and will always be fascism.  And the nature of fascism has always been to deprive human dignity and freedom – starting with the right to self-defense.

Because herd animals shouldn’t have a right to defend themselves.  We don’t want our hamburgers getting guns any more than fascists want their people to resist their policies (such as Hitler’s Final Solution, such as Stalin’s Collectivization, such as Mao’s Great Leap Forward).

Which is why they’re going after our guns first just like Hitler and Stalin and Mao and Castro and Pol Pot and Kim Il-sung did before they brought the Horror against unarmed and defenseless people.  Considerably more than 100 million people were brutally murdered by leftist big government dictatorships during peacetime alone.  And the one thing all these governmental philosophies had in common besides big government totalitarian control was the initial disarming of the people they were about to impose horror against.  This is a fact of history.

What has the left done with the 2nd Amendment?  First of all, they have defined the right as belonging only to a militia.  Okay.  Then the 4th Amendment (and other important amendments such as the First Amendment) needs to be only for militias, because the same amendment which says the right of the people to bear arms says the right of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.  And if “the people” in the 2nd Amendment refers only to “militia,” then ALL of the rights accorded to the people only pertain for those belonging to a militia.  Because a right recognized for “the people” either applies to “the people” or it doesn’t.  And which is it?  Which do you want?  “The people” either refers to a militia or to the actual “people.”  Just because the right to arms are also granted to well-organized militias does not in any way, shape or form abrogate the right of “the people” to keep and bear arms any more than the mention of the right of the press somehow abrogates the right of the people to freedom of speech and to peaceable assembly as guaranteed in the First Amendment.

They also try to limit the 2nd Amendment by asserting that it somehow only allows for hunting.  Why shouldn’t we have a right to the frankly dishonestly named “assault weapons”?  Because you don’t need thirty bullets, or even ten, to shoot a deer, we’re told.  That is absolutely absurd.  The founding father’s writings are jam-packed LOADED with their clearly expressed view that the ultimate purpose of an armed citizenry was to serve as a safeguard against a tyrant government along with serving as a means for a free people to defend their homes, their property and their persons.  Lastly, they have infringed ALL OVER the 2nd Amendment guarantee while dishonestly saying they’re not infringing on anybody’s rights.

Fascism and government tyranny has started with the confiscation of guns from the people, to disarm them in order to control them.  Big government is ALWAYS about controlling people.

If you value ANY of the other rights of the Bill of Rights, then you’d damned well better protect the 2nd Amendment.

I keep telling anyone who will read me, over and over again: the beast is coming.  And he most certainly is.  And soon.

The thing you need to realize is that by the time he gets here, the Democrat Party will have given the once-great and mighty United States of America into his hands by disarming the people.  And it will be Democrats who worship this ultimate big government leader and take his mark on their foreheads or their right hands as a sign of that worship.

We just went through a disgusting act of propaganda via incredibly deceitful editing of video by the leftwing MSNBC.  Neil Heslin – the father of a slain Sandy Hook shooting victim – said, “I ask if there’s anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question … why anybody in this room needs to have one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.”  And then he categorically stated, “Not one person can answer that question.”

Yeah, Neil.  We CAN answer that question.  We have a right to be able to protect ourselves with the same sorts of weapons that either predatory criminals or an even more predatory criminal thug government possess.  Our founding fathers gave us that right, and our ancestors died to preserve that right for us.  Here’s a question for YOU, though: can you answer to the hundreds of millions of families who saw their governments brutally murder their parents, their children, their brothers and sisters, their grandparents, their cousins, etc. etc., just why it was that they didn’t deserve the right to be able to defend themselves???  Can you explain why you believe government ought to have the right to slaughter us like farm animals by the hundreds of millions???

That’s my question.

Consider smoking.  First the left forced restaurants to divide their buildings, airplanes, etc. into smoking and non-smoking sections.  But the nature of the left is to keep taking, keep building more regulations with more penalites.  Now you can’t smoke at all in any government place – whether the owner of that place likes it or not – and many people are not lawbreakers even for smoking in their own homes.  If that isn’t bad enough, you’ve got liberals saying that now that the left has taken over and socialized health care, it is too expensive to give the smokers the Medicare and health services they paid into.  And so they should die.  And I mean literally be killed by denial of medical treatment.

You’re only one government regulation away from being treated like Hitler treated the Jews or Stalin treated the Ukrainians or Mao treated, well, pretty much all of his people.

Obama DHS: You Have A Right To Defend Yourselves From Armed Workplace Crazies With Scissors (But Not Guns)

February 2, 2013

Does this mean that Obama’s Secret Service detail has handed in their Uzis for pairs of scissors?  I sure hope they’re those safety scissors with the dull tips.  You sure wouldn’t want anybody accidentally putting an eye out while fighting to save Obama’s life, would you?

Under Obama, you have the right to perish miserably in the wake of workplace violence.  The story you are about to read is silent testimony to the fact that a crazed killer is out to murder you and your co-workers, you can’t have an actual weapon to protect yourself with – and there won’t be any cops coming anywhere NEAR in time to help you.  So grab your scissors.

And maybe you could grab a rock and a piece of paper and play with the murdering psycho for your life?

I know, I know.  That’s racist.  Thank you, President Hussein.  Praise you, messiah!  I feel so empowered with my scissors now.  While I’m waiting for my turn to be slaughtered I’ll be able to make arts and crafts!  Origami always did make me forget all about being gunned down by, you know, the only guy allowed to have a gun in your building.

Oh, origami doesn’t use scissors?  That’s okay; NEITHER DO I WHEN I’M CONFRONTING A MAN WITH A GUN.

I actually think it would have been a better idea to teach people to just give in to their terror and wet themselves.  Maybe the gunman would slip or something.

DHS Says: Confront Mass Killers With Scissors

From the New York Post:

Homeland Security has advice for confronting mass murders: scissors

By S.A. MILLER | January 31, 2013

WASHINGTON — Is your workplace getting shot up by a crazed gunman? No problem — just grab a pair of scissors and fight back!

That’s some of the helpful advice in a new instructional video from the Department of Homeland Security that was posted on the agency’s Web site just a month after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.

“If you are caught out in the open and cannot conceal yourself or take cover, you might consider trying to overpower the shooter with whatever means are available,” says the narrator in the video, which shows an office worker pulling scissors out of a desk drawer.

The video, titled “Options for Consideration,” also advises that people who get caught in an “active shooter” situation should run away, hide under a desk or take cover out of the line of fire.

Thank goodness we have highly paid professionally trained bureaucrats available to give us great advice like that. This is right up their with the DHS’ advice about stretching before shoveling snow, and remembering to take off cold wet clothes.

The nearly four-minute-long video opens with chilling scenes from the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, the 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood in Texas, and the 2011 attempted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords.

But the video quickly shifts to hokey footage of office workers scampering under desks, crouching in corners and racing into closets to hide from a rampaging gunman on the loose.

“To protect your hiding place, lock the door if you can. Block the door with heavy furniture,” recommends the male narrator, speaking in measured, authoritative tones.

Other survival strategies promoted in the video include hiding “behind large items such as cabinets or desks. Remain quiet. Silence your cellphone or pager. Even the vibration setting can give away a hiding position.”

They might also recommend taking down any ‘gun free zone’ signs.

Richard Feldman, president of the Independent Firearm Owners Association, said he has a better option for consideration than a pair of scissors when confronting an armed mass murderer — a legal firearm.

“That’s why I prefer a gun, and I usually do carry a gun when it is lawful to do so,” said Feldman. “Clearly, you use whatever you can” to fight for your life, he said…

What kind of crazy talk is that? We hold Mr. Feldman’s doctor contacts the authorities so that he can be put away.

The video is part of the Obama administration’s ongoing campaign to reduce firearm violence in the wake of the horrific mass murder last month of 20 children and six teachers in Newtown, Conn., said a Homeland Security official…

The video was released to coincide with President Obama’s sweeping proposals to curb gun violence in America, said the official…

The only trouble is, all the scissors in that Sandy Hook school would have been ‘safety scissors.’

Besides, once people starting hurting each other with scissors, they will have to be banned as well.

Nobody with one of the 400 million guns already in America will ever dare to attack my workplace now.  I’m armed with scissors.

Now, I guess all I need is to figure out how to do this:

Edward Scissorhands

Mind you, I’d kind of rather have a gun.  For one thing, judging by all the scars on poor Edward’s face, it would be quite a bit safer than the alternative pair of scissors that Obama says I can fight back with.  But because I live in the Obama States of America, I am now a farm animal.  And if the slaughterer comes, it is my duty to meekly comply with my turn to be slaughtered.

Wait a minute, what’s that, Obama?  I can’t have these scissors?  Because they’ve been classified as “assault scissors”?  Well, dang.  That just figures.

Fascists Playing Fast And Loose With The Constitution Before They Abolish It Entirely: Since When Did The 2nd Amendment Just Allow People To HUNT?

January 11, 2013

Barack Obama said something really, really stupid while he was demonizing the so-called “assault weapons.”

He called them “weapons of war” and declared that the American people don’t need them and therefore shouldn’t be allowed to have them.  Even though he demands that his Secret Service have fully automatic machine pistols to protect him and his family and his top political advisers.

First of all, however, Obama is either ignorant or lying about the “assault weapons” being “weapons of war.”  Because no they aren’t: they are strictly semi-automatic civilian versions of “weapons of war.”  The assault rifle – after which the so-called “assault weapon” is modeled – is a weapon capable of selective fire from semi-automatic to full automatic fire.  Actual “weapons of war” have not been sold in the U.S. outside of a rare few gun dealers for generations.

The reason Democrats coined the term “assault weapons” to describe these legal, civilian versions of guns was because they knew they could use the similarity of terms (“assault rifle” vs. “assault weapons”) and deliberately confuse and conflate the two in the minds of the public.  Democrats thrive best at games of rhetorical slandering.  It is all they know how to do well, given the fact that they are clearly incapable of governing or leading when they slander their way to power.

Obama was factually lying when he called the weapons we can buy in gun stores “weapons of war.”  That is simply a fact.  And sadly, it is the consistent, characteristic tactic based on lies and half-truths that the left has chosen in its campaign to join Nazi Germany, the U.S.S.R., and the worst regimes on earth that have banned and confiscated guns.

That said, Obama’s demagogic term – “weapons of war” – was EXACTLY what the 2nd Amendment guaranteed us the right to keep and bear.  Unless you are so breathtakingly stupid that you actually believe there were different types of guns in the America of the founding fathers, and that they only allowed some and specifically forbade the “weapons of war.”

When the founding fathers said that the right to keep and bear arms was a sacred one, THEY SPECIFICALLY INTENDED THOSE ARMS TO BE “WEAPONS OF WAR.”  And the liberals who deny that fact are either abject liars – or they are just the stupid people who are infamously called “useful idiots” in their desire to naively and stupidly help fascists and tyrants.

And no lying, slandering demagogue can change that fact – even if he deceives the people into surrendering their weapons the way Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot deceived their people into surrendering their weapons.

This brings me to the point that many other lying, dishonest Democrats have been stating: that they aren’t out to take away hunting rifles and thus somehow are preserving the 2nd Amendment if they take away every OTHER kind of gun.

The 2nd Amendment was a reaction against government tyranny in the minds of the founding fathers.  They did not want America to be a repeat of the Britain they had just won their independence from.  They wanted an armed citizenry that the government would have to fear and respect.  They wanted a people who would be capable of rising up against tyrant government.  They wanted a people capable of rising up against abuses of power.

Obama and his ilk have been trying to take us back to the status of a disarmed and therefore helpless people ever since.

Patrick Henry in 1775 said, “They tell us that we are weak — unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Three million people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.”

Noah Webster said, “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 of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”

Richard Henry Lee said, “Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”

Does that sound like he meant that Americans ought to have the right to shoot at squirrels but not the right to defend themselves from the far more dangerous vermin threatening them???

John Adams said, “Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense.”  Thomas Jefferson said, “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”  And if that isn’t strong enough Jefferson also said, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands.”

And Patrick Henry again said, “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.”

Thomas Paine said also in 1775, “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; the weak would become a prey to the strong.”

Which is another way of saying that if you don’t want to be a victim of a criminal thug or an even worse criminal thug government, exercise your right to keep and bear arms.  And anybody who tries to take away our guns is trying to take away our freedom and our security.

Samuel Adams said, “Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.”  We have seen how much Democrats value human life given the fact that they have butchered more than 55 million human beings conceived in America in their abortion mills.  And we have now seen that they don’t value the right to liberty, the right to property or the right to self-defense any more than these murderers value the right to life.

And which is to therefore to say that Obama and his ilk are precisely why the founding fathers enumerated the right to keep and bear arms in the first place.  Democrats are bad people who want to take away your ability to protect yourself so they can dominate and crush you with their totalitarian government system.  Period.  And they are the worst kind of liars who deliberately distort and fabricate history to get what they want.

There have been more than a hundred million human beings who could have told you that their governments first took away their guns and then took away their lives.  But alas, their governments murdered them and their voices are forever silent until Judgment Day.  But their silent testimonies scream to every non-fascist who yearns to be free from tyranny.  And to the extent that liberals give a damn about what Hitler did to the millions of disarmed Jews he murdered, to the extent that they care about the millions of disarmed Ukranians that Stalin starved to death, to the extent they understand how many tens of millions of disarmed Chinese Chairman Mao murdered with his incompentence and malevolence in his Great Leap Forward, well, one can only conclude that they want all that to happen here, too.  Because what liberals most cherish is the ideal of the American people being cowed and defenseless against giant government.

The founding fathers framed the right to keep and bear arms as a moral issue: you have a God-given right to defend yourself, your family, your home and your place of business.  Anybody who would try to take that right from you is an immoral person.  Liberals also frame gun control as a moral issue; but on their “morality” government is God, and if your god wants to deprive you and your family of liberty and life, you are an immoral person for wanting to have any means to protect yourselves from the State.  But they dishonestly bait-and-switch that their real moral argument with a different pseudo-argument: that guns kill people and if we take away the guns people won’t kill people.

It’s a lie no matter how you slice it.  Did you know that, “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns”?????  Did you know that the Aurora, Colorado psycho who went to town in the movie theater chose the only movie theater among the seven that were close to him (he actually drove by movie theaters to get to his target!) that had been designated as a gun free zone???  Did you know that the states and the cities with the tightest gun control laws  lead the nation in gun crime???   Go to Obama’s and Rahm Emanuel’s Chicago and tell me what life is like there.  Why on earth do you think taking away guns from law-abiding people would do anything other than embolden the criminals and murderers to prey on the helpless victims???

The day that Obama succeeds in taking away your right to guns is the day that you declare that you, your spouse and your children do not deserve to live.  Because it will be the day that you agree with Obama that rather than being a human being with the God-given right of self-defense, you are nothing more than a farm animal – and if the government decides it is time to cull the herd, then off to the slaughter house you will meekly go.

Obama believes that only he and his family merit protection with guns.  The rest of you herd animals don’t deserve it.  The Journal News that published the names and addresses of gun owners along with a map showing how to get to their homes afterward decided that while the rest of the meat animals don’t have a right to be defended with guns, they do.  And they hired armed security like the hypocrite fascists that they as liberals are.

I made the point that liberals (a.k.a. fascists) have been playing fast and loose with the Constitution before they abolish it entirely.  Consider the recent liberal law professor from liberal Georgetown University who called on America to scrap its “archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil” Constitution.  Consider the Obama judge who ruled that the Constitution doesn’t give Americans the right to bear guns even though the 2nd Amendment very definitely says “keep and bear.”  The Constitution is merely an inconvenient document that needs to be thrown aside for the left to exalt in the power it seeks over the people.  Consider the incredible attitude that liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has toward the Constitution.  Consider the cynical and manipulative attitude the collectivist Supreme Court liberals have displayed toward the Constitution.  Consider the mocking attitude that Democrats repeatedly displayed toward the Constitution in their ramming ObamaCare down the now-collectivist American throat.  Consider that Democrats don’t believe that their right to power by regulating the people has ANY constitutional limits.  Consider the Democrats who went on record boycotting the U.S. Constitution.  Consider how Democrats demand that government grow larger and more powerful and that religion grow smaller and more marginal when our founding fathers demanded the exact opposite.  Consider the abject dishonesty and hypocrisy of Democrats for refusing to allow ANY ID checks for voting so illegals can vote Democrat but demand restrictions up the whazoo for those who wish to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.  Consider that whereas our Declaration of Independence clearly says that all of our rights and liberties are based on GOD, Democrats actually took God out of their party’s platform last year.  Which is to state that Democrats declared that God has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights they want to take away from the American people or the new “rights” they want to impose on the American people.  Consider that similarly, Obama demands the government-forced redistribution of wealth whereas our founding fathers had said, “Over our dead bodies!”  And consider Obama’s dismissive attitude toward the Constitution as a flawed document by deeply flawed people.  And realize that our Constitution is headed for the dung pile of history as Democrats who have already largely killed the tree of liberty by a death of a thousand cuts are now increasingly demanding that the dead husk of that tree be chopped down once and for all.

If Obama really wanted to deal with gun violence, he would come clean on what happened in Benghazi, Libya where the first American ambassador since Jimmy Carter was screwing up the planet was murdered along with the three other Americans who died trying to keep him alive.  If Obama really wanted to deal with gun violence, he would finally explain why his government ordered thousands of the very assault weapons he most demonizes to be placed in the hands of drug cartel killers in Mexico.  The fact of the matter is that Obama doesn’t give a damn about gun violence; he just wants to finally end the ability of the American people to protect and defend themselves against his next wave of fascist abrogation of the Constitution and the American way of life.

Democrats’ goal is to make certain that you are powerless and helpless against the coming Antichrist.  Obama’s most cherished goal is, to put it in Orwellian terms, “a government boot stomping on a human face forever.”

Lunatic Liberals And Their Dumbass Argument Against Voter ID Laws

August 15, 2012

Al Sharpton explained why checking the ID of voters is tantamount to putting black people in chains and selling them into slavery:

Al Sharpton: Protecting the Voting Rights
Casting a ballot is a right, not a privilege. New laws restricting that right are wrong.
By Al Sharpton
August 7, 2012

A voting rights march in the Alabama town of Selma in 1965 was broken up by baton-wielding police. (Associated Press)

The American Revolution, which created our nation, was a fight for self-governance.

The American Evolution, which delivered the promises of democracy to all Americans, was a longer struggle, requiring countless protests, marches, sacrifices and even lives lost, all of which led to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This landmark legislation became the great equalizer, bringing about the end of discriminatory practices of voter disenfranchisement. It was a victory for justice and for all Americans.

Now we face a new threat: that of an American De-volution, which could reverse nearly 50 years of progress since the Voting Rights Act.

Across the country, states have passed or have proposed new rules for voting, such as photo ID requirements and restrictions in early and absentee voting. The laws are new, but to many of us they’re just the same old tricks. I remember when tactics like these were called Jim Crow.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, 10 states now have highly restrictive photo ID laws that require citizens to produce specific types of government-issued documents to vote: Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kansas, South Carolina, Alabama and Texas.

Alabama’s law won’t take effect this year, and others face legal scrutiny, but it’s possible that the restrictive rules will affect 127 electoral votes — almost half of the 270 needed to win the presidency in 2012.

And who are the voters who will be affected? As the Brennan Center reports, more than 1 in 10 eligible voters in the U.S. do not possess the kind of IDs required by those 10 states. More specifically, 1 in 4 African Americans, 1 in 6 Latinos and 1 in 5 Americans over age 65 lack the requisite ID.

Though it may be difficult for some of us to imagine, many of these people simply do not drive or cannot afford a vehicle and therefore don’t possess a driver’s license. And the process of obtaining a valid ID — even when the states issue them for free — can be costly to those on fixed incomes or for those who must take time off from work, lose wages and find the means to travel to a government agency. Often they must produce copies of items such as birth certificates, which not only cost money to reproduce but may take weeks to process.

If these added difficulties weren’t discouraging enough, in Wisconsin, Mississippi and Alabama, fewer than half of all ID-issuing offices are open five days a week and none are open on the weekends. And many have irregular operating hours. The Brennan Center documented an office in Mississippi open only on the second Thursday of the month, and in Wisconsin, only on the fifth Wednesday (only four months in 2012 have five Wednesdays).

Those championing tough new voter ID laws say they are concerned about voter fraud. I’ve heard their arguments: “What’s wrong with requiring voters to have an ID? After all, you need a state-issued ID to drive, to get on an airplane, to write a check. Why not to vote?”

Here’s why. On a fundamental level, that argument confuses privileges with rights. No American has a constitutional right to drive, fly or pay by check. We do not have constitutionally protected rights to rent cars or to use credit cards. That some people think these activities are comparable to voting is alarming — and revealing.

[Me: it's at this point that Al Sharpton literally refutes himself if we just consider ONE fact that he refuses to mention]

Every American 18 or older has the right to vote. Poor Americans, black Americans, Americans who live in rural areas, Americans of every background. For decades we have recognized this truth, making it easier to vote, expanding options for casting ballots and improving access to registration. These new ID laws take us backward; they truly are nothing more than modern-day poll taxes and literacy tests.

We’re watching history repeat itself.

Why now? For the same reason partisans demanded to see President Obama‘s birth certificate. For the same reason some whisper that the president is a Muslim: to de-legitimize those with whom they disagree. The new voter suppression movement has taken off since the game-changing 2008 presidential race, when minorities and young voters turned out in record numbers.

Most of these first-time or occasional voters cast their ballots for Obama. Very quickly, Republicans began doing their best to stop them from voting again. Even a few hundred thousand votes not counted or cast in battleground states such as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin could make a big difference in November.

I’ll be in Los Angeles on Thursday to keynote the Western Baptist State Convention. The focus of the convention this year will be on systematic voter disenfranchisement. We as a nation must realize the suppression is spreading. According to the Brennan Center, since the beginning of 2011, at least 180 restrictive bills have been introduced in 41 states, and 19 states have cut back on voting rights in various ways.

Millions of voters are at risk, and wherever we live, we must combat voter disenfranchisement nationwide. The ability for Americans to participate in the process was won by all; we now must join together once again to ensure that it stays that way.

The Rev. Al Sharpton is the president of National Action Network and the host of “PoliticsNation” on MSNBC.

I want you first to consider the picture.  If you support voter ID laws, you’re one of those thugs who are literally beating black people for trying to vote.  You ought to be ashamed of yourselves; you probably clubbed little baby black children, too.  Well, at least the forty percent of black babies that escape Al Sharpton’s abortion holocaust.  Consider that Planned Parenthood was caught on tape agreeing with the statement of being “against blacks in college.” Why? Because “The less black kids out there the better.” And consider that Al Sharpton is all for more killing of black babies.

Consider that liberal heroine Margaret Sanger said “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” 

Liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed and explained, “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

Reverend Sharpton says “Amen to that!”

Apparently, there is something truly wrong with black children that Al Sharpton knows about.

Anyway, in an article about seeking laws that require that somebody be who they claim they are when they’re voting, Al Sharpton and the LA Times throw in a picture of black people being beaten.  Because it is a well-documented fact (as per MSNBC) that absolutely every single person who wants Voter ID laws has physically taken a bat and beaten a black person into a coma.  So that’s why the picture is so appropriate.

This is the point where Al Sharpton either reveals he is a truly stupid man or that he is an incredibly dishonest one:

Those championing tough new voter ID laws say they are concerned about voter fraud. I’ve heard their arguments: “What’s wrong with requiring voters to have an ID? After all, you need a state-issued ID to drive, to get on an airplane, to write a check. Why not to vote?”

Here’s why. On a fundamental level, that argument confuses privileges with rights. No American has a constitutional right to drive, fly or pay by check. We do not have constitutionally protected rights to rent cars or to use credit cards. That some people think these activities are comparable to voting is alarming — and revealing.

Every American 18 or older has the right to vote. Poor Americans, black Americans, Americans who live in rural areas, Americans of every background. For decades we have recognized this truth, making it easier to vote, expanding options for casting ballots and improving access to registration. These new ID laws take us backward; they truly are nothing more than modern-day poll taxes and literacy tests.

We’re watching history repeat itself.

Put on your thinking caps, boys and girls: is there a “right” that liberals LOVE to regulate and routinely flat-out try to deny and take away?

Hey, “Reverend” Al.  Have you ever heard about this thing called the 2nd Amendment?  Yeah, it’s pretty neat: it says, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  It even says “right” right there!

It’s kind of interesting how you forgot about that right, Reverend Al.  But I guess I can understand why: it turns that whole article of yours into something truly idiotic.

Al Sharpton has frequently protested guns.  Al Sharpton’s partner in slime Jesse Jackson actually protested guns shops to try to shut down people from being able to buy or sell the guns that the Constitution says we’ve got a RIGHT which shouldn’t be INFRINGED.

It’s kind of convenient and interesting that Al Sharpton somehow forgot a RIGHT that he has dedicted himself to undermining while he is simultaneously arguing that such rights are sacrosanct. 

This is why people like me use terms like “hypocrite” to describe people like Al Sharpton.

If Al Sharpton had so much as a microscopic particle of credibility, he would be out there demanding that everybody ought to be able to help themselves to a giant pile of guns.  And anybody who tries to check or inspect the IDs of those who want to exercise their RIGHTS to keep and bear arms in any way, shape or form is tantamount to a club-weilding fascist thug beating on the head of some poor victom.

That’s right.  If Al Sharpton and his idiot left were consistent in any way, shape or form, they would be loudly demanding that “ID checks” be immediately suspended for anyone trying to get his or her hands on a gun.  Either that, or these hypocrite slimebags would be affirming that, you know what, yes, some rights carry responsibilities.

It isn’t that we refute the lunatic left with our arguments for voter ID laws; they refute themselves with their own idiotic arguments.

For the historical record, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party was ELECTED to rule Germany.  Voting can be every damn bit as dangerous as guns – unless you’re fine with another Adolf Cockroach Hitler.

Either we have a damn RIGHT to demand that everybody voting be able to document who they say they are in order to prevent elections from being stolen or the left doesn’t have a right to check the ID of anyone who wants to get his or her hands on a gun.  Period.

I write as somebody who views the right to vote and the right to keep and bear arms as require some level of inspection.  Criminals shouldn’t be able to own guns; but criminals shouldn’t be able to VOTE, either.  They shouldn’t be able to vote twice or ten times.  They shouldn’t be able to vote in other people’s names.  They shouldn’t be allowed to steal elections as they clearly did in the case of Al Franken.  In other words, I write as somebody having something called “integrity” that Al Sharpton has never had and probably never will have.

As we speak, the same Democrats who are so loudly standing up for the right of undocumented people to vote because those who cheat vote Democrat are at the same time disenfranchising legitimate Floridian voters and military voters.

Let me just say one more thing: Al Sharpton cites the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  For the historical record, I want you to note the Republican-Democrat voting tallies:

Senate: 77–19

  • Democrats: 47–17 (73%-27%)
  • Republicans: 30–2 (94%-6%)

House: 333–85

  • Democrats: 221–61 (78%-22%)
  • Republicans: 112–24 (82%-18%)

It is a FACT that Republicans supported the Voting Rights Act by a higher percentage in BOTH branches of Congress than did Democrats.  I point this out because a lot of people are stupid and ignorant of the truth, having been indoctrinated by media propaganda lies.

Republicans are all FOR valid civil rights, just as they were when they fought a Civil War against Democrats to free the slaves.

Update, 8/15/12: Thank God a federal judge just ruled that Pennsylvania’s voter ID law can go forward.

My Response To Liberals About Gun Control (It’s Really Conservatives Who Ought To Read It, Though).

July 31, 2012

Liberals can’t understand why anyone would want an “assault weapon” (which many literally think is a fully automatic machine gun rather than the completely SEMI-automatic version of the military assault rifles which are actually of a fairly lightweight caliber).

“You don’t need one of those to hunt,” they’ll say.  As if they think rightwing Republicans are all like Jed Clampett out in the woods “shootin at some food.”

Obama says, “AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals.”  Let’s leave aside the fact that the AK-47s that actually ARE in the hands of soldiers are capable of fully automatic fire – which documents that Obama is one of the demagogues who are deliberately trying to confuse and mislead the American people into banning guns that have ALREADY been banned so he can fool them into supporting new restrictions on their constitutional rights.  Another couple of questions arise: 1) Does Obama not know which military he commands?  Because in point of fact only COMMUNIST soldiers use AK-47s.  Have his Marxist economic policies left him confused, or is he simply that astonishingly ignorant about this issue he’s lecturing us about?  2) A further thing that leaves me scratching my head is why Obama thinks that gun laws are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals GIVEN THE FACT THAT “CRIMINALS” ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE BY DEFINITION WHO DON’T OBEY DAMN LAWS.  This takes us to the dilemma that if you criminalize guns, only criminals will end up having them.  Which is why in actual FACT liberal cities are far more violent than conservative cities.  Especially the cities like Chicago that have the most restrictive gun laws which prevent law-abiding people from protecting themselves.  And the only way to actually “ban” all of these “AK-47s” is to kick down every single damn door in America to confiscate them in what would be the most tyrannous day in the entire history of the republic (and keep reading to see below for WHY we have a right to keep and bear arms in the first place).

The reality is that the so-called “assault weapons” are excellent multi-purpose rifles, and many people who don’t have unlimited money particularly like these weapons for their multiple uses: you can use them for hunting; you can use them for home defense; you can use them to protect your rights as an American citizen against any who would seek to take those rights away; and boy are they ever fun to use for target shooting.  That’s what my dad would call a “four-fer.”  And add to all of that the fact that they are designed to be light weight.  If I weren’t a rich liberal like the ones who are trying to take away our ability to protect ourselves while they drive around in armored cars with their armed security details, and I could only afford to buy one gun, I would want an assault weapon.

I’d like to see a garden-variety liberal try to protect their property from a mob of looters during a riot with the sort of guns they say everyone should be limited to.  The term “neo-conservative” refers to “liberals who have been mugged by reality.”  If you are one of the people who have been forced to protect what you have spent your life building from those who want to take it away from you and burn what they leave behind, and when you look through the smoke there are no police around to protect you, then you are one of the people who understand that “assault weapons” have a very useful purpose, indeed.

Many of your self-considered “broadly tolerant” liberals believe that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the black powder smoothbore muskets that were in vogue the day the Constitution was signed.  Of course, there are plenty of liberals who would eagerly take even THOSE away from us.  The fact of the matter is that those black powder smoothbores that every American was not only allowed to have but encouraged to have when the Constitution was written were the most modern military firearms available at the time.  And the fact of the matter is that the 2nd Amendment – and think for a second why it would be the second most important thing the founding fathers believed in after they considered freedom of religion and freedom of speech – was a reaction against government tyranny.  The founding fathers wanted the government to fear the people rather than for the people to fear the government – which has as a matter of documented historical FACT been a terrible consequent of many states that have taken away the right to keep and bear arms.

Which is why James Madison said, “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Which is why James Madison also said, “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Which is why Noah Webster said, “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of 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 bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”

Which is why Alexander Hamilton said, “…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…”

Which is why Alexander Hamilton also said, “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”

Which is why Richard Henry Lee said, “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.”

Which is why Patrick Henry said, “The great object is that every man be armed” and “everyone who is able may have a gun.”

Which is why Patrick Henry also said, “Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”

And which is why Patrick Henry also said, “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.

Which is why Samuel Adams said, “That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…”

Which is why Thomas Jefferson said, “The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

Which is why Thomas Jefferson also said, “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”

And which is why Thomas Jefferson also said, “No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

Which is why George Washington said, “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.

And which is why even the wise philosopher Aristotle said, “Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people.”

It’s not like this is a matter of any question to any intelligent, educated person.  The founding fathers were crystal clear that the people have the necessary right to keep and bear arms.  And literally that any government that would try to take away those arms was a tyrannous government that in fact exemplified why arms should be in the hands of the people in the first place!

In fact, liberals, the very fact that you keep trying to use raw government power to take away our guns is why we should be all the more determined to keep our guns.  Because according to the founding fathers you are the very people that we should be armed against.

Liberals love to assert that the 2nd Amendment never really applied to “the people” but rather to a “militia.”  What is funny is that the very liberals who say that guns shouldn’t be in the hands of the people are also the most suspicious and intolerant of people in militias, too!  Which underscores the fact that these liberals are truly anti-gun AND anti-Constitution and merely cynically offer whatever pretense will get them what they want.  But leaving that aside, let’s example the argument:

The 2nd Amendment: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Here’s what’s wrong with that view: To whom do the rights accorded in the 1st Amendment belong: to “the people” or to “a well regulated militia”?

If liberals want to be logically and morally and historically and grammatically consistent with their 2nd Amendment view about gun rights only belonging to militias, they must therefore concede that “the people” do not have the right to peaceably assemble or to petition the government for any redress of grievances (1st Amendment) or to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures (4th Amendment and see also the rights guaranteed by the 9th and 10th Amendments) - because only those in a “well regulated militia” would possess those rights and any other rights the Constitution claims for “the people.”  It is completely arbitrary and in fact downright irrational thinking to suggest that “the people” means one thing for the purpose of the 2nd Amendment but something entirely different for every other usage of the exact same phrase in the very same document.

To return to what I previously stated that liberals become the very people that our founding fathers warned us about, in trying to take away rights that clearly belong to “the people” are by so doing denying and undermining every other right that similarly belongs to “the people.”  And thank God I have guns as long as there are people who think that way.

Let me further mention a typical liberal view that guns are dangerous because “guns kill people.”

You could give me a nuclear bomb and I would do everything in my power to ensure that that nuclear bomb was used responsibly – which is to say that I would never use it in any situation I could possibly envision.  You could give me a fully automatic machine gun to carry around with me at port arms and I would never mow down a crowd. Conservatives are people who can own guns and not murder innocent people.  Liberals – by their own views – are apparently not such people.  Rather, if they had a gun, that gun, being inherently dangerous and evil, would immediately begin to leach away at their feeble liberal intellects and their gutless liberal moral wills.  Liberals affirm that they are bad people, weak people, who should not be entrusted with the responsibility that the founding fathers provided for free men.

This gets to the heart of the issue between liberals and conservatives.  It comes down to something that John Adams said:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

In their views of guns and their attitude toward the 2nd Amendment, liberals implicitly if not explicitly admit that they are NOT the kind of people that the Constitution was made for; they are bad people.  They are people who have no morality and no religion; and the Constitution and its protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights are therefore wholly inadequate for them.

Our Constitution was written to create “a new nation, conceived in liberty” as Lincoln would later say.  It was to be a nation different from the nations of Europe, in which all men were equal and men were free to think and believe and decide for themselves.  And Madison’s point was that only a moral and religious people could exercise the necessary self-restraint to have those kinds of freedoms.  Amoral and irreligious people, on the other hand, could be controlled only by ever-increasing levels of totalitarian government tyranny.

George Washington – the father of our country – was even MOREstridently clear. Washington said:

“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” — George Washington, Farewell Address

If you want your politics to prosper, the two things you will not separate will be religion and morality. If you want your government to work well, if you want American exceptionalism, if you want the government to do right, if you want all this, then you won’t separate religion and morality from political life. And America’s greatest patriot gave a litmus test for patriotism. He says in the very next sentence (immediately continuing from the quote above):

“In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” — George Washington

Washington says, Anyone who would try to remove religion and morality from public life, I won’t allow them to call themselves a patriot. Because they are trying to destroy the country.

And the point here is that liberals again and again on issue after issue reveal themselves to be the kind of people that George Washington and the founding fathers of this country would have labelled “traitors.”  They are NOT patriots; they are men and women who “labor to subvert these great pillars” such as morality and religion and, yes, the 2nd Amendment protections provided for “the people.”

Consider one particularly infamous and evil example of the fact that Democrats routinely demonize the very “religion and morality” that George Washington and our founding fathers said was the defining foundation of our Constitution.

Liberals have worked hard for the last fifty years to take away our morality and our religion.  In so doing, they have given us the very violence that is now spiralling out of control.  Liberals are the kind of people who have taken away prayer.  Liberals are the kind of people who have refused to allow the posting of the Ten Commandments because “If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments,” and God-as-Government forbid that children be allowed to do something like that.  Liberals are the kind of people who have imposed godless abortion upon society to the tune of 54 MILLION innocent human beings butchered since 1973.  Liberals are the kind of people who have destroyed fatherhood, because according to liberals fathers did not father children, but strictly non-human lumps of biological goop such that they should not be allowed to have any influence whatsoever as to whether their own babies be allowed to even live.  Liberals are the kind of people who have imposed pornography on us because liberal justices are moral idiots who are morally incapable of differentiating between art and XXX-rated sex movies.  Liberals are the kind of people who imposed no-fault divorce without limit or condition upon us because breaking up families is more important than asking couples who took a vow to one another under God to work to resolve their differences.  Liberals are the kind of people who turned marriage itself into a perverted mockery by saying that the institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman be adulterated to include whatever the hell politically correct understanding depraves the minds of the left next.

These are the people that George Washington said, “These people are NOT patriots.”  These are the people that the founding fathers said we needed to be armed to protect ourselves against as they take away the God-given rights of “the people” to protect ourselves against the very tyranny they continually seek to impose upon us.

If any liberal wants to regulate the guns which the founding fathers intended to protect ourselves against the very sort of tyranny that liberals continually seek to impose, let them first categorically affirm the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  By that, I mean require an Amendment to the Bill of Rights that for all time specifically states that the 2nd Amendment guarantees that the same people who have ever other right accorded to “the people” be allowed to be armed and to possess arms, with the further condition that ANY official whether he or she be a politician, a judge or a bureaucrat be IMMEDIATELY removed from his or her office with the forfeiture of all pay, all benefits and all responsibilities if he or she ever try to take away these rights from any law-abiding American citizen.

Until that day, “gun control” is a zero-sum game, with every limitation and restriction taking us one step closer to taking away ALL of our rights while those who believe in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and specifically the 2nd Amendment, receive NOTHING in return.  As long as there is one liberal who has any influence over the American people in any chamber of politics, any chamber of law, or any bureaucracy, who wants to take away our rights, the people need to continue to be armed to prevent that liberal from depriving them of their freedom.

If you as a liberal think I’m crazy to say that Democrats want to take away our guns, well, then, please join me in taking that issue I keep demagoguing off the table.  Demand that your party sponsor and vote for that constitutional amendment.  And then people like me will be forced to shut up, won’t we?

Liberals constantly demonize conservatives as the obstacles preventing every single nut from shooting somebody; I point the finger right back at them: because they are untrustworthy negotiating partners with too many having the open agenda that I described above.  As long as we have a president of the United States who appoints judges who say that citizens have a right to keep arms, but not to bear them – or to similarly brazenly deny the Constitution, you aint getting NOTHIN’ from me.  And frankly, if you don’t mind my saying so, you’re a slimebag for every trying.

When the 2nd Amendment as our founding fathers intended it is firmly engrained in American society once and for all time, I believe liberals will be surprised at how many conservatives will join them in enacting reasonable restrictions that will limit the abuse of guns.

But that day will not happen and should not happen until everybody who thinks like this is legally barred from holding ANY government office whatsoever.

And that is why this is true and has been true of Barack Obama:

I began this talking about Barack Obama not wanting AK-47s in the American peoples’ hands because he doesn’t trust us.  What is amazing is that this same president’s administration put those very AK-47s into the hands of Mexican drug cartel murderers.

Obama Judge Says Americans Have The Right To Keep Arms, BUT NOT TO BEAR THEM As The Constitution Says

February 14, 2012

Okay.  You can keep arms.  As long as you never get to touch them.  See how the left is willing to compromise when it comes to your “constitutional protections”?

Oops: Obama judicial appointee says we have right to keep arms, but not to bear them
By AWR Hawkins, Ph.D. Published: 10:58 AM 02/13/2012 | Updated: 2:02 PM 02/13/2012

When Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association (NRA), spoke at CPAC on February 10th, he predicted that if Barack Obama wins a second term it will usher in an all-out attack on the Second Amendment. In so many words, he said the same people who brought us Fast and Furious, “a criminal enterprise” for which there has yet to be prosecutions, will use four more years to gut constitutional protections on the right to keep and bear arms. And anyone who wonders what this assault on the Second Amendment might look like need look no further than Illinois, where a judge that President Obama appointed has just ruled that we have the right to keep arms, but not to bear them.

That’s not a typo. Rather, it’s an unbelievable decision recently delivered by U.S. Judge Sue Myerscough, in a challenge which the Second Amendment Foundation filed against Illinois’s ongoing prohibition against carrying concealed weapons in that state. Said Myerscough, in rendering her decision: “[Although the] plaintiffs argue that the Second Amendment protects a general right to carry guns that include a right to carry operable guns in public … [the] Supreme Court has not recognized a right to bear firearms outside the home.”

This is troubling for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that Myerscough has completely disregarded the fact that our natural, God-given rights are not subject to court approval for viability. Rather, our Founding Fathers used the Bill of Rights to build a hedge of protection around those rights with which we were endowed by our Creator. And one of those rights was the right to self-defense, and therefore the right not only to keep but also to bear the arms necessary to defend ourselves. On this point, the language of the Second Amendment couldn’t be clearer: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (Italics mine)

Moreover, in 2010, after the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against Chicago’s handgun ban in McDonald v. Chicago — a case which grew out of Chicago citizen Otis McDonald’s desire to be able to defend his life and property — the court ruled against the handgun ban, citing the fact that “self-defense is a basic right.” The court also pointed out that “self defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.” (Italics in original)

Clearly, there is a chasm of understanding between the Founding Fathers and U.S. Judge Myerscough, for the Founding Fathers recognized that God endowed us with the right not only to keep arms but also to bear them. Likewise, there is a near-inexplicable gulf between the Supreme Court’s McDonald decision and the one Myerscough just handed down. For the Supreme Court understands that the inalienable right to self-defense — “a basic right” — is foundational to the Second Amendment while Myerscough believes arms are to be kept not borne (a decision which necessarily limits our ability to defend ourselves).

If Obama manages to get re-elected, be ready to see more of these Myerscough-like decisions come down the pike. Decisions where judges give lip service to the Second Amendment on the one hand, while stealthily undercutting it on the other. In doing this, Obama judicial appointees will only be following their master’s lead. (For it was Obama himself who, in 2008, told us he supported both the Second Amendment and gun bans like those we’ve seen the Supreme Court strike down in Chicago and Washington. D.C.)

AWR Hawkins is a conservative columnist who has written extensively on political issues for HumanEvents.com, Pajamas Media, Townhall.com, and Andrew Breitbart’s BigPeace.com, BigHollywood.com, BigGovernment.com, and BigJournalism.com. He holds a Ph.D. in U.S. military history from Texas Tech University, and was a visiting fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal in the summer of 2010. Follow him on Twitter and on Facebook.

It’s an attack on the Constitution by Obama and his surrogate army of cockroaches, of course.

But given that liberal Supreme Court Justices such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg say that the Constitution is an outdated and irrelevant document in our time, it’s really no surprise that the Obama left would so flagrantly trample on the Constitution.

And let’s not forget that while Obama is indirectly doing everything he can to undermine our 2nd Amendment rights, he is also personally hard at work to destroy our 1st Amendment rights, too.

Obama Keeps Governing By Crisis; Used ‘Fast And Furious’ As Ploy To Take Away Our Right To Keep And Bear Arms

December 8, 2011

First of all, it is simply a fact that Barack Obama has been seeking to take away our constitutionally-guaranteed right to guns.

I pointed out in April of 2009 that Obama was using a crisis that we now know that HE CREATED to abolish guns.  What did I say back then???

So the obvious question is, why is the American media, and why are Democratic politicians, blaming America and blaming American guns for the problems in Mexico?

And the answer is as obvious as it is disturbing: because they despise the American Constitution, and in particular they despise the 2nd Amendment which guarantees the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.

Barack Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, is just one among many Democrats citing the situation in Mexico to impose gun controls in the United States. Fortunately, a small cadre of Democrats have joined Republicans in their opposition to using the lies over the deteriorating situation in Mexico to impose anti-Constitutional laws on American citizens.

We need to point the finger at Obama, at his attorney general, at his secretary of state, and at every other politician who is demagoguing and lying to take away our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights and freedoms.

We have recently had a series of terrible mass murders involving guns, and many liberals will invariably cite these as proofs that we should take away gun rights from Americans. I know three things: 1) that the founding fathers guaranteed the right of citizens to keep guns as a deterrent against tyranny, and that – given the unprecedented power-grabbing of this government – this right is more crucial than ever; 2) that taking away guns from law-abiding citizens will merely ensure that only criminals have them to terrorize the innocent; and 3) that the unarmed victims of the shooting rampages wished they had weapons when the psychopaths came in shooting. Wishing that the psychopaths didn’t have guns is as much wishful thinking as wishing that there weren’t any psychopaths to begin with. In times of danger and uncertainty, Americans don’t need wishful thinking; they need the means to defend themselves and their homes and families.

Please also see my article here.

This was an Obama-regime manufactured crisis, we now know.  Barack Obama, Erick Holder and Hillary Clinton – among numerous other Democrats and members of the Obama administration – demonized gun dealers for selling guns that ended up going to Mexico.  But what we now know for a documented FACT is that the same people who were demonizing those gun dealers were in point of fact the ones who were making them do the very thing they subsequently demonized them for doing.

New e-mails: ATF officials discussed using Fast & Furious to … push gun control
posted at 4:15 pm on December 7, 2011 by Allahpundit

The logical extension of Rahm’s famous remark about never letting a serious crisis go to waste. If a grave problem is an opportunity to push your agenda, imagine how much farther you can push it by making the problem graver.

Another F&F bombshell from CBS’s Sharyl Attkisson:

ATF officials didn’t intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called “Demand Letter 3″. That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or “long guns.” Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.

On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF’s Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:

“Bill – can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks.”

On Jan. 4, 2011, as ATF prepared a press conference to announce arrests in Fast and Furious, Newell saw it as “(A)nother time to address Multiple Sale on Long Guns issue.” And a day after the press conference, Chait emailed Newell: “Bill–well done yesterday… (I)n light of our request for Demand letter 3, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of this case.”

Follow the link and read the e-mails from a participating gun dealer to the ATF asking for a letter affirming that he was only selling these weapons at the agency’s behest. He was worried that the sales were shady and wanted legal cover in case the bureau later turned around and decided that the dealers were “irresponsible” or whatever in making the sales — which was awfully prescient given the ATF’s subsequent political opportunism. But then, none of this is surprising: Congressional Democrats and even Eric Holder himself have already used F&F as a pretext to call for more gun control. I thought the sleaziest bit of White House scandal spin we’d see this year was the Energy Department asking Solyndra to hold off on layoffs until after election day in 2010. Nope: Per the new F&F e-mails, they’re actually using their own scandals now as a pretext for greater regulation. Says Dan McLaughlin, “Obama Administration once again lives down to every paranoid caricature of itself.”

Darrell Issa said today he’s going to press Holder at tomorrow’s hearing to “clean house” at the DOJ. Chuck Grassley, for one, knows just where to start.

What does the 2nd Amendment say?

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Democrats – who frankly don’t give one flying damn about the Constitution – have fixated on the word “militia” and ignored the words “the people.”   They claim that only a “militia” can keep and bear arms.

But since the 2nd Amendment also clearly includes the words “the right of the people,” it seem obvious to me that we should take away other rights given to “the people” and only apply those rights to a militia, such as the right to peacebly assemble (we’ve already seen what damage liberals do when given such rights at the Occupy Movement disasters anyway, right?) or to petition the government for the redress of greivances (1st Amendment).  Or to have the right not to have their persons, papers and effects unreasonably searched (4th Amendment).  And of course I could go on.  Only militia members should get such rights.  Only THEY count as “the people” according to Democrats’ understanding of the 2nd Amendment.

Basically, Democrats should have all of their rights and freedoms denied to them, because if only a militia has the right to keep and bear arms, then only a damn militia has the right to do anything ELSE “the people” have a right to.

We could have a “Hunt Every Democrat Down With Dogs and Burn Them Alive Act,” and then allow our rightwing militias to exercise that duty.  Because only such militias count as “the people” by the Democrats’ own dumbass reasoning, and it’s way past time we were finally consisitent, isn’t it???

Meanwhile this same son of a bitch who is trying to take away our 2nd Amendment rights is trying to take away our 1st Amendment rights even as he demands rights for militant homosexuals.

I am beyond sick of Obama and his “govern by crisis” fascism.

Jonah Goldberg nailed it in his Liberal Fascism, which was published before Obama took power and which describes his style of governance to a ‘T’:

“The utility of terror was multifaceted, but among its chief benefits was its tendency to maintain a permanent sense of crisisCrisis is routinely identified as a core mechanism of fascism because it short-circuits debate and democratic deliberation.  Hence all fascistic movements commit considerable energy to prolonging a heightened state of emergency.” — page 42

I am beyond sick of Obama creating one crisis after another as one after another of his policies totally fails, and then demanding that because of all the failures he’s created we should do even MORE to destroy our country.

This is and will continue to be God damn America until this weasel and everyone who thinks like him is out of our government for good.

Why I Blame Democrats For Gun Laws That Allow Crazies To Kill

January 11, 2011

This is in response to the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the nineteen shooting victims, and the six murdered citizens, in Tuscon, Arizona on Saturday at the hands of someone who is clearly mentally ill.

It sounds rather crazy to have such a title to many, I’m sure.  After all, isn’t it Democrats who are constantly trying to criminalize gun ownership?  And isn’t it Republicans who are constantly trying to keep guns legal?

Yes.  Which is exactly why I blame Democrats every single iota as much as the most liberal Democrat blames Republicans for criminals or crazies with guns.

First of all, we have a constitutional RIGHT to keep and bear arms.  The 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now, Democrats for years and years have argued that the 2nd Amendment essentially contains a typo, that “militia” should have appeared twice, but somehow the phrase “the people” got stuck in.

But “the people” really means “militia.”

So when you see “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” it really doesn’t apply to citizens.  It only really applies to militias.  Militias have the right to assemble and redress the government.  You “people” just stay shut in your homes and leave the government alone.

And go through your Constitution and make the necessary corrections.  Replace every occurrence of the phrase “the people” with “militia.”  And see how many freedoms you would lose and just what an absurdly laughable interpretation the Democrats have for the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment clearly and obviously provides militias AND the people (i.e., the citizens of the United States, you and me) with the right to keep and bear arms.  And then it all but tells the Democrats to keep their paws off our guns (“… shall not be infringed”).

But the Democrats DO infringe.  And infringe, and infringe some more.

So we run into a problem: every time Republicans – who actually care about their Constitution – do anything to restrict gun rights or gun ownership, it ends up being a net-loss for guns and for the 2nd Amendment.  And every significant act involving a gun becomes the next cause to take away guns, as the following Newsweek article exudes:

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Rahm Emanuel famously said in 2008. The same goes for a shooting spree that gravely wounds a beloved congresswoman. Congress won’t enact gun control, as it did in the wake of the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, but perhaps something positive can come from this.

If Republicans try to make it tougher for criminals or crazies to get their hands on guns, Democrats will use that measure to shut the door all the tighter on every single law-abiding citizen to exercise their constitutional guarantees.  As I will show later in this article.

So because of Democrat refusal to recognize the clear and obvious meaning of the 2nd Amendment, we have an impasse.  We have an impasse which prevents common-sense laws from being passed.

This is what should happen: Democrats should now and for all time recognize that every single law-abiding American in every single state and in every single town has the right to keep and bear arms.  And Republicans should in response begin to help make it tougher to get guns, so that criminals and the mentally ill do not fall through the gaping holes that the intransigence has imposed.

Unless and until that day happens, Republicans will have no choice but to fight every gun law, because they will continue to correctly see that Democrats and liberal judicial activists will continue to use every law passed to prevent “the people” from possessing guns.

Here’s the bottom line: liberals often repeat the principle stated by William Blackstone, “Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”  Benjamin Franklin took it even further, and stated “that it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer.”

And here here.  Even though it creates a system in which the innocent too often are denied justice as the guilty go free.

But lets ALSO acknowledge that the same Constitution also clearly affirms that it is better that ten, or a hundred criminals and psychos get their hands on guns than that just one innocent Person should be deprived.

If you liberals like the first principle, quit being a hypocrite and like the second one, too.

For me, I do not want to be forced to wait helplessly for the police to maybe never show up as vicious criminals terrorize – or do worse – to my family.  Rather, if you try to enter my home, scumbags, I’ve got something for you.

It is every bit as evil for any society to deny a person (the singular form of “the people”, by the way) to be able to defend himself, or herself, or his or her family, from violence, as it would be to convict innocent people to make sure the guilty don’t go free.

Nor let me fail to mention that the founding fathers clearly intended an armed citizenry to be a powerful obstacle against government tyranny.  That the founding fathers would want a tyrannous American government overthrown as much as they would want a tyrannous British government overthrown.

Any good gun law that truly has a chance of preventing criminals or crazies like Jared Loughner from obtaining guns necessarily would depend on a strict registration and licensing of every single gun.  And Republicans will RIGHTLY refuse any such registration and licensing until Democrats codify it into the law of the land that such a registry can NEVER EVER be used to take away our guns.

What we need to see is this: a powerful understanding of the 2nd Amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms such that, if any elected official, officer of the court, sworn law enforcement officer, or government employee undermines that law, they will immediately be recognized to have violated their constitutional oath and thereby disqualify themselves for their duties as politicians, judges, lawyers, law enforcement officers, or bureaucrats.  And let the anti-gun policies which include heavy taxation and burdensome regulation be expunged.

And when that occurs, then let every gun be registered.  Let there be a listing of every individual who owns a gun(s), with every serial number and even with every ballistic sample from every gun, be taken.

If someone is convicted of a felony, or if someone’s mental condition deteriorates beyond a legal threshhold, then immediately the list is checked: ‘does this individual have a gun?’  And if so that gun is removed.

That’s the kind of system we need.  And it is the system we cannot have as long as the future question of the constitutional guarantee of gun ownership is in any way, shape or form an open question.

We’ve seen the sorts of laws Democrats have proposed being used against “the people” before in many other parts of the world.  We have seen it in tyrannous, totalitarian regimes throughout history.  First they demanded the registration of weapons; then they came and confiscated those weapons.  And no one could stand up against them, because only they had the guns.

The other thing it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out is that if we pass laws taking away the right to keep guns, only the law-abiding would follow the law.  Criminals would not follow the law;  I mean, dang, just look up the definition of “criminal.”

Therefore, until our law is clearly and completely understood to guarantee the right of gun ownership by every single law-abiding and mentally sane citizen, you will never see the kind of gun control laws that our society obviously needs.

Which is why I rightly blame Democrats for the lack of gun control laws that would prevent crazies like Jared Loughner from getting their hands on guns.

Democrats, the “living, breathing document, open to interpretation” theory of the Constitution needs to go down the drain once and for all in order for meaningful gun regulations to ever succeed.

Because this is America.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers