Category Archives: 1st Amendment

If Gun Controllers Read The Other Amendments Like They Do The 2nd

Standard
If Gun Controllers Read The Other Amendments Like They Do The 2nd

Gun control zealots love to get hooked on the semantics of the 2nd Amendment.

Due to the forefathers elegant writing that is more verse than prose, gun control zealots have harped on misinterpreted syntaxes of the 2nd Amendment for years.

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

The gun controllers like to say that since there isn’t an “and” between State and the right of the people that somehow invalidates the intent of founders.   The intent being found in the other writings of the time.

George Mason: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

Sam Adams: “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms”

George Washington: “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence”

Alexander Hamilton: “The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed”

Thomas Paine: “Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them (arms)”

So even though the founders had just tossed out a tyrant and basically made a bill of rights that all be exclusively dealt with the aforementioned tyranny, somehow the lack of a word is supposed to undercut the intent?

If we were to extend this logic to the other rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights we would have a very different country today.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

By applying gun control “logic” on the 1st Amendment we would have the right of free speech, press and assembly limited to only apply when seeking redress for grievances.  You see, everything before the petition part was an “or”.  You have this right OR this right OR this right, then you can take one of those rights AND petition the government.

Remember, this is gun control “logic”.

So, unless you are petitioning the government for redress of grievances, your right to free speech or assembly or the press or religion would be able to be restricted to the point of prohibition.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law

No mention of apartments in the 3rd Amendment.  Therefore the government has the rights to shack up as many soldiers in your apartment as they want.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces

It only says land, it doesn’t say land forces therefore anyone can be held to answer for a crime without due process if it occurs on land.  Therefore the 5th Amendment only applies to crimes taken while either on an airplane or while falling off a cliff.  And since there weren’t airplanes back in the 1700’s and since gun controllers say at best we have a right to a ball and powder musket then the founding fathers meant to enumerate in the constitution a provision to protect the rights of people accused of committing crimes while falling off a cliff.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

Since the it’s “and” and not “and/or” between cruel and unusual punishments the 8th Amendment allows punishments that can be either cruel or unusual so long as they are not both.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Just like the previous amendment this one has “or” instead of an “and/or” and as such allows for certain rights to be denied AND disparaged against, so long as both are done when you apply the gun controllers logic to the 9th Amendment.

By applying gun control “logic” to other amendments of the Constitution illustrates how ridiculous it is.  Yet gun control zealots still like to argue that somehow, despite the historical evidence of intent, that the founders somehow wanted to limit the right to keep and bear arms to the military.

But back in reality I argue that the intention of the founders was clear and clearest with regards to the 2nd Amendment.  Not only are there the writings of the day that argue for the personal keeping and bearing of arms but also the anecdotal fact that these colonists OVERTHREW A TYRANT.  They didn’t do it by not quartering soldiers, they did it by the use of arms.

They felt so strongly about it that they included in the 2nd the strongest wording they could and a phrase that is not found anywhere else in the Constitution.

Shall not be infringed

Advertisements

The Right to Bear Arms: From Flintlocks to Lightsabers, what will the government control?

Standard
The Right to Bear Arms: From Flintlocks to Lightsabers, what will the government control?

A common fallacy that the gun control crowd likes to put forth is that the 2nd Amendment limits the weapons available to the people of today to those available in the 1700’s.   Basically muskets, flintlock pistols and swords.

While that makes as much sense as the limiting of the First amendment to single page press machines and speaking at town squares (thus excluding television, phones, internet etc), with the advance of technology I can only imagine what the controllers will say when I want to keep and bear my lightsaber.

Lightsaber?!?!?!

Yes, lightsaber.

A team of Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) physicists have discovered a molecule that behaves exactly like the weapon made famous by Luke Skywalker.

You can read the story about how they inadvertently discovered the “lightsaber” molecule here.

With the gun controllers getting their panties in bunch over a sporting rifle being black or having a pistol grip compared to a hunting rifle, I can envision the type of meltdown they would have with a sword that can cut through steel walls.

And yes, the lightsaber is not a gun, but then again gun control isn’t about guns, it’s about control.  With the continual advancement of technology the lightsaber could be a popular and prevalent choice of arm for people to bear.

That’s where I am going with this.

Technology evolves.  And the Constitution enumerated our rights based on the right itself, not on the limitation of the technology of the time.

That is why a new type of media doesn’t invalidate the First amendment, nor does a new religion.  That is also why new materials or new designs do not invalidate the Second Amendment.  We have rights and they are not limited to the times.  They advance as the technology advances.

So one day, maybe near or maybe far in the future, I will have the same right to keep and bear my trusty blaster and lightsaber, that our forefathers had with their flintlocks and swords.

The right of the people to keep and bear lightsabers (or blasters) shall not be infringed.

The Journal News Not Only Hates Gun Owners But Is Apparently Racist Too

Standard
The Journal News Not Only Hates Gun Owners But Is Apparently Racist Too

The Journal News, as you may recall, is the New York based newspaper that made national headlines by producing an interactive map detailing exactly where gun owners lived in Westchester and Rockland Counties.

While the newspaper’s hostility toward gun owners and disregard for people’s privacy is well documented the Journal News abject racism towards blacks has been only recently exposed.

In the Westchester County Executive race this fall, the Journal News has actively joined the election to suppress voices from blacks.  The incumbent, Republican Rob Astorino, who did not care for the Journal News’ invasion of his constituents privacy is up for re-election against Mayor of New Rochelle, Noam “Back of the Bus” Bramson.

mayor-bramsonbw

Noam Bramson 

Yet when the New Rochelle Lincoln Zuber Riders for Justice (a local org made up of prominent black citizens) bought a full page ad in the Journal News to highlight Bramson’s long history of hostility toward the Black Community, their money was accepted only to have the ad pulled at the last minute.

The full ad detailing Noam Bramsons repeated and long running hatred towards blacks can be seen here:  Click to see ad.

No explanation was given to why the Gannet Corporation (the company that owns the Journal News) had directed the Journal News not to run the ad.

Whether you are a gun owner, black or both, why anyone continues to read the rag that is the Journal News is beyond me.  Furthermore, by trying to silence the New Rochelle Lincoln Zuber Riders for Justice the Journal News shows once again that it is on the wrong side of liberty.

On top of all that, for the people of Westchester county, this complicity in order to help himself get elected by silencing blacks once again shows how Noam achieved the moniker, “Back of the Bus” Bramson.

I hope that this November the Journal News and Bramson both get hoisted on their own petards.

Oh, and I should mention that Bramson, in addition to blacks hates guns.  He is a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, has accepted campaign contributions from Mayor Bloomberg and talks glowingly about all the good gun control does.

So on top of being a racist and a gun grabber he’s not too bright either.

For more information about the Lincoln Zuber Riders you can go to their website:

http://lockedoutbybramson.com/

 

9/11/13 : Twelve years of letting the terrorists win

Standard
9/11/13 : Twelve years of letting the terrorists win

I’m going to sidestep the normal gun heavy discussion I tend to have and focus on my Libertarian roots.

I cannot help but look at the past twelve years and see all that we lost.  Starting with the 2700+ killed in New York, the 343 fire fighters who died in the line of duty, those in the pentagon and those in the plane that struck it.

Then I think of Flight 93 and the heroes on board.  The first and the last victory the people of this country had against the war on terror.

Because everything afterward has been a continued and steady victory for terrorism.

See, when terrorists commit to something, dying is pretty much a moot point.  Therefore killing them doesn’t actually change the scoreboard.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for killing terrorists, but that is just a show to cover the continuing defeats that we have faced over the past 12 years here at home.

“What defeats” you say?  “We haven’t had anymore buildings get blown up or planes get knocked down” you exclaim.

No.  We’ve taken the fight to the terrorist and we haven’t had buildings blown up, planes taken down by shoe bombers or underwear bombers or chemical/nuclear/biological attacks.  Those attacks are on broad scales and easily defined.

We, as Americans have been losing by small degrees.

Those degrees have culminated in the loss of our way of life.

“We’re told to go on living our lives as usual, because to do otherwise is to let the terrorists win”

“If Americans begin to yield their own freedoms at home, the terrorists have won.”

“Our response to terrorism should be carefully measured. If our First Amendment rights suffer as a result of a terrorist attack the terrorists have indeed, won.”

Any of these sound familiar?

Unfortunately, it was then that President Bush made his biggest blunder.  The Patriot Act.  And most of the county, like willing supplicants begging for alms to quiet their fears lapped it up.

I’ve no doubt Mr. Bush had good intentions with the Patriot Act, the TSA, Homeland Security and all the rest.  But as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

So now we find ourselves in a country, led by President Obama who has expanded on Bush’s mistake and we find ourselves with no privacy, no free travel, no 4th Amendment rights, at the whims of federal and local authorities to shred the constitution on a whim all for the dog and pony show of combating terror and to keep us (the sheep) safe.

Ben Franklin, founding father and all around genius once put his thoughts on the matter so eloquently that they cannot be improved upon by saying:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

To anyone who was molested by a TSA agent, thrown in cuffs “just cuz” in NYC, or had the IRS try and ruin their lives because of what they wrote on the internet; I’m sure you have a very personal take on what this blanket of safety really feels like.

We have been losing the war on terror for the past 12 years because we have been losing our way of life.  Bush started it but Obama has made it so much worse.

Unfortunately, it seems only Libertarians are willing to acknowledge the fact that both major parties have had their hand to play in this, so R’s and D’s just keep fiddling with each other while the Constitution burns.

If remembrance of 9/11 makes you sad it’s all right, it was a tragedy and pain should be tinged with the memory.  For me, looking at what my country has become over the last 12 years holds the same.

Lost rights…lost freedoms…lost liberty…

I just hope that it is not too late and the war is not lost.  I hope that the sleeping giant that is America (and not its government) rouses from its slumber and smashes the chains of its own imprisonment before they are shackled too tightly.

9/11 is a day of sadness…but also a day of hope.

Come on America…let’s roll.

Gun owners act with class…the hateful left acts with crass

Standard
Gun owners act with class…the hateful left acts with crass

Depending on where you live, the chances are you have come across those who disagree with your choice to exercise your right to keep and bear arms.  There is also a chance you have found businesses that do not recognize your 2nd Amendment rights.

There are plenty of those of the “tolerant” left who have causes they believe in as well.

The difference between in how gun owners react to rejection and the way those of the hateful left is quite telling.

If a business is anti-gun, we as gun owners will most likely avoid it in order to support another company that believes in the 2nd Amendment.  We’ll let others in our community know that a certain business is anti-gun and may even reach out to that business to let them know that they are losing business but it doesn’t extend further than that.

Then you have the hateful left, and I’m not talking about those stooges who impotently try to boycott Starbucks

boycottstarbucks

but rather those hate mongering “tolerant” intellectuals.  Those that wish those who disagree with them to die, or their families to die are are threatening them directly with murder.

nra-threat

This kind of hateful rhetoric is not limited to the anti-gun zealots but rather to any person who dares disagree with an opinion of a hateful left member.

The most recent example of this is the vicious and continued attack by the hateful left against “Sweet Cakes By Melissa”.  What did the owners of the cake shop, Aaron and Melissa Klein, do that was so reprehensible to the hateful left?

They chose to not bake a cake for a lesbian wedding since, on religious grounds, they do not agree morally with a homosexual marriage.

While every gun owner I know and anyone who is not a member of the hateful left would have just found another place to have their cake baked and been content to know that Sweet Cakes lost business, the lesbian couple decided to sue in order to force the Klein’s to betray their own beliefs.

The courts in Oregon, being one of the west coast havens for the hateful left, ruled that the Klein’s had to invalidate their 1st Amendment right of freedom of religion and betray their religious belief in order to placate this lesbian couple.

I can only imagine if I went to a Muslim Bakery and demanded they put bacon into a cake.  Somehow I doubt the court would back me up on that in the same manner.

But on top of forcing a business owner to betray their own religious rights, the hateful left wanted to also punish the owners by threatening them until they decided to close their shop.

Threatening calls, letters promising violence and hateful posts on social media flooded the Kleins.  From proclamations that Aaron should be shot to one apparent threat that he be raped, the hate and angst being thrown the Klein family’s way is certainly serious in nature. Some have even wished for the couple’s five children to be stricken with illness.

One of the tamer ones:

“You stupid bible-thumping, hypocritical b**ch. I hope your kids get really, really, sick and you go out of business,”

That is the tolerance of the hateful left.  You are free to believe in anything you want…so long as you completely agree with them or else they will threaten you and your family.

The Klein’s, refusing to betray their values decided to close the doors to their business and move the operation to a home-based business.  That is called conviction and I salute them for it.  I wish them all the luck and congratulate them on staying true to their beliefs in the face of the ugly and hateful response by the hateful left.

As a vocal gun owner, I have been all too familiar with death threats and just vicious hateful trash being spewed at me from the sewers the hateful left calls mouths.

It is important as a gun owner, or as any rational and reasonable human being to avoid the violence and vitriol of the hateful left and in doing so showing the contrast to an outside party of what we stand for and what the hateful left stand for.

We stand for freedom…they stand for hate mongering and groupthink.

Being Gay trumps being a Gun Owner in New Mexico

Standard
Being Gay trumps being a Gun Owner in New Mexico

The Supreme Court of New Mexico has ruled that, by refusing to photograph a gay wedding, a photography studio violated the law.

Long story short, private business owners, Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin don’t agree with gay marriage and chose not to provide photography services to a lesbian couple.

According to the New Mexico Supreme Court,the case

“teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less.”

Compromise.  Funny, this doesn’t seem like a compromise but rather forcing a someone to do something they are diametrically opposed to.

The court goes on to say:

The owners of Elane Photography, Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin, “are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish, yet in the world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different.”

Doing so, Bosson said, is “the price of citizenship.”

Ok.  So the price of citizenship is being forced to run your private business in a manner you disagree with on a religious level.  Plus, the court has the hubris to actually geld the 1st Amendment by stating “you are free to say what you believe but it doesn’t matter as you have to still do as we say.”

And to liken this to Blacks being refused service in the south is a false analogy.  It would be more akin to the Ku Klux Klan hiring an all black photography studio to film a cross burning and having the courts force the studio to do it.

(and before you start with the “why would the Klan hire blacks?” talk, i don’t know what goes on in the minds of racists, maybe they’d like forcing blacks to serve them, whatever.  I mean, why didn’t the lesbian couple just find another photography studio instead of suing Elane?)

But speaking of refusing service to blacks in the south, there are civil rights abuses going on in New Mexico that line up more closely to it.

Every day over 22,000 New Mexicans have their civil rights violated by being refused service at businesses around the state by statute*.  They simply exercise their right to keep and bear arms yet are discriminated against by these businesses.  Peaceful refusal to accept this bigoted stance results in the civil rights activist facing a 4th Degree felony which carries an 18-month prison sentence and a $5000 fine.

I believe in the rights of a private business to refuse service if they so choose.  I believe they have a right to allow smoking in their establishment, to serve trans-fats and salt and wash it down with oversized beverages and in general dictate how their business is to be run.

BUT…

If the New Mexico Supreme Court is ruling that, as a business owner, “the price of citizenship” is to “compromise your beliefs” and “leave space for other Americans who believe something different” then the statute allowing the banning of firearms in private businesses must be struck down.

And the 2nd Amendment is not a choice.  I was born this way, with the right to defend myself by use of martial arms and as such it is my civil right as an American to have that protected from bigoted anti-gun business owners.

Regrettably, I can’t help but feel that the New Mexico Supreme Court picks and chooses who they believe deserve to have their civil rights protected.  But who knows, maybe this is the verdict that brings down the state backed bigotry toward gun owners in New Mexico.

 

 

*NMSA 29-19-12 C. C.   provision of authority for a private property owner to disallow the carrying of a concealed handgun on the owner’s property;

 

 

Legality aside, why would Docs need to know if there’s a gun in your house?

Standard
Legality aside, why would Docs need to know if there’s a gun in your house?

The Heritage Foundation did a great write up about the legality of barring doctors from snooping into the non-medical related business of their patients, but I wanted to put the legality of the issue aside for the moment.

My real question is, Why?  Why would a doctor need to know whether you have a gun in the house?  And also, why is Obamacare encouraging doctors to ask about gun ownership?  Considering that patient information will be privy to the government in the new Obamacare database, I can understand why the Obama Administration (enemy to the 2nd Amendment) would want that information.

I’m still wondering though, what  the rationale that doctors hide behind in order to ask the question in the first place.  I don’t think a doctor of mine ever asked what kind of car I drove or whether I have a Ginzu knife set or a sawzall.  Those are dangerous tools as well and could be used to hurt myself or others if misused.  Yet they never asked about those things.

And let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that NOT answering the question is good enough.  If you are a gun owner you can either lie to your doctor (and if you have a negligent discharge and shoot yourself in the foot, face the possibility that your insurance won’t cover the costs), you can forgo your right to privacy and say yes (an infringement in its own way) or you can tell your doctor to pound sand, which will be like admitting it anyways.

What if you have kids?  We teach our children not to talk to strangers but we introduce our doctors as people who will help them and are to be trusted.  We do put our children’s lives in these people’s hands after all.  Are we really going to try and tell our children which questions to be honest about and which to evade?

I don’t like when government passes any law to restrict a right.  But I cannot legally yell fire in a crowded theatre when there isn’t one, I cannot legally threaten to kill a person, I can’t legally lie under oath at a trial…these infringements on my First Amendment rights are in place to protect other people.

And before any of you gun grabbing antis start squawking about gun control…the equivalent of gun control to the above scenario’s is to pass a law cutting out everyone’s tongues.  Of course the criminals just won’t have theirs cut out.

Anyways, back to the point.  A doctor has no medical reason to inquire about firearms in the home and people should be protected from both doctors, who would abuse their position, and a government who has knocked down the wall of doctor/patient confidentiality.

Unless a doctor is going to prescribe a pill that stops bullets and will prescribe them only to gun owners, the question itself is beyond the scope of a doctors purview and just shouldn’t be asked.

 

As an ironic twist, as often as Obama likes to tout polls saying a majority of Law Enforcement back gun control and using that as a platform to push for it…he is oddly silent in the face of this poll:

A survey released last year (2012) by the non-partisan Doctor Patient Medical Association painted an even bleaker picture, revealing that 83 percent of physicians have thought about leaving their practices because of Obamacare.