Posts Tagged ‘militia’

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.

Advertisements

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.

Mainstream Media Wishes Times Square Terrorist Had Been Hated ‘Tea Bagger’ Rather Than Muslim

May 7, 2010

When you listen to this video and actually pay attention to what the journalist is trying to say, you realize it is an incredibly stupid piece of ideological tripe:

Let’s see.  She starts off by wishing that the Islamic terrorist who tried to bomb Times Square didn’t have Muslim ties.  Well, that sort of begs the question: what ties DOES she wish the bomber had had?  Then she proceeds to answer that unstated question by dragging in a militia group that is so vicious, hateful and dangerous they were all released on bail in order to tie the right wing (which didn’t do anything) to the bombing rather than the Muslim terrorist (who did).  The Hutaree militia Brewer damns alongside Muslim terrorists is guilty of talk, and basically nothing but talk.

In the guise of “news,” Contessa Brewer in effect says, “I wish the guilty party wasn’t guilty, so what I’ll do is tie this act of terrorism to the people whom I WISH were guilty.

Brewer is a “bigot,” too.  The difference is that Brewer likes Muslim terrorists and despises conservatives, whereas conservatives like tea partyers and despise terrorists.

I am much different than Contessa Brewer: I would rather the person who tried to bomb Times Square and murder Americans be a Pakistani-born Muslim than a born-and-bred American who had come to be filled with hate for the country of his birth.  Unlike Brewer, I don’t wish my fellow Americans (even Democrats) be terrorists.  But that’s just me, I guess.

Meanwhile the mainstream media is out in force trying to tell us that the Pakistani terror camp graduate was really just a victim of an American dream that had steamrolled over him:

From the LA Times: “Car bomb suspect struggled to find a place

From the AP: “Times Square bombing suspect’s life had unraveled

Cry me a river.

At the same time, the same mainstream media propagandists who have been “humanizing” terrorist Faisal Shahzad have routinely demonized millions of Tea Party supporters who haven’t done anything wrong whatsoever.