Archive for the ‘Constitutional Limits of Government’ Category
This is one of the reasons why it is an incredibly dangerous conflict of interest for the government to be shaping the hearts and minds of future voters. Clearly, the Left wants the next generation of Americans to believe that they have no unalienable right to self-defense, from the government or anyone else. They start by indoctrinating the young.
The Left knows it’s better to apologize after the fact than ask for permission. The seeds of deception have already been planted in these kids’ minds. They’ll let the outrage settle down, and then try again. This is why parents should have the choice to send their children to a school that isn’t out to indoctrinate their kids!
The father of a Connecticut child is furious after discovering that his son’s school is teaching students that Americans don’t have a Second Amendment right to bear arms.
“I am appalled,” said Steven Boibeaux, of Bristol. “It sounds to me like they are trying to indoctrinate our kids.”
Boibeaux’s son is an eighth grader at Northeast Middle School. On Monday his social studies teacher gave students a worksheet titled, ‘The Second Amendment Today.’
“The courts have consistently determined that the Second Amendment does not ensure each individual the right to bear arms,” the worksheet states. “The courts have never found a law regulating the private ownership of weapons unconstitutional.
The worksheet, published by Instructional Fair, goes on to say that the Second Amendment is not incorporated against the states.
“This means that the rights of this amendment are not extended to the individual citizens of the states,” the worksheet reads. “So a person has no right to complain about a Second Amendment violation by state laws.”
According to the document, the Second Amendment “only provides the right of a state to keep an armed National Guard.”
Boibeaux said he discovered the worksheet as he was going over his son’s homework assignments.
“I’m more than a little upset about this,” he told Fox News. “It’s not up to the teacher to determine what the Constitution means.”
Mat Staver, the founder and chairman of the Liberty Counsel, called the lesson propaganda – that is “absolutely false.”
“In fact, the US Supreme Court has affirmed that the Second Amendment ensures the individual the right to bear arms,” Staver told Fox News. “The progressive interpretation of the Second Amendment is that it doesn’t give you the right to bear arms – that it’s a corporate right of the government – but that has been rejected by the Courts.”
New CIA Director John Brennan was sworn in this week on a 1787 copy of the constitution from the national archives, instead of the Bible:
“Director Brennan told the president that he made the request to the archives because he wanted to reaffirm his commitment to the rule of law as he took the oath of office as director of the CIA,” Earnest said.
The Constitution itself went into effect in 1789. But troublemaking blogger Marcy Wheeler points outthat what was missing from the Constitution in 1787 is also quite symbolic: The Bill of Rights, which did not officially go into effect until December 1791 after ratification by states. (Caution: Marcy’s post has some strong language.)
That means: No freedom of speech and of the press, no right to bear arms, no Fourth Amendment ban on “unreasonable searches and seizures,” and no right to a jury trial.
How … symbolic?
There are two possible reasons for a new office holder to refuse to lay their hand on the Bible while swearing an oath, as has been the tradition in America for over two centuries.
On the one hand, he may refuse because he intends to break his oath, and therefore wants to avoid swearing on the Bible and the inescapable accountability to God that it would bring.
The other possibility is that he doesn’t respect the Bible as a sacred document and views it as too “religious” (or contrary to his own religion), and therefore seeks to publicly demonstrate that he is not accountable to the God of the Bible.
Either way, it shows what a dangerous radical Obama has chosen to lead the one organization in the U.S. that holds our most closely guarded secrets.
Don’t you feel safe, now?
Know Your Rights: Citizens Journalists Show How Not To Comply With Unconstitutional Detention, Searches or Questioning
I’ll admit it from the get-go: I don’t like confrontation. If a police officer randomly stopped me on the street and asked for my I.D. or asked me questions, I’d most likely comply because frankly, it’s just easier. I would assume that I must match the description of someone they’re looking for, and the sooner I clear up any suspicion they may have, the sooner I can get on with my day.
But unfortunately, that kind of mindless compliance with unconstitutional abuses of police power has led many Americans to assume that law enforcement officers can demand anything they like from you – regardless of probably cause – and you must submit to unlawful questioning, detention, or searches.
The young man in this video was stopped for openly carrying a gun in a holster, which is legal in the state of Oregon. He insists that the officer follow the law and provide legal justification for stopping him (which the officer does not have):
View on YouTube
Some may see this as unreasonably antagonistic. Why not just comply and be done with it? How hard can that be? The truth is, it WOULD be easier to comply. But it would also lead law enforcement officers to forget the laws they are sworn to uphold, and to violate the law with impunity.
I used to live near border patrol checkpoints and drove through them frequently. They’d ask me if I was a US citizen, I’d reply “yes,” and they’d wave me through (they’re listening for your accent and tone of voice, or behavioral cues). It never occurred to me that these checkpoints were unconstitutional.
But the reality is, they are. Border Patrol has no constitutional authority to stop citizens from driving down the road and question them without reasonable suspicion or probably cause. To do so is to violate the 4th Amendment. Yet most of us comply without thinking twice. These Libertarian citizen journalists decided to exercise their constitutional rights on video:
View on YouTube
In a national climate where simply speaking out for lower spending, constitutional rights and the 2nd Amendment can get you demonized as an “extremist,” it’s important that we know our rights, and how to exercise them respectfully. Lawful resistance to unconstitutional abuses of power is an effective way to tell our politicians and bureaucrats they have gone too far. They work for us, not the other way around. Their job is to protect our unalienable rights, not take them away.
”This isn’t a struggle between Republicans and Democrats. This is a struggle between the President and the Constitution.” – Senator Rand Paul
On Tuesday night, Senator Rand Paul went on Sean Hannity’s show to discuss Obama’s dangerous and unconstitutional threat to allow drone strikes against American citizens on U.S. soil – with no due process:
View on YouTube
On Wednesday at 11:47am, Paul launched a nearly 13-hour filibuster on the floor of the Senate to draw attention to this blatant attack on constitutional rights, earning admiration and support from both sides of the aisle, as well as internationally.
Some of the best quotes of the day:
On John Brennan: “I have hounded and hounded and hounded him… Only after yanking his chain… does he say he’s going to obey the law. We should be alarmed by that.”
Taking a stand: “I have allowed the president to pick his political appointees…But I will not sit quietly and let him shred the Constitution.”
On his colleagues in the Senate: “If there were an ounce of courage in this body I would be joined by other senators… saying they will not tolerate this.”
On White House “kill list”: “The people on the list might be me.”
On Obama: “He was elected by a majority, but the majority doesn’t get to decide who we execute.”
On making a point: “This will be a blip in his nomination process. But I hope people will see it as an argument for how important our rights are.”
On Wednesday, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) served notice to both the Republican establishment and to the Democrat-Media Complex: conservatism isn’t gone. It’s not even on vacation. The new wave of conservatives is here, and they know how to play the game.
At approximately 11:47 a.m. EST, Paul took to the floor of the Senate to filibuster the nomination of counterterrorism czar John Brennan for CIA Director. Paul stated his reason specifically and clearly: the Obama administration has refused to answer question as to whether they believe it is acceptable under the Constitution to kill American citizens on US soil using drones if those citizens are not engaged in an immediate terrorist threat. Paul was broader than that, actually – he simply asked the administration for a set of rules that could be used to limit their power to execute American citizens here at home. Over and over again, the administration refused to turn over the legal memos detailing its policies.
And so Paul talked. And boy, did he talk. For nearly 13 hours, he talked, taking breaks only when spelled by Senators including fellow Tea Partiers Mike Lee (R-UT), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Pat Toomey (R-PA). Even an honest Democrat – apparently the only one in the chamber – got into the act: Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR). Citing everyone from left to right, Paul pointed out the hypocrisy of an administration ripping into waterboarding of terrorists but happy to target them for death from the skies. He asked repeatedly why the administration could not answer his simple question about the boundaries of government power. And the American people listened.
It was an astonishing demonstration of the power of ideas. Paul spoke directly to the American people from the floor of the Senate. No media interrogators. No Obama functionaries. No spin machine. He was not strident, but he was firm. [...]
Paul’s dramatic action today may not have stopped John Brennan from becoming CIA Director. But that was not the point. He proved that conservatism in America is not merely alive, but that it has the potential for post-partisanship. He proved that conservatives can still seize the narrative, and fight back against an authoritarian-minded, non-transparent administration. And he proved that a new generation of conservatives is about to take the field for Republicans. Over the next 24 hours, look for the Democrat-Media Complex to strike back against Paul. They know the battle is on.
Finally, it appears that Republicans do too.
Oregon patriot Kristina Ribali remarked:
“Hey America, don’t look now, but it’s those crazy right wingers, Senator Rand Paul, Senator Mike Lee, and Senator Ted Cruz who are currently filibustering the United States Senate against the unconstitutional practice of executing you by drone without a trial. You’re welcome – Love, the Tea Party.”
Who could have imagined in the Reagan and Clinton years that you would one day hear an Attorney General seriously claiming that the President has the legal right to assassinate American citizens on U.S. soil without due process, using military aircraft?
Just a few years ago, nobody could imagine that we could ever be in danger of losing such fundamental liberties. The speed at which they are being assaulted is breath-taking.
Attorney General Eric Holder can imagine a scenario in which it would be constitutional to carry out a drone strike against an American on American soil, he wrote in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.
“It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,” Holder replied in a letter yesterday to Paul’s question about whether Obama “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”
Paul condemned the idea. “The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening – it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans,” he said in a statement.
Where are all the outraged liberals who were so worried about the Patriot Act and declared that Bush was a “war criminal?” Why aren’t they marching in the streets in protest against an administration that claims the power to kill Americans at will?
Just two weeks ago, Obama tried to explain away his disastrous presidency by saying, ‘The problem is … I’m not the emperor of the United States.”
Poor Obama. If only he were emperor, he could get so much done. Now he’s blaming his failures once again on the fact that we have this pesky constitutional republic that won’t allow him to act as a dictator:
“I am not a dictator,” President Obama said Friday while defending his efforts to stop the sequester. “I’m the president.”
Obama said there are limits to what he can do to get a deal on the sequester during a press conference in which he blamed Republicans for standing in the way of a deal.
Obama also hilariously confused Star Wars with Star Trek while lamenting that he didn’t have mind control powers over his opponents:
President Obama yesterday outraged nerds everywhere when he committed sci-fi heresy by mixing up “Star Wars” and “Star Trek” in remarks about budget cuts.
Speaking at a White House press conference, Obama joked that he couldn’t use a “Jedi mind meld” to get Republicans to agree to his budget plan.
“I know that this has been some of the conventional wisdom that’s been floating around Washington, that somehow, even though most people agree that I’m being reasonable . . . the fact that [Republicans] don’t take it means that I should somehow do a Jedi mind meld with these folks and convince them to do what’s right,” the president said.Obama — a professed Trekkie — was conflating the “Jedi mind tricks” of “Star Wars” with the “Vulcan mind meld” of “Star Trek” lore.
The blunder set off a frenzy of ridicule across the Twitterverse.
President Obama wished he could alternatively do a Jedi Death Grip on Conservatives, but that power was also not his to use. He concluded the press conference saying, “May the force be with you so you can live long and prosper.”
What on earth is WRONG with these people?! Don’t they know what happens when a legislative body cedes power to the executive? Haven’t they ever read a history book? Haven’t they read the constitution?
With budget sequestration looming and no deal to avert it in sight, Senate Republicans, eager to avoid blame for any cuts, have devised a strategy that is as unconstitutional as it is ill-advised: Let the president decide what to cut.
According to Politico, Senators Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), with “the tacit support of Senate GOP leaders,” have been circulating a draft bill that would suspend the $85 billion in spending cuts required by the sequester. Instead, it would give President Barack Obama until March 8 to come up with an alternative that achieves the same level of savings in the same proportions: Fifty percent from domestic discretionary spending and 50 percent from defense spending. Once Obama laid out his plan, Congress could either allow the plan to become law or pass a resolution of disapproval, by simple majority vote of both houses, by March 22.
Congressional disapproval would not, however, be the end of the story. The president could sign the resolution, thereby deep-sixing his own plan in favor of the sequestration. On the other hand, he could veto the resolution, and then the usual two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress would be required to override his veto, restoring the sequestration.
The plan, which Politico aptly describes as an “elaborate, almost Rube Goldberg construct,” is supported by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who said, “The goal isn’t to hand over congressional authority. It’s to make sure these cuts actually happen.”
Of course, if McConnell really wants to ensure that the cuts take place, there is a much simpler way of going about it. All Republicans have to do is not offer a plan of their own and then filibuster any bills the Democrats advance. Voila! The sequester takes effect.
Clearly, then, there is more to this move than simply ensuring that budget cuts occur. If Congress does nothing, or if it puts forth its own plan to avoid sequestration, Congress will get the blame for whatever cuts take place. But if the president is given carte blanche to decide what will be cut, he will become the scapegoat.
“It’s a game,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) told MSNBC’s Jansing & Co. “The president himself becomes the bad guy; he owns the sequestration. He’s the guy who’s blamed for cutting defense or Head Start.”
It’s an incredibly dangerous game to play. Obama will find a way to blame it on Republicans no matter what, and the media will help him. But once granted more powers, he will NEVER give it back.
Sacrificing what few powers the legislative branch has to hold this out-of-control president in check is NOT a solution!
“We are Americans. The politicians are only as powerful as We The People allow them to be.”
View on YouTube
The NRA comes out with both guns blazing…so to speak. ;)
Earth to Holder: the 2nd Amendment right to armed self-defense comes from GOD, NOT from the Executive Branch or any other government office. The Constitution acknowledges and preserves this right, and no president has the power to pick and choose who can exercise it.
Attorney General Eric Holder discussed gun violence at Clark Atlanta University in Georgia on Thursday and called last week’s shootings at Price Middle School and Morehouse College both shocking and outrageous and said that they were reminders a pervasive epidemic of gun violence. While Holder attempted to say the administration was attempting to strike a balance between advocating for tougher gun regulations while preserving the gun rights of citizens, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, he went on to state quite clearly that Barack Obama has asked him to “expand” the criteria of the “wrong people” getting their hands on guns.
[...] Holder went on to take questions from the audience and this is where his comments pointed to the Obama administration determining exactly who the expansion of the categories that would deny Second Amendment rights to entered the discussion.
Holder didn’t say who this might apply to specifically. He did, however, state, “A person who has a gun should be a person who is entitled to have one.”
Holder went on to say, “We have Second Amendment rights and there is nothing in what the President is trying to do that will affect those Second Amendment rights, but there’s certain people; people who have mental health issues perhaps… people who have felony records. These are all categories of people who are not entitled to carry a gun and I think that we have to make sure that that continues to be the case.”
Never mind that Holder’s own DOJ and ATF put nearly 2,500 firearms in the hands of criminal drug cartels in Mexico.
“One of the things the President has asked me to do is to look at that list, to look at those categories and see if we need to expand it to make sure that, again, the wrong people do not come into possession of guns,” Holder added.
Friends, the argument over violent felons is valid only if the law will not mete out just punishment. There was no argument over whether a person’s rights were being violated when someone was found guilty of murder, rape, kidnapping or various other crimes that warranted the death penalty. Now we don’t want to execute people for such crimes, so they “pay their debt to society,” which is not even close to justice, and then we let them back on the streets, but remove their Second Amendment rights; rights that are claimed to be unalienable and given by God. Personally, I’d rather see justice served and not argue about who is and is not entitled to what we have been told are God given rights that the government cannot take away.
Additionally, those who were determined to be mentally ill, not by the Federal government though, were relagated to institutions, but we don’t do that now because we don’t want to hurt someone’s feelings.
However, what should concern every American is just who this “expansion” of categories of those that the Obama administration deems to not be “entitled” to arms applies to. Will it be those with a particular political persuasion? ideology? theology? What will determine this and how will they attempt to enforce it?
Personally, it seems clear that any and all attempts by those in Washington at what is commonly referred to as “gun control” are nothing more than Federal infringements upon the Second Amendment and thus unlawful and unconstitutional.
The White House is trying to create the impression that they are not violating religious liberty, but every time they make a “compromise,” it turns out that the central agenda – forcing religious people to pay for contraceptives and abortions against their conscience – hasn’t changed.
Obama wants to be viewed as the benign benefactor who graciously hears his subjects’ complaints and grants them an exemption. But the unalienable right to religious liberty comes from God, not government. It is not something that Obama can take away and then pretend to give back.
This is where Christians MUST draw the line. Even if this particular fight doesn’t affect your own personal liberty, if they win this battle, the next fight WILL.
HHS released a new proposed regulation under the Obamacare law that the department presented as an accommodation to religious “organizations” that object to providing sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs in their health care plans. However, the proposal does not truly expand the exceedingly narrow religious exemption presented in the initial regulation, which was finalized last year, and continues to offer no exemption at all to Christian individuals or business owners.
“There really is no expansion of the religious exemption,” said Leonard Leo, a Washington attorney, who is a board member of The Catholic Association, a group of Catholic lay persons dedicated to applying the teachings and principles of the church to the issues of the day.
“The HHS mandate announcement today changes nothing, it is just another accounting gimmick and the HHS mandate continues to be a violation of civil rights, religious freedom and First Amendment rights,” said Maureen Ferguson, senior policy advisor to The Catholic Association. “Catholic institutions and other faith based organizations, including hospitals and universities and private employers, still do not get their First Amendment rights back and are still being forced to either violate their faith or pay crippling government fines for practicing their faith.”
Naturally, this is not going over well in the faith community:
“Today’s proposed rule does nothing to protect the religious liberty of millions of Americans,” said Kyle Duncan, General Counsel for The Becket Fund, a conservative legal organization that is representing several groups in the lawsuits against the mandate, including Hobby Lobby.
“The rights of family businesses like Hobby Lobby are still being violated,” said Duncan, adding that lawyers with his group are still studying what effect the rules will have for other non-profits such as Ave Maria University and EWTN.
“Once again, President Obama’s so-called ‘compromise’ is unacceptable – religious and moral freedom is not up for negotiation,” said Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) President Marjorie Dannenfelser.
“There must be no religious ‘test’ by the government as to who, and what type of entities, are entitled to a conscience. We demand respect for non-religious entities such as the Susan B. Anthony Listthat recognize the taking of human life is the antithesis of health care,” she said.
According to Dannenfelser, “The only acceptable outcome is the complete repeal of the HHS mandate and the restoration of a thriving marketplace where Americans can choose health care coverage consistent with their beliefs.”
Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life agreed.
“We at Priests for Life remind the administration that religious liberty does not just belong to religious groups and individuals,” said Fr. Pavone. “It belongs to all Americans. Objections to contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs aren’t based just on dogmas and Bibles, but on adverse health consequences and the fact that human beings, no matter how small, should not be killed.”
“We see only one acceptable change regarding the mandate: rescind it completely,” he said.
Obama will never do that voluntarily, but the courts appear to be on our side:
On Friday, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a preliminary injunction against the contraceptive mandate on behalf of Annex Medical. The Catholic-owned company, which manufactures medical devices, lost its bid for an injunction at the district court level. The 8th Circuit said the district court in its ruling against Annex misunderstood the precedent that came from another 8th Circuit ruling in an earlier mandate challenge (O’Brien Industries v. HHS). The 8th Circuit clarified both Annex and O’Brien Industries qualified for a preliminary injunction.
Annex is unique in that it only has 16 full-time employees, so the owner isn’t required to provide health insurance. The healthcare law requires employers provide health insurance only if they have more than 50 employees, but Annex’s Catholic owner, Stuart Lind, said his faith compels him to provide health insurance coverage to his employees. He objects to contraceptive, sterilization, and abortifacient coverage.
The Annex ruling gives religious business owners an 11-3 record in courts.
This idea of a second bill of “rights” that government should provide (food, housing, health care, etc.) goes back to FDR. Problem is, TRUE rights come from GOD, not government. Government’s job is merely to protect them (life, liberty, property, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech,etc.).
Any “right” that is granted by government can just as easily be taken away by government. Not only that, but it is done so at the expense of someone else who’s REAL rights are being violated so you can be give the “right” to something you haven’t earned.
Mere hours after Breitbart News published an excerpt from an interview with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) in which he speculated that President Barack Obama would “prefer a different kind of constitution,” one with a Bill of Rights based on the South African model, former Obama administration regulatory czar Cass Sunstein published an op-ed making a similar argument: that the president wants a “second Bill of Rights” alongside the existing one.
Sunstein located the source of Obama’s inspiration in Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 1944State of the Union address, rather than the South African constitution–though the American academics whose writings inspired South Africa’s ambitious Bill of Rights could well have taken Roosevelt’s proposals as their foundation.
[...] Obama is aiming at achieving a new set of socioeconomic rights, whether through law or through policy. It is the dream of progressives and liberals for the better part of a century–a dream that has resisted the reality that these “rights” are not justiciable; that they degrade the value of other, fundamental, rights; and they create more policy problems than they solve.
Good for them! This is where we have to draw the line. If New York gets away with it, states across the country will soon follow.
After Democrats in New York rammed a sweeping assault on the right to keep and bear arms through the legislature that failed to exempt police officers from the draconian restrictions, gun owners and even some lawmakers are planning what has been dubbedpotentially the largest act of civil disobedience in state history. According to news reports, gun rights activists are urging everyone to defy far-left Governor Andrew Cuomo’s new registration mandate while daring authorities to “come and take it.”
Analysts say the legislation, passed in a frenzy last week in the wake of the Newtown shooting, represents the most brazen infringement on the right to keep and bear arms anywhere in the nation. Among other points, the so-called SAFE Act seeks to limit magazines to just seven bullets, require virtually all of the estimated one million semi-automatic rifles in the state to be registered with authorities, mandate reporting of patients who express indications that they may have thoughts about hurting themselves or others by doctors, and more.
Aside from being unconstitutional, experts on gun violence also point out that the draconian schemes are a bad idea: Studies have repeatedly shown that more guns lead to less crime, and the phenomenon is obvious across America — just compare Chicago or D.C. to Alaska or Wyoming. The mandated reporting requirements for doctors, meanwhile, have come under fire from across the political spectrum. Whether it will even be possible to enforce the bill, however, remains to be seen.
Preparations are already being made for mass resistance. “I’ve heard from hundreds of people that they’re prepared to defy the law, and that number will be magnified by the thousands, by the tens of thousands, when the registration deadline comes,’’ said President Brian Olesen with American Shooters Supply, among the biggest gun dealers in the state, in an interview with the New York Post.
Even government officials admit that forcing New Yorkers to register their guns will be a tough sell, and they are apparently aware that massive non-compliance will be the order of the day. “Many of these assault-rifle owners aren’t going to register; we realize that,’’ a source in the Cuomo administration told the Post, adding that officials expect “widespread violations” of the new statute.
Threats of imprisoning gun owners for up to a year and confiscating their weapons are already being issued by governor’s office, headed by a rabid anti-Second Amendment extremist who suggested before the bill passed that “confiscation” of all semi-automatic rifles was being considered. If tens or even hundreds of thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens refuse to comply, however, analysts say New York would either have to start raising taxes and building a lot more prisons, or give up on the scheme that experts say will do nothing to reduce violence and that lawmakers say is aimed at eventual confiscation.
Activists involved in the state-wide boycott against the unconstitutional statute who spoke to the Post almost taunted authorities, saying gun owners would essentially dare authorities to “come and take it away.” According to the paper, leaders of some of the state’s hundreds of gun clubs, dealers, and non-profit organizations, citing the New York Constitution’s guarantee that gun rights “cannot be infringed,” are currently involved in organizing the resistance. Among the primary concerns is that, with registration, authorities would know where to go for confiscation, an idea already proposed openly by Governor Cuomo himself.
Veteran Stands Up For 2nd Amendment At Chicago Anti-Gun Forum
View on YouTube
“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. 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.” ~ Thomas Jefferson
If you can’t defend yourself, what’s to stop the government from stripping away all your rights?
Most liberals’ only experiences with firearms come via headline instigating crimes, which jade their conception of an armed citizenry. Homeowners defending the hearth rarely attract much media notice; nor will many liberals be found frequenting shooting ranges or hunting. Rather than familiarize themselves with firearms, it’s apparently more rewarding to delight in self-righteous approbation by restricting rights for those who haven’t harmed anyone.
[...] At its core, gun-control is about submission, not crime.
The Missouri Information Analysis Center, a federal organ of Department of Homeland Security, included veterans, pro-life advocates, gun enthusiasts, Ron Paul supporters, and those who disdain the Fed or UN as potential terrorists. Essentially anyone who dreads untrammeled central authority was suspect. Could unfashionable political stands ultimately be deemed mental disorders or national threats in a bid to disarm dissent?
[...] Disarmament is the necessary precursor to tyranny. History’s most lethal mass murderers have been dictators presiding over unarmed subjects. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot never faced significant civilian resistance. Oh that the Jews had been better armed. The Warsaw uprising began with one small pistol.
[...] Many European nations whose gun laws the Left wants to emulate here have endured murderous dictators. America has yet to suffer such subjugation.To wit, the most jealous guardian of liberty throughout the founding generation, Patrick Henry advanced, “[My] great object is that every man be armed.”
Washington has gradually eroded our unalienable rights while centralizing control. The Second Amendment provides a final redoubt guarding what remains of the other freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Or, as Harald Zieger, an émigré from behind the Iron Curtain, neatly summarizes, “America is the greatest nation on earth because it’s the only one with a First Amendment. We’re the only nation with a First Amendment because we’re the only one with a Second Amendment.”
Now that the bill has been submitted, it’s obvious that calling it an “assault rifle” ban is merely a cover-up for the fact that Feinstein is after practically any defense weapon she thinks she can grab:
Here’s a question: When did handguns and shotguns become “assault rifles”?
They didn’t, but Democrats see this as their big chance to take away as many guns as they can, and they’re not about to pass that chance up.
That this move is as shameless as it is unconstitutional is evident in the fact that the vast majority of the weapons Feinstein seeks to ban were not even used in Sandy Hook, the Clackamas Town Center shooting, or the shooting at the Aurora theater. It is a gun grab, pure and simple.
Back in 1995, Senator Feinstein told 60 Minutes that her ultimate goal was to confiscate all weapons:
View on YouTube
This, in spite of the fact that she herself carried a concealed handgun when her own life was threatened:
View on YouTube
So apparently SHE should have the right to defend herself, but not us peasants, huh? Of course, her bill gives exemptions to the ruling class:
Not everyone will have to abide by Senator Dianne Feinstein’s gun control bill. If the proposed legislation becomes law, government officials and others will be exempt.
“Mrs. Feinstein’s measure would exempt more than 2,200 types of hunting and sporting rifles; guns manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action; and weapons used by government officials, law enforcement and retired law enforcement personnel,” the Washington Times reports.
Some are more “equal” than others, apparently, when it comes to self-defense.
It absolutely galls me that this woman used to be my senator. I voted against her every chance I got.
Next, they’re going after ammunition.
Washington City Councilman Objects To Veteran With Concealed Weapon, Tries To Vote Away His Right To Self-Defense
Anybody on YOUR city council this crazy? You might be surprised.
A disabled 5-year veteran of the war in Afghanistan attended a Oak Harbor city council meeting in the state of Washington, and spoke for two minutes about why the 2nd Amendment was important and a right that should be protected. At one point he mentioned that he was a concealed carry permit holder and carried a weapon at all times to protect both himself and those around him.
When his remarks were finished, a city councilman immediately demanded to know whether the veteran was armed at this moment. The city attorney informed him that he couldn’t force the veteran to answer such a question, but the veteran obliged and respectfully responded that he was currently armed in accordance with the law, that he hoped everyone would be comfortable with that, and added that he would gladly give his life to defend any of them.
Instead of honoring this law-abiding hero, the city councilman immediately introduced a motion to require that all citizens either check their weapons at the door or leave the premises. The motion was denied, and the councilman walked out.
The mayor was much more reasonable, apologizing to the veteran and reminding the audience – half of whom had left – that all city council members had sworn and oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, as well as the state constitution and the city charter.
Even if the motion had passed, constitutional rights are NOT subject to a vote. No voter or politician has a legitimate power to deny you your rights. But as this incident clearly illustrates, we must ever be vigilant, because liberals will not hesitate to strip even a wounded veteran of his unalienable rights if they think they can get away with it.
Here is the video of the incident (councilman’s tantrum begins at the 2:08 mark):
View on YouTube
Here’s a clue for the councilman: guns are TOOLS that require a human being to fire them. It’s not the gun you should be worried about – it’s the person who is in possession of it. If you are so distrustful of your constituents – even law-abiding, wounded veterans – that you actually believe that they pose a threat to you simply because they choose to carry the means to defend themselves, you have NO BUSINESS in any public servant’s office!