Too Bad

Mayor Michael Bloomberg (Wannabe Dictator, NYC) – “Sometimes government does know best. And in those cases, Americans should just cede their rights.”

Never mind that antiquated bill of rights.

Never mind the idea of legitimacy.

Bloomberg wants a dictatorship, pure and simple.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

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.

Government knows best?  Government apparently doesn’t know how to read.

According to Merriam-Webster, the last word of the second amendment means:

  1. Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): “infringe a copyright”.
  2. Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: “infringe on his privacy”.

So government knows best and is seeking to break the terms of the contract between not only the states and the federal government, but should also seek to undermine the very rights promised to us by that contract.

How does any person promoting gun control not understand how much like a dictator they sound?

 

 

 

 

 

Gun Control

 

Feds admit: Gun laws won’t slow crime

Feds admit: Gun laws won’t slow crime.

Duh.

Reason and Force

To my friends who believe that further curtailing my rights as a citizen of this nation and a free man under God, be careful.  What you wish for may be the complete undoing of your personal world view.  History is replete with examples of gun registration, weapons confiscation, bans, etc, etc, ad nauseum.  Each and every time, those public policies instituted under the guise of public safety, modernization, or to ensure a more secure society have backfired terribly.  I can march out example of example of the atrocities committed by governments, both dictatorial and democratically elected, after these policies are enacted.  So, as a student of history, you’ll have to excuse me from buying into the concept of increased restrictions on my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the defense of those rights via modern firearms as being foolish and outdated.  You see, I pay attention, as do many others like me.  History is our guide and we will not allow this country go down that well-worn path.  The survival of civilization as we know it depends on it.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

For another viewpoint on this topic, go read George Yesthal’s article dealing with this situation.  I love these quotes of his.

Assault rifles are the weapons most likely to be successfully deployed in a militaristic engagement and there are many owned by private citizens in the U.S. today. Is it any wonder the government wants them Gone? But why? There are many of you that will quasi-patriotically defend the stance of your government and say, “Well, if people will use them against the government they must be traitors and criminals, so they must be taken away.” Anyone expressing such an attitude is completely missing the big picture and they are not asking the right question, which is, “What has our government got planned that they should be concerned about the prospect that we might use semi-auto rifles in defense against our government?” People not asking that question are being irresponsibly short-sighted.

When you advocate gun control, it is tantamount to advocating gun violence.

The crux of the pro-gun/anti-gun fervor that is being lost is this.  History teaches us that tyrants cannot rule if the people are equally armed to the government forces.  History also teaches us that when the people are forced or willingly surrender those arms, they no longer are citizens, but become subjects that must beg to keep their rights (which no longer are rights but rather bestowed privileges that can be taken away because, really, the subjects can no longer assert themselves other than shouting really loudly).  So, President Obama, Vice President Biden, Congressmen, Senators, Judge, Justice, Governors, Legislators, do you really think it wise to move against the very arms that ensure that the ardent patriots in this nation remain assured that they are the real political power still?  That they are citizens, not subjects?

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
 
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

You say that I need to give up my arms to live in a more civilized society.  I say that I know how well that worked out in the past and I flatly refuse for my safety and security and the safety and security of my children and yours.

Citizen, not a subject.

 

Paradigm Shift – Forget the Clutch

Those of us in the liberty movement, the patriot movement, the pro-gun camp, libertarians, Constitutionalists, conservatives, what have you… we need a paradigm shift if we are ever to fight back against the onward trudge of tyranny.  For too long we have allowed the political left to dominate the discussion by setting the terms of debate.

It is time for that to end.

I have pointed out before the fallacious term assault weapon and the misused term assault rifle in the past as have others ad nauseum.  The firearm industry has coined sporting utility rifle as an alternative, but I have stumbled upon another idea that has merit.  I like the idea of classifying a semiautomatic pistol grip rifle as a sporting utility rifle as it caters to the left’s strange obsession with not targeting “sportsmen” and “hunters,” but it still is allowing them to define the terms of debate.  Like I said, this is going to end here and now.

If the liberals get what they want, and I am choosing to just highlight one of their foci, on standard (or as they call them high) capacity magazines banned, they will put me and my family at risk.  If I have to reload after ten shots, I may find myself locked in close hand-to-hand combat with a thug intent on doing me and my family harm and while I believe myself capable of handling one such individual, two is another story entirely.  That is why standard (12, 15, 18 rounds for most modern semiautomatic polymer frame double-stack handguns such as the common Glock, Springfield XD, or Smith & Wesson M&P; 30 rounds for AR pattern rifles) size magazines are so important.  I can engage four or five attackers down the hallway of my house, with enough firepower and ammunition to resist a determined advance from all of them at once.

You see, my rifle is not an assault weapon, an assault rifle, a killing machine, a weapon of war (yet), or a sporting utility rifle.  My rifle is a FAMILY DEFENSE RIFLE.  With it, I can put up a wall of lead to shield my sons and wife.

So the next time someone asks me why I need so many shots in one magazine, my answer will simply be because I love my family and will always possess every advantage necessary to defend them.

 

Nuts

Senator Dianne Feinstein.  To you, your crusade against the guarantors of your freedom and liberty, and all that think you can ban a God-given right…. all I have is one word…

Nuts.

Guess what?  There’s nothing you can truly do about it either.  You see, I’m a free man… free not by your grace, or by the powers imbued in some magic document, free not by the blood of patriots spilled on this continent 237 years ago or spilled hence, free not by the diktats of government nor the benevolence of bureaucrats.  You see, I understand and know personally the source of my freedom and He knows a whole heck of a lot more than you.  He is infinitely more powerful than you and your associates in the Senate, the House or sitting in that leather chair in the White House.  He was here long before you, me, or anyone else who has ever lived.  He will be here long after we have all died and turned back to dust.

I am your greatest foe.  I cannot be bought.  I cannot be broken.  I cannot be stopped.  You see, my freedom is indestructible because it was not forged by man.  My freedom was poured out by The Holy God Incarnate through love and mercy upon two wooden beams made my man into a cross.  That cross bore the weight of my sin, my guilt, my regrets, and my chains and didn’t just lift the weight from my shoulders, but tore it off in one motion and didn’t just toss it in a corner, but rather took it as far away from me as God was able to do.

Don’t you see the fallacy of your opinions?  You can’t ban evil.  Evil can only be banned by the One more powerful than it.

Don’t blame me or those like me, those currently law-abiding citizens who happen to exercise their God-given and man-codified right of life (and the means which to defend it, from criminals, from government gone tyrannical, or from evil personified) and liberty, for the actions of a lone madman hell-bent on exacting vengeance on his own mother by attacking what he thought she loved the most.  Don’t blame my rifle, because my rifle is incapable of doing anything without me or someone else to manipulate it – just like a sword, a spear, a knife, a baseball bat, a rock, a fuel can, an automobile, a chainsaw, or a sledge hammer.   It is an object – mostly metal… some plastic… that ultimately makes a really small object go really fast (so does a cross bow and a bow and arrow).

So when I say “Nuts” I fully want you to understand that I don’t say that as a hit on your sanity, although that is questionable considering your “everything looks like a nail” response to any shooting and your crusade to ban the very rifles that keep you and your kind alive.  When I say “Nuts” I want you to think of General Anthony McAuliffe, Commander – 1o1st Airborne troops – Bastogne. One of his Colonels, Joseph Harper, further elicited “Go to Hell” in response to the German surrender demand.

So Senator, you may proceed with your attempt to ban so-called assault weapons.  It will fail, just like your own credibility does when you decry the “weapons of war on our streets” when you carry a concealed handgun, for your personal defense, that is itself a “weapon of war.”

Nuts.

Need

One of the questions being blasted over the airwaves and over print media has been “why does anyone need an assault rifle/high capacity magazine?” (My apologies over the use of assault rifle per my previous rants on this misnomer).

This is a difficult question to answer as the sort of person asking the question either has not thought through the ramifications of their premise, nor are they knowledgeable enough about Constitutional construction, modern firearms technology, or lethal force application principles to be involved in the discussion anyway.

How do you answer their question sufficiently in a way that they will understand without belittling their lack of information or understanding?

Christ often used parables to insert a thought into the minds of men who were either incapable or unwilling to know and understand the Truth if presented openly.  What follows was inspired by a number of similar writings on message boards and hopefully conveys this concept in a way more commonly understood than by those of us who have taken the time to learn not only where we stand, but why we stand there based on facts and historical writings.

The authors of the Constitution were extremely forward thinkers.  They understood when they put pen to paper to write our foundational document that they would not have all of the answers.  They included things like the amendment process in order to allow the document to be modernized and changed while still preserving the integrity of it and the principles it codified.  They also understood that they would one day die and it would be up to others to interpret that document to infer those principles as time and technology advanced.  They wrote extensively in the Federalist Papers of the Constitution and the first ten amendments to it (which are the Bill of Rights) and how those should be understood for common men and for future generations.

Now, the United States, with all of it’s component parts, side-by-side systems and hierarchical structure is fairly similar to a computer.  The Constitution is the computer’s operating system.  It provides the framework for all of the computer’s potential to be put to work.  All of the various laws and bureaucracies are like computer programs – some are big, some are small, but they are supposed to work with the operating system to enhance the computer.

The founders understood men to be fallible, so they codified the First Amendment, our right to freedom of speech, the press, to assemble, to petition the government to tackle our complaints and fix the problems we have with it.  The First is like an antivirus and firewall on a computer.  It protects the inner workings of the computer from malicious programs or data packets that would damage it, one of the regular programs, or the operating system as a whole.  The founders considered it to be the first line of defense against corruption and destruction of the computer of the U.S.

Imagine your computer, what is the first program that starts after you turn it on?  The operating system.  The second is the antivirus and firewall.

What happens to your computer though when something invades through the firewall and disables the antivirus?  What can you do?

There are a few options remaining.  You can wipe the system, reinstall the operating system, and essentially start completely anew, but having lost a great deal of time and irreplaceable data.  Terrible damage was done, but all was not lost.  That is what the Second Amendment to the Consitution is for… it codified the right, that the founders understood to be possessed by all by virtue of their very existence, to keep and bear arms (more on this momentarily).  They understood that the computer needed a way to defend itself as well and that if the very programs that defended the computer, such as the antivirus (freedom of the press), were co-opted to work for the malicious program, then a built-in defense mechanism would be necessary.  That mechanism needed to be sufficiently powerful to be able to overthrow the rogue programs and files, beat back the original malicious program, and basically do a system restore to the “computer.”  It’s dirty, annoying, and takes time, but some malicious programs are that mean.

But, do you really need a rifle that can shoot thirty times before reloading?

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.

Noah Webster

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.

Patrick Henry

The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals…[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.

Albert Gallatin

The right of self defence is the first law of nature…. Wherever the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.

St. George Tucker

No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people

William Rawle

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story

The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression.

Thomas Cooley

So the next time someone asks why you need a thirty r0und magazine for your evil black rifle, don’t belittle them. Educate them on why.  Use a metaphor if you need to, but let them leave the conversation with a deeper respect of the reason why.  If you can break the framework of their thought process a little, you might just find them able to better understand the truth differently phrased.

Or simply ask them why they seem to want the return of feudalism or the rise of centralized totalitarianism so badly?

Violation of Second Amendment liberties is part of a comprehensive program to centralize political power and to overcome the ability of citizens to use the ballot box to resist the extension of this centralized political power.

Gary North

intelNews.org

Expert news and commentary on intelligence, espionage, spies and spying

LadyRaven's Whisky In A Jar - OH!

Coffee? Tea? Whisky! - Aspirin anyone?

Stately McDaniel Manor

Culture, Politics, Firearms, Education, Literature, Philosophy, Music, And Other Musings

High Heels and Handguns

This princess is armed- The prince can't always be there to rescue you

Sheeple: People unable to think for themselves

Here to help educate the Sheeple before the slaughter

Reality Check

American Patriot's Reality Check

The Firewall

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it

The Radio Patriot

Because I have so many words...

Eatgrueldog

Where misinformation stops and you are force fed the truth III

Reality Of Christ

Christian, End Time, and Conspiracy News!

DAYLIGHT DISINFECTANT

DAN SANDINI'S NEWS OUTSIDE THE MAINSTREAM

The Longwood Institute

A site dedicated to the appreciation of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness along with the responsibilities these God-given unalienable rights invoke.

Ten Smiths Blog

What does the Declaration of Independence really say?

Deaconmatson's Blog

observations from America

Fighting For Liberty

LEARN FROM HISTORY OR BE DAMNED BY IT

Stiletto Momma

Balancing the high heels of life.

The DiploMad 2.0

All it takes is a spark

WINTERY KNIGHT

...integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square