Posts Tagged ‘Second Amendment’

Right to Bear Arms: The Legal Question

November 17, 2013

I’m not trying to be argumentative, just curious. The current Court has struck down most recent attempts of states and municipalities to regulate arms. The NRA wages legal and electoral campaigns against anyone who breathes a hint to restrain a “right to bear arms“. The U.S. Congress, as well as the President, refuses to consider any restrictions.


The Supreme Court in the past few decades, has trashed the Constitution and allowed lots of infringing against the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Finally Illinois forced the issue with an obvious hit against the collectivist misinterpretation, and ruled that it was an individual right, not a state militia right.

[Cue the snicker sound track here.] After all, if the right to bear arms is a right of governments and not a right for individuals, then the Second Amendment really means, according to this insanity:

Does it say this?

2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the [government???] to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

[Cue riotous laughter at that…].

So to protect the “security” of a

Dred Scott, whose famous case to gain his free...

Dred Scott, whose famous case to gain his freedom began as a lawsuit filed in St. Louis in 1846 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“free” state, the right of the government to bear arms shall not be infringed. Under this misinterpretation, the Second Amendment would presumably include the right to “bear” nuclear weapons.

So, are Steve and I permitted to own (keep) and use (bear) nuclear weapons (again, sorry, Norm, you were born on the wrong side of the pond)? If not, why not? That is, if I can keep and bear an AK-47 or AR-15 why not a thermonuclear device?

—-
There are MUCH WORSE people than you or Steve that already own (as in possess the use of) nuclear weapons.

#1. For example, one person who could throw nuclear weapons at somebody right now include one who arranged a massacre in a theater in which 130 innocent people died:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20067384
…But some 130 hostages died – most not at the hands of the gunmen and women, but apparently because of the effects of the gas….

#2. Another group killed an estimated 5,000 with over 10,000 hurt critically, all in cold blood to stop a peaceful protest.. The troops they sent in were ordered to shoot anybody that got in the way; they were brought from distant bases (presumably so that they would not include too many who would worry about relatives being among the victims:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989

#3. Another one has arrogated to himself the illegal and unconstitutional “authority” to order secret kills on anybody he wants to anywhere in the world and has done it with full public knowledge. He (and his subordinates in command) continue their and unconstitutional and interventionist wars in five foreign countries.

For survivors, he has put command-and-control death panels in their future. Special treatment for special friends.

Rational people would demand all means possible to defend themselves against these obvious pathological maniacs, ruthless killers. And the list above is of the ones currently in possession of the worst nuclear weapons in the world. It does not include criminal dictators and rulers from the past or the future.

I’m serious. I admit that a reasonable person would not want Jason to have a tight rubber band, much less a nuke, but seriously should that be a limitation (no matter how logical and reasonable)? Instead is there case law which delineates what is protected by the 2nd amendment and not? Perhaps case law defines “arms”, which means that there would be a line in the sand; what is that line? I.e., what is protected and what is not?

—-
Case law is worse than useless when it numbs the mind of erudite attorneys at law and of citizens who accept it. Case law changes on the whim of those who make it, including 100s of reversals by the most respected Court in the world, the U.S. Supreme Court. Their ruling on the Republicans’ Civil RIghts Act in the 1960s reversed the Dred Scott case, for which you cannot find one little phrase of justification in even the slaver-protecting Constitution. (Justification was provided by the horror they felt at the prospect of blacks being able to carry arms, because if they are free men they carry arms).

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.


And some people out there in the cackling industry actually try to pretend it means that governments have the right to arm themselves!

Imagine that! Next thing they’ll pass a law that says chickens shall lay eggs and water shall flow downhill!

At least those amendments and laws would make lots more sense than the sewage pouring forth from looters’ governments today!

//

//

Self-defense and possession of the tools thereof is a natural right of every individual

November 9, 2013

Self-defense is a natural right of every individual, and the right of a father and mother to protect their children. This is the basis for the right to bear arms, as having the means with which to defend yourself comes with the right to bear any weapon you need to defend yourself. The Bill of Rights is merely a list of explicit declaration of that right. THIS is the number One basis for the natural RIGHT to bear arms. SELF-DEFENSE means the right to defend yourself against BOTH other individuals (criminals) and other groups of criminals (governments, including your own).

The argument that the Second Amendment was to protect the right of governments to bear arms is a ridiculous argument. Consider it for a moment. Without the Bill of Rights, the U.S. Constitution already says Congress even has the power to raise whole armies and to support them. So they needed an amendment to say the governments had the right to have an army? Are you kidding?

If the ACLU applied the same reasoning to the other first nine amendments, they would not bother, like they said about the Second.

If you apply the same reasoning to the First Amendment that Infringers of the Second say about gun control, they would say that only people with a government issued permit should be allowed to say anything (free speech), all religions would be illegal except for government-approved ones (an old Soviet law, that), and that only government-approved people, and that you could only use the Fifth to avoid incriminating yourself if you were a high government official.

–Trutherator

 

// <![CDATA[
function DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) { object.DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url);} };
function Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url); };
function NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url); }
function Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url); };

// ]]>

Anarcho-capitalism vs. Government

August 11, 2013
English: This image is of economist Walter Blo...

English: This image is of economist Walter Block teaching economics in a Loyola University New Orleans classroom. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Let me help with understanding what I’m going to say here. First off, I had once gone from Marxist/Communist to syndicalist-anarchist (something like the “anarcho-communist” idea) precisely because I couldn’t trust people to govern themselves. My reasoning back then articulated like this: if you can’t trust people to govern themselves, you can’t trust them to govern other people. About that time I became a missionary, more concerned for the poor than ever, and all people that needed the truth.

So let’s see:

Q (Question or Comment): With no government than anyone (or group) who has more than others can buy more armed security to enforce their will on those who have less resources. There is nothing to stop bad guys from forming coalitions to gang up on smaller communities and take them over by force since there is no governmental power to stop them.

A: The Second Amendment debate should bring to clarity the principle that self-defense is much more effective than giving up your freedom –even some of it– in exchange for security. Give ’em an inch, they take a mile. Like Ron Paul said, the only legitimate purpose of any government is to protect its jurisdiction from violation of individual rights.

The problem is that you are trusting a band of strangers with protecting you from other bands of strangers. If it’s a “government”, however, you get protection the same way you get protection from a “Mafia”. If you pay, you get some protection –often not very good because who else can you call, so it is with monopolies– and you get to keep both your legs. Unless one of the rulers needs one.

Q If one does not want to use the term “mercenary” they can invent whatever euphemism they wish and call it a third party mechanism…

A-Euphemisms like “government”, except that’s involuntarily imposed force. And just like with the Army “volunteers”, many “mercenaries” are driven by other than monetary considerations. In self-defense, many of the “volunteers” will be just like the revolutionary militia, and today’s independent militias, people defending their lives, their families, their own children, like the independent militias that Mexicans are now forming to defend themselves against the gangs. Like some citizens of Detroit who have armed themselves for protection, because the police force are now useless. Precisely because under the “democratic-republican” Detroit government not everybody played fair. Especially the elected legislators and executives, and now even the judges are ordering the city to stiff the creditors that trusted them and pay the taxation without representation that previous city officials and unions colluded to burden them with. 

Q The fact is they fight for money and not principle and can be paid off by your enemies.

A [Ed-Like moles, or governments of corrupt sellouts like in Congress. The fact is, all of us have wrong reasons we do many right things. This
thought also ignores the fact that giving you good service for
your money is a principle worth more than money. Protecting
people is a good career. It is the first early motivation of
may policemen, in fact, who make a career of it, paid for
their services. Yet the very police is who we are talking
about. If they were more directly beholden to the people they
ahem, “serve”, we would have much less abuse and corruption in
their number.

A In a democratic republic you are free to hire your own self
defense so there is no denial of freedom.

A [Ed-Unless you have to defend
yourself against that government. Try buying raw milk in a
co-op and get arrested in the “Republic” of California.

Q One is free to dream that they can provide their own security on
either a personal or community basis against any threat but they
are assuming everyone else will play fair and continue to ignore
the myriad of scenarios that can develop in a world without
government.

A-No assumptions at all except that all central planning scenarios come with all those flaws built in.

Who really believes they can defend against a foreign invasion
with an army of locally hired of rent a cops thrown together by
few communities who decide they will participate?

A- The farmboy revolutionaries that defended the USA against British attacks are an excellent example. A rag-tag band of “backward” mountain men are
defeating the most powerful Army in the whole world as we speak. Bill Maher said once that the Second Amendment is moot because the government has tanks. Tell that to the Taliban. The militias in Iraq say Phooey too.

Otherwise, why would our own “democratic republic” government
of the USA have such a fanatical fixation on disarming the
entire civilian population?

Government can become oppressive. True. People with no government can also form groups and become oppressive. Also true. The fact that anyone can be corrupted is hardly a case for ” no more rules”. It seems better time would be spent working on small government within a republican ( small “r”) model following constitutional principles.

A – Who said “No more rules”. That’s a straw man argument. The rule that counts more than any other should be the “non-aggression principle“. See:http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-aggression

Walter Block explains it well:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2003/02/walter-block/turning-their-coats-for-the-state/

Someone who does not believe in government of any kind has no reason to quote the Bill of Rights since without a government to enforce it, it is just a piece of paper.

A – I quote the Bill of Rights because they actually support the position, because if you read them properly, they are not grants of privilege by government, but they are declarations of what are universally held rights in the sense articulated in the Declaration of Independence as “unalienable”. It was a compromise demanded by patriots that did not want a strong federal government.But as we can see from events and history in the real world, if you disqualify my arguments on that basis, yours are disqualified by the proof in the real world that your very government is ruled by that Constitution as “the Supreme Law of the Land“, but that very same government has broken almost every one and in the most massive scale possible:

The First: “Free-speech zones

Second: Gun control laws. Supreme Court legalized “reasonable” infringement legislation. In New Orleans the police went door-to-door confiscating arms without warrants or due process at all. The first gun control laws in the U.S. were Jim Crow-motivated laws meant to prevent even free blacks from owning them.

Third: To my knowledge, the military has not commandeered quarters in any house, even as “prescribed by law”.

Fourth: Recent revelations by Edward Snowden and the brave reporters of The Guardian have exposed the blatant and still now unrepentant violation of the right of the people “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects” in the unconstitutional seizure of the “effects” of EVERY ONE of the regime’s subjects in the United States. Having been exposed, they say “So what? It’s to keep you safe from bad guys”. The Fourth also says must have a warrant –from a genuine independent court, not a kangaroo court, and not a self-written– naming the person and things to be seized. And there’s nothing about allowing the right to a censorship on the target of such a warrant, as we now face with the Patriot Act. A librarian was charged with a felony for just showing one of these warrants to an assistant.

Fifth: They had this guy in Boston how many hours? As soon as he knew his rights he shut up. But the same Justice Department that was so worried the FBI might find out something from this violation of rights is the one that violates every American’s “Fourth Amendment” right all day every day.

Sixth: Speedy trail, confrontation of witnesses: Not just the rubber-stamp FISA courts (NSA director: You can’t lie to us anymore, we all know they’re kangaroo, else they would not approve the unconstitutional requests for blanket coverage, seizure of all those records). There is the case of the U Florida professor arrested (and convicted? deported?) based on what the government called secret evidence that they could not even show the judge in the case.

Seventh: The president, we now know, issues regular kill orders against anybody he wants to. Rand Paul forced the Attorney General to admit the government has no legal authority at least to kill Americans on American soil if there is no imminent danger, but the history of lies and conviction for Contempt of Congress shows we cannot trust their word. Not to mention executing acts of war (like drone attacks overseas) without the constitutionally required declaration of war by Congress.

Eighth (Cruel and Unusual Punishment): Now the president who as candidate opposed the interrogation techniques used at Guantanamo, now defends them as necessary. Nothing like a political campaign to bring out the liar in the worst characters. (Not to mention that the nests of rape, murder, assaults on prisoners convicted for non-violent offenses themselves, in my opinion, themselves constitute cruel and unusual punishment.)

Ninth: Ha, the Congress over the last twenty years, with the happy cooperation of the worst of the bankers, has violated every other natural right that got in their corrupt way, including that of property, with the Fed, the New Deal, The Great Society, the right to free trade and free exchange of goods and services.

Tenth: Of course the Congress has used the carrot-stick approach and a blatantly unconstitutional perversion of the interstate commerce clause to entice and coerce the states to doing things that were not in the jurisdiction of the federal Congress to influence. Holder tried a pathetic attempt to stop the flood of states declaring it illegal for anyone to cooperate with federal officials in violations of the Second Amendment. Holder used the “supreme law of the land” argument, by which he meant that the federal government has a “right” under the “supreme law” clause to become a dictatorship whenever it feels like it.

So yes, in the real world, I believe using the Constitution is a good way to educate the people, and by golly, if we can agree to push at least for respect and obedience to the US Constitution, that would be better than the present condition by astronomical scales.

Frasier Institute “freedom index”, the USA and New Zealand, and the Second Amendment

February 3, 2013

I stumbled into a discussion on a metabunk.org web page. It seems like the owners of this web site are only interested in debunking any idea that goes against the official government narratives, or the official government fashion of the day.

For example, they instead of debunking the crazy idea that a command to the people to disarm would make criminals disarm themselves, or stop murders and violence, they debunk the logic of self-defense. They say your right to defend yourself is stronger if you disarm yourself.

[QUOTE=plane852;25139]I will add that despite a lack of right to “bear arms,” New Zealand was ranked the freest country in the world – 5 ranks above the United States.

From the Frasier Institute, the report that annoyed a good chunk of the American public:
[url]http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/towards-a-worldwide-index-of-human-freedom.pdf[/url][/QUOTE]

Glancing at the Frazier Institute link, they apparently do have a good philosophical basis for their measure, although quantification of freedom seems to me a difficult thing to define. They have the starting point right, in that their “Overview” on how they measure it says it’s a “negative” definition of freedom, meaning, how much are you free of restraints on what you want to do.

That said, it is important to realize that the importance of the Second Amendment in the United States Constitution is not measurable. It is often said, including by both signers of the Declaration of Independence and by members of the Constitutional Convention and “founders” in general, in one way or another, that the Second Amendment is the guarantor of the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

The source of our rights, the razor d’être, the reason we have them, is not because a Constitution or amendment or law grants them, because they do not have the legitimate power to do so. There is no moral justification for allowing a government to be the final decision-maker on what rights you have or do not have. If you say the government by law or by representation or monarchy or “democratic” referendum is the final say on how much freedom of speech to allow you, or how much freedom to defend yourself from tyranny you are allowed, then all of your freedoms are exposed to violation.

An absolute monarch that lets his subjects rampant in your criticism of him as a matter of policy means that yes, you have that freedom, but by allowing that monarch to be an absolute monarch, you are exposing yourself to arbitrary loss of ALL such policies in the future.

To the extent New Zealand is exposed by restricting self-defense, its citizens are exposed to the changing winds of political weather. To the extent they depend on Australia’s benevolent friendship with them, they are exposed to the political winds of fortune outside their country.

My wife once stopped a kidnapper in his tracks who had started walking off with her son by pulling out her “concealed carry”, before we met. It might be a more respectful culture in New Zealand right now, but were individuals of the Maori people always respected? Their descendants would have very good reason to suspect any such false sense of security.

But the biggest danger is one that has inflicted Americans already. It is that content and gullible mentality that lets a people’s guard down, that “It can’t happen here” danger. Wherever “here” is.

The Jews of Germany –and Gypsies, and the handicapped, and genuine liberty-minded Christians– had plenty of reason to arm themselves against their own tyrannical government, but the government gave no overt signals of what was in the future. “It can’t happen here”, they said.

The Armenians had plenty of reason to defend themselves against the Turkish government.

The Ukrainians and all Russian subjects have every reason to suspect their government.

In the United States, lots of political and especially economic freedom is violated already, but the main reason that a Nazi-type regime or a Stalin-type regime is not a reasonable prospect right now is the fact that there are at least tens of millions of citizens that are decently well-armed and who are not in lock-step at any given time with their government.

All of the freedoms that a New Zealand-er has is worthless if he is attacked at a time he cannot defend himself. My wife had her means of self-defense. Te right to defend yourself against attack is the same as the right to defend your family, and that is the also the right to the tools necessary to defend your family.

My wife had every good reason to carry it. The more dangerous your town, your province, your country, your WORLD, the more need there is for people to have access to the products that are useful for doing so, against anything that might come at them.

New Zealand, for all its geographical advantages, is not immune. The Irish survived the Vandals ravaging the continent while St. Patrick’s followers saved many of the Roman and Greek classics, but a Papal army subjugated them again centuries later. China is not all that much across the water, and WW2 shows us that a country of that size is not incapable of invading an island nation even halfway around the world.

And by the way, many of us Americans are finding out –not just criminals– that any given individual in the police force or prosecutor’s office is not always such a great protector, either. The increasing disrespect for all rights in courts, law, foreign policy, search and seizure, Hollywood movies, these have had their parts in affecting the minds of many in law enforcement.

October 16, 2011

George Soros was the keynote speaker at the Caribbean and Central America presidents’ summit in 2008, telling the presidents of the region what to do, and set Chavez and Zelaya off on their attempted coup to overthrow their Honduran constitutional republic, which they defended against the entire world.

He supported the underground organizing efforts to kick off the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt, and supported including the Muslim Brotherhood in the government. As we speak, Muslims are slaughtering Christians in Egypt and the Coptic population has already fled the country to the tune of more than 100,000 so far.

He made millions trashing the Malaysian currency, made millions almost destroying the British pound, and bragged about making millions from the hardships of the real estate bubble in the United States.

Obama banned offshore drilling in the Gulf –with absolutely no legislative authority at all– to support George Soros investments in offshore drilling in Brazil.

He supports censorship in the United States through his supported non-profits like moveon.org.

He is one of the criminals that made dirty money in the scandals of Wall Street and yet supports the rioters in New York protesting Wall Street. Wall Street owns a big part of the Obama administration and yet Obama blasts them and blames his own sponsors for making us poor, knowing it’s his own policies that suppress the economy —because those same Wall Street operators in his own administration are not stupid.

Soros-sponsored operatives orchestrated the intervention in Uganda by Obama, because there is a lot of recently discovered oil there.

Soros supports attacks against the solutions that would set Americans free around the world to prosper and protect political and economic freedom.

A 2nd amendment right for the government to bear arms is a stupid oxymoron

March 3, 2011

Amendment 2 – Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

That word “infringed” is interesting. It “expands” the usual understanding of this right even for many gun owners, because it represents a ban on ANY infringement, ANY encroachment, ANY restrictions on that right.

infringe: (From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infringe)
1.
To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.

infringe

n inˈfringemen


[Ed note:It has been called the “right that guarantees all the other rights”:]

Amendment 2 – Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
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.

Question: “See my comment above that it was a question I had – just who is regulating the ‘well-regulated’ militia? I asked my client (a member of NRA) and he didn’t know either …”

Response: That is an excellent question, because it demonstrates that (1) our education has robbed us of some of the important understandings of the foundations of our freedoms, and because (2) it provides an opportunity to answer it!

First, to the word “well-regulated”. Examples from the Oxford English Dictionary can be found at this link, from various years from 1709 to 1894:
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”

It means something in proper working order, calibrated correctly. And in all the extra-constitutional writings of the same group of men that put the Constitution to paper and to ratification, they made clear that the arming of the citizens was a protection AGAINST THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT, the one THEY THEMSELVES had articulated in the Constitution.

That’s why the active clause was the right of the people.

Every other right in the Bill of Rights applies to individuals except the FIRST HALF of the religious freedom clause, which states “Congress shall pass no law”. And even that one was to keep all citizens free of any kind of such an official denomination.

NONE of ANY of the other rights in the Bill of Rights is a guarantee of government over its citizens, which is why those ten amendments are considered as a Bill of RIGHTS.

The guarantee involves the supposition, that the recognition of this natural right of the citizens would provide, in case it were ever needed, a well-prepared body of good militiamen ready to defend their freedom, their homes, their countrymen and the United States of the Constitution “against all enemies foreign and domestic”.

Where is that clearly explained?


There are a great many web sites more to find that do explain it, but beware of obfuscations.

Think of it this way. Any “right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed” that applies ONLY to government-owned and government-controlled militia would be a BLARING STUPID OXYMORON because the government was empowered to raise armies when necessary. So Why put that in the Constitution in the first place??

I know the purpose – but not the answer to my above question. So, if I form a militia on my city block and I decide our mayor, governor, senator, or president has gone too far, I’m covered by my constitutional rights to go remove the mayor with force of my ‘arms’ that I’m entitled to use under such conditions?

More great questions. In general, not until the ‘security of a free State’ is endangered. Their main idea and hope of course was that it would not be necessary, and in any case the Constitution recognized explicitly that the federal government would have to sometimes handle insurrections and the like.

The main idea was -and is- that citizens are expected to keep themselves well armed and “well-regulated”, meaning ready to form an effective fighting force to protect themselves against not only an armed invasion, but against their own federal government gone bad.

And at the following link you’ll find comments from one of James Madison’s appointees to federal court to the effect that standing armies –that is, armed governments– are a threat to liberty, and that many of them saw standing armies as the much bigger threat to liberty:

GunCite-Second Amendment-Original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment:
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

Or, is it just for federal officials? Any of them? All of them? Surely there are some guidelines in general.

The above links provide help in understanding it.

If the amendment applies only to the government, then it was most ridiculous to include it as a “right of the people”.

Don’t think we don’t need it today to protect ourselves against our own government. Insiders of the Nixon administration tell of one incident during the darkest hour of the Nixon administration in which he was seen in one of his “lesser moments”, muttering about declaring “martial law”.

It was evidently so serious a possibility that the Chief of Staff of the moment hid the “red phone” and met with the Joint Chiefs to develop strategies as to how to stop it. (Pretend to the “Chief” while gathering the actors that are constitutionally authorized to do something).

But what it it were a president who had pliant followers, whether they be military or whether they be of Obama’s “civilian militia” who –make no mistake– would still be answerable to the same government, whether it be of one of the two halves of party government today or another?

Right, Left, Center, or is it Tyranny versus Freedom?

February 16, 2011

About the “right”, the “left”, the “center”. It sounds good to be “center”, as in balanced but sometimes it’s a false balance, and those are terms meant to control the thinking of the masses anyway. Each issue is its own issue too.

The real and true political continuum is “tyranny” on the one end, and “liberty” or “freedom” on the other. American patriarchs are often quoted as saying “That government is best that governs least”. In my view freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom from official state religion and from official state non-religion, freedom from forced self-incrimination, freedom to bear arms, these are individual and natural rights of all men everywhere.

But the right to engage in a free market of goods and services and the rights of property are right up there with the rest of them. Without a free market there is no economic base to fund any opposition to whatever tyrant or triumvirate –or secret society, or secret order– holds power at the moment.

trutherator

“Shall not be infringed”

January 18, 2011

Dictatorships hate an armed citizenry.

“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.”

infringe:1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate..
1. (tr) to violate or break (a law, an agreement, etc.)
(intr) To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.
to break (a law etc) or interfere with (a person’s freedom or rights

It should be at least as easy for a battered housewife who’s quitting her beater to get protection as it is for the tormentor to pick it up wherever he chooses, legal or not.

When you make a person wait three days, four days, so they can check a national database, that’s an infringement, because it encroaches on the default by presuming guilt and requiring permission from whoever designs the database.

There are 100s of 1000s of people who don’t bat an eye at shooting twenty bullets — a very illegal act, to say the least, and the majority of murders— into somebody, how can a person think they will bother with honoring this law? “Oh, gosh, I’ve been denied, I guess I won’t carry a gun when I’m selling on the street?”

Not to mention administrating such a list. Today it’s mental cases and felons. Tomorrow it’s Janet Napolitano’s list of people to suspect, for example, which by the way, included veterans, Ron Paul supporters, and people who talk too much about the Constitution.

In “liberal” Sweden and Germany, some judges are now treating home schooling parents as mental case situations. In Germany they are using a Nazi-era law to do it.

If the perpetrator in Tucson “had done nothing to keep him off the streets”, it means a screening program against a database would not have prevented the incident.

Freedomnomics KO’s Freakonomics and Guns Prevent Crimes

December 6, 2010

It’s not that I “like” John Lott’s conclusions better, but they make more sense. We all have more exposure to anti-2nd amendment arguments, Control Media never ceases from it.

although after learning what I know on the subjects I know something about, –most of which was after my college days– the studies merely reinforced them. And if I said the authors of Freakonomics were “elitist liberals” (and not just quoting Lott), it is because I saw the authors’ own web site on other subjects.

Cherry-picking was most obvious to me (before knowing about Lott’s book) when I read the Freakonomics chapter crediting abortion for the drop in crime in the 1990s. The abortion holocaust is a crime in itself, besides, because it’s mass murder, and most of it is based on an illegal –unconstitutional– decree. Add those back into the crime numbers and that theory goes kablooyee on its own head.

I already knew, for example, that “safe-sex talks” to high schools always were followed by more abortions, more teen pregnancies, more STD’s. In other words, all the things the propaganda said it would reduce.

As to Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime”, the objections are sparse on specifics, long on just-so declarations. Read the book and come back. And read Freedomnomics.

Me, I like to read material that challenged my views. It might be fashionable on campus these days to shout down views contrary to the professor-cultivated leftist “norm”, but academic freedom and credibility requires consideration of all views before concluding. Proverbs 18:13 ¶He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

Why do police carry guns, for example: Because it (1) indisputably makes the cop safer from attack, (2) is the deciding factor in apprehending criminals, (3) and is an excellent tool to prevent crime.

It’s also indisputable that the jurisdictions in the United States with the toughest anti-gun laws have the highest crime rates: urban cores, DC, New Orleans. In Honduras, the only “department” (like province) that has a ZERO gang problem is Olancho, because everybody there packs heat. (They do have other problems relating to other factors).

Even the deceitful Bowling for Columbine admits that Canada has a better 2nd amendment legal situation than almost anywhere in the US, most households have them, and there is almost no crime in comparison.

Once upon a time, Maria had to use one to stop a kidnapper from taking her oldest boy.

I have read the Freakonomics authors’ blogs, and they do have a liberal attitude, and it’s full of attributes of leftist tilt that you have difficulty perceiving because it blends into the context of your university environment.

And I know all about Lott’s self-evaluation under a pseudonym, which his publisher suggested. Apparently this is the worst thing they can dig up on him! It’s crazy!

And arrogance? Look at the Freakonomics authors’ comments. They look “benign” because their comments are like snickers and sneers at anybody who “doesn’t understand” them.

In Freakonomics where they criticized More Guns Less Crimes, they wisely avoided doing any detailed criticism, just parroting the common answer from the gun-control freak lobby, declaring as if it were fact that he was “cherry picking”. I’ve seen the worst criticisms and they are ridiculous. Their only hope is to use it to try to keep you from reading it.

I’ve read both sides. Try reading Lott’s book. Ad hominem attacks about his personality should reflect on Isaac Newton –who withheld some of his most massive science advancements for years to punish critics. And Nicholas Tesla, who had a quirky and difficult personality but was a much greater genius than Thomas Edison.

J. P. Morgan not only cut off funding from Tesla when he found that he would not be able to put meters on Tesla’s new energy transmission methods (broadcast through the ground), but quashed other sources of funds.

–trutherator