It’s not widely known that a substantial number of the Founding Fathers did not want a Bill of Rights at all, while others would not sign or assist in the ratification of the Constitution without a solemn understanding that the Bill of Rights would follow in short order. They didn’t want a Bill of Rights because they were afraid future generations of politicians would claim that those rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were the only rights of citizens. As it turns out, they were prescient in this and much else.
Gun control has always been an issue fraught with political intrigue, and reasonably so, for the truism that an armed society is a free society is undeniably true. No dictatorship can allow its subjects the freedom to keep and bear arms, as they will inevitably be used against the dictator and his allies. Dictators, in consolidating power and control over their populations, always deprive them of arms, commonly through the application of deadly force. Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Iran, all have followed this common pattern, as have all dictatorships before them. Free men therefore look upon restrictions on firearm ownership and use with a jealous and wary eye, for they have millennia of history warning them of its inevitable dangers and depredations.
This is the third article in my seven part series. The first two articles, updated for 2014, are available here and here.
President Obama’s major 2013 anti-gun push was a spectacular failure. Most congressional democrats did not dare support him. Even so, draconian and surely unconstitutional anti-gun laws have already been adopted in New York state, Colorado, Maryland and are under consideration elsewhere. Our Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies are purchasing enormous quantities of weapons and ammunition and commissioning targets of obviously non-criminal citizens–children, the elderly, pregnant women, all white–in order to “desensitize” their agents, apparently that they might be better able to quickly, and without thought or remorse, kill unremarkable, non-criminal Americans.
Mr. Obama, however, is undaunted. During his 2014 State of the Union speech, he swore to use his pen and phone to pass gun control measures, measures that he cannot obtain constitutionally, though the legislative process in the Congress.
I intend to keep trying, with or without Congress, to help stop more tragedies from visiting innocent Americans in our movie theaters, shopping malls, or schools like Sandy Hook.’ Obama said.
‘Citizenship means standing up for the lives that gun violence steals from us each day,’ he continued. ‘I have seen the courage of parents, students, pastors, and police officers all over this country who say ‘we are not afraid.’
None of the measures Mr. Obama has tried to pass would have, in any way, stopped the crimes he cited. Such laws only inconvenience and criminalize the law-abiding. And of course, the fact that Mr. Obama–the head of what is arguably the most lawless administration in history–threatens to entirely bypass the Constitution to work his will should be a matter of no small concern.
The mere fact that elected representatives should even think to propose laws that are so clearly unconstitutional, and that they should see their law-abiding countrymen as threats, should be alarming to all free men that wish to remain free.
Before I go further, a brief political primer might be useful. Generally, American Conservatives have been supportive of the Second Amendment and Liberals have not, particularly those Liberals of a Socialist or Statist bent. I’ll use the term “Progressive” for the remainder of this essay as many Democrats no longer like to be associated with the term “liberal”—too many Americans have come to associate that with actual Democrat policies and intentions–and now tend to prefer “progressive,” for who could be against progress? However, the goals and policies of the contemporary Democrat party have become virtually indistinguishable from Socialist—or if you wish, Statist or even Marxist—orthodoxy. Democrat, Statist, Socialist, Communist, Progressive, all are simply constituent parts of the American left, virtually all of which despise firearms and their possession by free men. For those familiar with the general philosophies of the respective political movements, this is to be expected and is a natural consequence of those beliefs. Keep in mind that this primer is, of necessity, brief and a generalization being painted with a rather broad brush.
Progressive Philosophy: Socialists are fundamentally concerned with equality of outcome. During a 2008 debate, Mr. Obama asserted that he would raise capital gains taxes even if doing so produced less tax revenue (as historically has been the case) because it would be “fair” to make ostensibly wealthier people pay more. Since that introduction, Mr. Obama has consistently argued for “fairness,” most notably in a speech in Kansas that seemed to suggest “fairness” would be a major theme of his 2012 re-election campaign. Not only was this so, he has since continued to make this specious argument, making the class warfare argument that the wealthy–whoever they might be–are not paying enough taxes, despite the fact that the top 1% of Americans pay 37% of all taxes, and the top 10% pay 70% of all taxes. Remember that some 46% of America households paid no federal income tax in 2011. For Mr. Obama, the definition of “rich” is quite flexible, dropping as low as an annual income of $200,000 dollars and likely, less.
All of this is perfectly predictable because it reflects the Progressive preoccupation with equality of outcome. In other words, in the name of “fairness,” everyone should have the same things: food, housing, medical care, conveniences, etc. That not everyone is willing to work for these things matters not. Perhaps the most commonly known aphorism relating to this concept is the Marxist “from each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs.” As a general statement of “fairness,” it has much to recommend it. However, like so much of Progressive philosophy, it ignores the realities of human nature. Notice too that “fairness” is nebulous; it means nothing and everything. It also has the very salutatory benefit of allowing its user to conceal his true intentions. Who, after all, opposes “fairness?”
Progressivism is by nature very much occupied with big government and with over-arching governmental power. This flows from the fundamental pregressive belief that man is perfectible, or at the very least can be forced to behave–even think–in appropriate ways. Only elite scientific Progressives are sufficiently evolved to keep everyone on the straight path of Progressivism where utopia will be established and perfect social justice will reign under their enlightened and benevolent rule. The average man is untrustworthy, greedy, homophobic, racist, sexist, unconcerned about the environment and “social justice,” so it falls to the scientific Progressive to force their less evolved brethren to better themselves. If only government becomes large enough, if only the right laws and regulations are written and enforced (and there will never be enough, for the process of perfection is never-ending), only then can man be perfected–or made to simulate perfection–despite himself. Progressivism can never be wrong, for if it appears to fail, this simply means that insufficient Progressivism has been applied, not enough money has been spent (sound familiar?), conservatives have been allowed to exist to oppose it, or it has not had sufficient time to work its miracles of transformation.
In fact, it was Barack Obama in 2008 who repeatedly swore to “fundamentally transform” America. However, in a February 2, 2014 interview with Bill O’Reilly, Mr. Obama backed away from that boast. This is certainly not an indication that Mr. Obama no longer intends such transformation, merely that he is reverting to standard Progressive tactics of lying about his true goals.
Any philosophy that believes in big and ever-enlarging government must of necessity support high and ever-increasing taxes. In fact, taxes can never be high enough, and must be imposed based on “fairness” rather than a rational scheme of necessity. In practice, this means that taxes will always be highest on those Progressives do not favor, such as the wealthy, and particularly conservatives who are wealthy. Progressivism, like Marxism, is obsessed with class warfare; that’s what it is all about.
Progressives are, at best, unsure of the existence of evil. Good, of course, is faithful adherence to Progressive doctrine, but the overt recognition of evil would require the admission that evil cannot be made to conform to Progressivism, hence evil must be understood as resistance to Progressivism. Unsurprisingly, many Progressives are irreligious at best, and often hostile to any expression of faith as is commonly demonstrated in the writings of the Legacy Media which is irredeemably Progressive, for the most part, no longer bothering to pretend to be unbiased. People of sincere faith are commonly depicted by progressives–which encompasses virtually all of the legacy media–as fools, dupes, or dangerous lunatics seeking to impose their religious superstitions on all. Progressives often reserve their greatest hatred and venom for those that oppose their policies. This is in large part why Conservatives trying earnestly to discuss policy with Progressives often find themselves on the receiving end of violently angry and irrational verbal assaults.
For Progressivism to flourish, the state must always take primacy over the individual. The state’s prerogatives are always supreme, and the individual has no rights, but only the privileges accorded him by current state policies and preferences. Despite continual lip service to “equality” and “fairness” and the welfare of “the people,” there is no rule of law under Progressivism, no equal treatment under the law. The state cares nothing for any individual, only the abstraction that is “the people”–coincidentally, “the people” always fully support the state–and some animals are simply always more equal than others, or so progressive and the media will commonly say.
Progressives tend to support collective rather than individual responsibility and embrace victimhood. If one is poor–for instance–it must be because they are black, female, the education system has failed them, society has failed them, someone or something is discriminating against them in some way, or any one of many circumstances outside their control is involved in their oppression. This is particularly true of certain constituencies that will slavishly support progressive policies in return for governmental largess. Members of favored victim groups bear no individual responsibility for their behavior or circumstances because they are, by definition, victims.
J. Christian Adams, Former Department Of Justice Attorney, in his book Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department, explains how Mr. Obama has packed the Voting Section of the Department of Justice with radical leftist activists who have adopted the policy that only Blacks and other minorities can be the victims of electoral discrimination and fraud, allowing black criminals to run fraudulent elections in many American cities and counties, even–as in the infamous New Black Panther case–to engage in outrageous voter intimidation. They also oppose voter identification laws, removing the dead or ineligible from voter roles, and refuse to enforce the law so as to ensure that the absentee ballots of our soldiers, sailors and Marines serving overseas are received in time to count. Inevitably, Democrats are the beneficiaries of such election fraud.
Progressives are always concerned with maintaining maximum governmental power. To that end, power must be taken from “the people.” Progressives fear arms in the hands of the people, and always do whatever they can to disarm them. Among the most severely punished crimes in progressive societies—even Great Britain–are those involving citizen possession or use of arms. The possession of arms by citizens is an ever-present threat to the very existence of Progressivism, and Progressives accordingly never cease their efforts to achieve total citizen disarmament. The Democrat party has always been at the forefront of the American gun control movement, particularly in the days of the Civil Rights Movement. Gun control has its roots in the most vile expressions of racism.
Progressives recognize no individual rights–for others–but only those privileges of contemporary utility to the state, and do not recognize an individual right to self-defense, though they absolutely reserve such privilege for themselves. As no right to self-defense exists, the means to exercise self-defense are illegitimate and must be taken from the people (non-elite progressives) .
Ironically, Progressives commonly hate and despise the Police, seeing them as stupid, racist brutes and oppressors, but again, recognize their social utility, particularly when they support progressive policy. As I’ve noted in previous articles, the police—even in our democracy—have no obligation to protect any individual. In a progressive state, the police actively play favorites, and they universally favor criminals because Progressives favor criminals.
Why would Progressives favor criminals, even terrorists? It takes little effort to find thousands of contemporary examples of what rational people would find amazing, inexplicable affection for and support of the worst elements of society. While some part of this may be nothing more than a perverse tendency to reflexively oppose the values of those they hate–conservatives and the unremarkable American God and gun clingers of flyover country of Mr. Obama’s formulation–simply put, criminals and terrorists commonly share Progressive views and goals. They oppose individual liberty, support Progressivism because it gives them maximum freedom to work their wills, and accept the praise and support of Progressives who tend to see them as oppressed victims of society.
Unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers is an obvious example of a terrorist murderer who enjoys great celebrity and acclaim in Progressive circles and is a long time confidant and friend of Barack Obama. There is substantial evidence to suggest that Ayers actually wrote at least one of Mr. Obama’s autobiographies. The National Endowment for the Humanities, which financially supports its Illinois affiliate, had no comment on its affiliate’s fundraiser, the grand prize of which was dinner for six in the home of Ayers and his equally unrepentant terrorist wife, Bernadine Dohrn who was for years on the FBI’s Most Wanted list. Ironically, Conservative pundit Tucker Carlson successfully bid for the “privilege” and took the late Andrew Brietbart along.
Most recently, the Holder Department of Justice has nominated one Debo Adegbile to head the DOJ Civil Right Division. Mr. Adegbile is an article of progressive veneration for defending one of the most vile and progressive-celebrated murderers of the last half century: Mumia Abu-Jamal. Abu-Jamal murdered a Philadelphia police officer and Progressives have done their best to lionize and free him for 30 years. Of course, even murderers are entitled to representation. What upsets many, including the FBI, career DOJ prosecutors and others, is that Adegbile went far beyond representation, praising Abu-Jamal. Readers will not be surprised to learn that Adegbile has impeccable radical progressive credentials and that he was confirmed by the Senate.
Progressives also tend to distrust and hate the armed forces and our intelligence agencies. They are always on the lookout for ways to diminish their size, power and effectiveness, and progressive American presidents such as Jimmy Carter have done their part to fulfill progressive dogma in this regard. In fact, the damage done to our military establishment and intelligence apparatus by Mr. Carter and Mr. Clinton—who adopted insanely restrictive policies that all but eliminated our human intelligence assets around the world—were a proximate cause of 9-11. Mr. Obama, true to form, is attempting his own military downsizing at a particularly dangerous time in history when our most dedicated long-term enemies are working very hard to increase their military capabilities and the lethality of their weaponry. In addition, Mr. Obama’s pro-Islamist foreign policy has actually encouraged the most militant islamists to take control of Libya and much of North Africa. Egypt remains a basket case as does Syria, the Middle East draws nearer to all-out war every day, and Iran is laughing its way to nuclear weapons as Mr. Obama’s inept, progressive Secretary of State, John Kerry, insults and harasses our allies and coddles our enemies.
Amazingly, using his pen and phone, Mr. Obama has recently unilaterally made it easier for foreigners who have ties to and/or have aided terrorists to immigrate into the United States.
Conservative Philosophy: Conservatives, above all, support equality of opportunity and individual responsibility. The two go hand in hand. They believe everyone should have the unrestrained opportunity to succeed or fail on their own initiative, but they do not believe that everyone is owed a living or anything else by society. Individuals should be responsible for their success or failure, and it is government’s role only to ensure free and equal opportunity, which can only be accomplished by the application of equal justice under the rule of law. Conservatives do not believe in abolishing public assistance for those truly in need, but they do not believe such assistance is a right or should go on eternally.
Conservatives believe in small government with strictly limited powers–those established in the Constitution–which exists to do only what the people cannot do for them selves, such as maintain the military and intelligence agencies, build interstate highways and similar functions. As a result, Conservatives believe in frugal government spending and low taxes. They see every man’s wages and other assets as his property to do with as he likes, and believe in taking only that amount necessary for a small government to properly function.
For the conservative, “fairness” means the equal protection and application of the law. They believe that no law should be written unless it is necessary and easily understandable. They believe that the law should be equally enforced—all of the laws. The supreme law of the land is the Constitution, which is clear and understandable, and which must be honored in spirit and fact. To that end, the rights of the individual are the basis of American democracy and must be respected. Conservatives believe that the Bill of Rights is clear, easy to understand, and must not be infringed.
Conservatives have no doubt about the existence of evil and of the necessity of combating and defeating it wherever it appears. They tend to be people of faith and are generally accepting of other faiths. They believe that mankind cannot possibly be perfected on Earth, and support rational, non-draconian laws to regulate criminal behavior.
Because they believe in equal application of the law, Conservatives support laws that prevent election fraud, such as requiring photographic ID and the required purging of dead and ineligible voters from registration rolls. They do not want those not legally allowed to vote, such as illegal immigrants and felons, voting and consider this belief logical and unremarkable. The Supreme Court agrees, upholding Indiana’s voter ID law in 2008. This has not, however, stopped the Obama/Holder DOJ from suing states passing clearly constitutional voter ID laws.
Conservatives do not support criminals and terrorists. They see such people as uniquely destructive, not only to individuals, but to society and western civilization and believe they are individually responsible for their actions. They certainly do not defend or praise such people. In fact, they reject victim politics.
Conservatives generally support and respect the police, the military and our intelligence agencies. They see them as honorable and essential parts of a free society and forces for stability, peace and good in America and the world, but only so long as they are truly accountable to and servants of the American people.
Conservatives support the Second Amendment because they understand it is the ultimate guarantor of liberty. They tend to be completely comfortable with honest, law-abiding citizens keeping and bearing arms. They also have a healthy skepticism of government, particularly one that tries to assume more power than is granted it by the Constitution.
Racism and Gun Control:
Keeping this brief, general primer in mind, let’s touch on one of the fundamental motivations for American gun controllers: racism. The racist roots of gun control in America are well known to those familiar with history. An excellent, brief overview can be had in historian Clayton Cramer’s The Racist Roots of Gun Control.
It should also be kept in mind that the Democrat party has historically been the party associated with racism. The politicians–local, state and Congressional–that defended segregation and opposed civil rights legislation were virtually exclusively southern Democrats. The urge to control their fellow man, particularly through gun control, runs deeply in the Democrat party, and has always been a fundamental tenet of progressive philosophy.
Circa 2013, Blacks continue to tend to vote for Democrats by substantial margins despite the undeniable history of oppression of Blacks the party has embraced. Yet, because Democrats have provided the entitlements upon which an entire generation of Blacks have come to depend, many Blacks generally support those that support those entitlements.
Senator Robert Byrd (D, WVA), was a quintessential southern Democrat. Until his death on June 28, 2010, Byrd was the longest serving member of Congress, having served six years as a Congressman and 51 years in the Senate. Yet, Byrd was the founder of a large chapter of the Ku Klux Klan in West Virginia, vigorously opposed the Civil Rights Act, filibustering against it for an entire night in 1964, and often made racially charged comments that would have immediately ended the legislative career of any Republican, yet because he eventually called his dedicated involvement in the Klan “a sad mistake,” and because he was a reliable progressive vote, was forgiven. The fact that he sent enormous amounts of pork to West Virginia was, no doubt, also worth significant forgiveness for past sins.
What does all of this have to do with gun ownership? It is only because of the foresight of the Founders in establishing the Second Amendment—which is echoed in 44 state constitutions—that contemporary Americans have the use of arms. The NRA and other supporters of the Second Amendment have been invaluable resources in education and leading the political fight, not only to inform the public, but to secure the Second Amendment through legislation and the courts.
Bill Clinton admitted that his “assault weapon ban” cost a great many Democrats their seats in Congress, and Al Gore’s focus on gun control cost him the White House. In fact, Gore’s anti-gun views kept him from winning his home state of Tennessee. These and several other clear signs that public views had changed in favor of the Bill of Rights have kept most Democrats from overt support for gun control. Their under the radar efforts continue apace, as Barack Obama told the Brady Campaign’s Sarah Brady on March 30, 2011. And of course, circa early 2014, Mr. Obama and some congressional Democrats continue to push for unconstitutional gun control laws. Vice President Biden is partially driving the gun control bandwagon, but to idiotically comic results.
Despite the successes of the District of Columbia v. Heller case (2008), in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right that applies to individuals, and the McDonald v. City of Chicago case (2010) which applied the Second Amendment to the states, the battle to maintain the freedom enumerated in the Second Amendment is constantly raging on many fronts:
(1) Despite the Heller and McDonald decisions, many states and cities, particularly those controlled by Democrats, continue to do all they can to harass, imprison, and hinder gun owners. They continue to keep laws on the books that are plainly unconstitutional, essentially demanding that they be sued—wasting millions of taxpayer dollars—rather than comply with the Constitution. Gun ownership remains all but impossible, or so tightly regulated as to be nearly impossible in California, Chicago, New York state, New York City, the District of Columbia and other Democrat strongholds. Even Chicago, however, is being forced into at least apparent compliance with the Second Amendment.
(2) State and federal progressive politicians are constantly proposing restrictive, unconstitutional laws that they know, for the moment, they cannot pass, but they never miss an opportunity to exploit a tragedy or sensational crime (such as the Newtown Massacre) in the name of gun control in the hope that the public will ignore rational thought and respond emotionally.
(3) My former co-blogger at the now retired Confederate Yankee (which is still active for archival access only), Bob Owens (his PJ Media Archive containing his F&F posts is available at this link) took the lead on the Internet in investigating the Obama Administration’s Fast and Furious Scandal, while I added several articles in support. In that ongoing scandal, the Obama Administration ran thousands of guns, through the BATFE and the State Department, directly into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. More than 200 Mexican, and two American, law enforcement officers and countless Mexican civilians have been killed by those weapons. All available evidence indicates the program was a cynical, foolish and deadly attempt by the Obama Administration to build public support for gun control policies that could not be obtained through the Congress. The majority of Democrats would not support them even when they controlled both houses of Congress. The guns given to murderers by the Obama Administration continue to turn up at the scenes of murders.
(4) Legislation by Regulation: The BATFE—at the direction of the Eric Holder Department of Justice, instituted additional reporting requirements for gun dealers in New Mexico, Arizona, Texas and California. Dealers are now required to report multiple sales of long guns, despite the BATF having no legal authority to implement such rules. It was the BATF that ordered dealers to make multiple sales of long guns to people they knew were breaking the law. The regulation, which is being challenged in court, is a transparent attempt to distract attention from Fast and Furious.
(5) Executive Branch Lawlessness: President Obama is infamous for doing by executive fiat what he cannot accomplish otherwise. Under the banner of “we can’t wait,” he made recess appointments of a number of unaccountable federal officials so radical they could never be confirmed even in a Democrat controlled Senate, violating the Constitution in the process. His NLRB appointments have been ruled unconstitutional, but the NLRB is simply ignoring the court and continuing to regulate. The Environmental Protection Agency is implementing countless regulations that will close power plants, making our energy costs “necessarily skyrocket” as he has long fervently wished (he was not able to accomplish it through the democratically controlled Congress by means of Cap and Trade). And the Holder DOJ has demanded that police agencies hire the plainly unqualified–but racially favored–in the name of eliminating “disparate impact.”
(6) National Insecurity: Mr. Obama’s actions in coddling our enemies and insulting our allies are well known, voluminous and ongoing.
Informed Americans are also increasingly alarmed at our national debt, now at 17 trillions dollars and rising daily (if real terms are allowed, it’s probably well over 100 trillion). The possibility of economic collapse and the societal chaos that would inevitably follow, within our lifetimes, is a real and looming threat.
In addition, external threats such as an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) attack that would wipe out computer memories and destroy any device regulated by electronics—essentially everything we now rely upon for daily life—are a horrifying reality. Iran, for example, is actively planning for such an attack, and in 2010, what appears to have been a rehearsal for such an attack by one of our enemies took place off the California coast.
(7) Judicial Legislation: Upon being elected, Mr. Obama taunted Republicans by saying “elections have consequences.” Mr. Obama has been hard at work seeing that they do by appointing Federal judges that support the progressive agenda. Such judges see the Constitution not as the supreme law of the land, but as an impediment to desired progressive policies. He has also succeeded in appointed two Supreme Court justices—Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor (the self-proclaimed “wise Latina”). During their confirmation hearings, both women claimed to respect and support the Second Amendment. When they actually had the opportunity to prove their loyalty to the Bill of Rights in the Heller and McDonald cases, they voted against freedom, demonstrating that their Senate testimony was a lie.
If, during his second term, Mr. Obama is able to appoint sufficient justices to shift the balance on the Supreme Court from those that decide cases based on the Constitution and the law to those who seek to implement progressive policy from the bench, the Second Amendment will surely be nullified. At the very least, it will be so watered down as to be a fundamental right without any application in the lives of individuals. Such a Supreme Court would likely find no restriction on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms—if they did not obliterate it entirely—that they found too much of an imposition on individual liberty.
Post-presidential election 2012, Americans that value the Second Amendment must deal with these issues and more. Remember the basic facts of Socialist vs. Conservative philosophy, but more, consider this:
(1) Without another election to face, Mr. Obama will have no restraints on implementing his Socialist vision, of “fundamentally transforming America.” Never has America seen such a lawless president and administration. We haven’t seen anything yet.
(2) Mr. Obama has never seen a gun control measure he did not support. His record is unquestionably and fiercely opposed to the Second Amendment and individual freedom and autonomy.
(3) Mr. Obama’s constant invocation of class warfare is a dangerous and disturbing sign of his true intentions. So is reflexive Progressive support for the activities of Communists, Anarchists, criminals and similar social parasites as in the Occupy Wall Street “movement.”
(4) Under a conservative president, it is virtually certain that Americans will continue to have the choice—and fundamental right—of gun ownership and use. Under a progressive president, that choice and right will always be under attack and may be utterly eliminated.
It’s not always possible to take people at their word—Justices Kagan and Sotomayor being obvious cases in point—but sometimes, it’s vital that we do. Senator Hubert Humphrey, one of the most famous figures in Progressivism said:
Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. . . . The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny, which now appears remote in America, that historically has proven to be always possible.
Chairman of the Brady Campaign (the leading American anti-gun organization) Sarah Brady, who was so heartened by Mr. Obama’s assurance that he was pursuing gun control “under the radar,” also said:
We must get rid of all the guns.
She is no doubt delighted by his now-overt efforts on her behalf.
Mr. Obama’s views on gun control are clear, despite his occasional public statements in faux support of the Second Amendment. In this case, his record and actions—such as Fast and Furious–speak far more eloquently than his most fluid teleprompter reading. But it would be wise indeed to listen to the late Senator Humphrey, and we ignore Sarah Brady’s revelation of her intentions—the intentions of the entire progressive movement–at our risk.
For the moment, gun ownership is a choice. Even if, after reading and considering this series, you choose not to own a firearm, would not America be better off if Americans continue to have that choice? If you did not before, now you know who wants you to have it and who does not.
The fourth, updated article in this series, which will be posted on February 19, 2014, explores the practical, moral and legal issues gun owners must consider. It also speaks to the changes in lifestyle that carrying a concealed weapon must, of necessity, impose.
Mike…You need to write a book.
I love your writings and it sure would be nice to take the book with me as I wait at a doctor’s office or while waiting for someone.
It helps that I agree with you on 90% of your beliefs, but I believe AMERICA feels as you do.
I’ve tried to track down the difference between Democrats and Republicans. It simply goes back to whether one believes the Constitution/Bill of Rights is a concrete document, to only be changed by Amendments and thorough agreement from the large body of Americans.
If you believe it was written over 200 years ago and the founders simply couldn’t foresee what the country would be or need in future centuries, then you are a Democrat.
If you stand in awe of these men’s visions and insight into the future, you are a Republican.
We can argue about welfare, class division, taxes, national security, etc., but until you take your stand on how you view the Constitution, it’s all moot. Each argument goes back to whether you believe in the Constitution.
Tango Juliet said:
Tango Juliet said:
Excellent article. I’m with DMoore……a book, please!
Pingback: Gun Ownership, A Rationale, Part 4: Life-Changing Realities « Stately McDaniel Manor
Alan Reasin said:
Thanks for your help on getting me a place to blog on the Gun Value Board blog.
When I testified against the MD gun control bill on March 1st, I said in part, “Many stories can be told of foreign governments in the past which have introduced gun control, firearms registration with eventual confiscation, then the subjugation of the people, but we have seen that in our country as well. Gun control against African Americans was practiced during the decades of Jim Crow. This permitted hate groups and their government allies to intimidate, harass and deprive African Americans the means of self defense and a defense of their constitutional rights. Native Americans suffered the same fate and in the final confrontation with the US Army at Wounded Knee, they had their firearms confiscated and then 297 men, women and children were massacred.”
The 1307 pro gun folks vs the 32 anti gun that testified did nothing to change the minds of the Democrats in the Senate which passed the bill and I think the same will happen in the House. Fortunately MD has a petition to referendum process that can stay, like a court injunction, laws and overrule them by vote on the 2014 ballot. We have started to prepare for that petition drive. But there remains at test 20 other bills that impact gun and ammo purchases, registering for ammo purchases is one, that we may face. The Democrats are even trying to place more barriers on the petition process.
I had a bit of lively debate with the chairlady at the hearing on the petition changes, when see told me that they, the legislators like the referendums, and that many of the signers of our petition did it to give democracy a chance at the ballot box; yep she seriously tried to convince me of that. The first time in 20 years that citizens had gotten referendums on the ballot; 3 of them and she was happy for us. Ri-i-i-i-ght
The is an organization being set up under sheriffs and police chiefs to protect 2nd Amendment rights; the Constitutional Security Forces by Chief Kessler, 570-874-4790, email@example.com, http://www.chiefkessler.com/BYLAWS.html
“despite the fact that the top 1% of Americans pay 37% of all taxes, and the top 10% pay 70% of all taxes.” — If I posses 100% of the wealth, logically, what percent of the taxes should I pay? If posses 0% of the wealth, what percent should I pay? Why is it that when people speak of how unequal the current tax structure and code (appears) to be, its never gauged with those two polar opposites as a linear rule? Yes, this means I think the folks at the bottom should pay more as well, but lets be real here: blood from a turnip.
Irrelevant. People are generally taxed – at least at the federal level – on income, not wealth.
That’s why scum like George Soros favor high taxes. Very high income taxes don’t have much effect on those that have already made their fortunes. The greatest impact it has, is in making it more difficult for new people to join the ranks of the wealthy.
The billionaire socialists, like Soros (a big supporter of Obama), aren’t trying so much to be ‘fair’, as they are trying to limit new access to their economic power/status – just as aristocracies have done throughout history.
Yes, and its generally people with more wealth that eventually don’t need an income, but you don’t have to be George Soros specifically to enjoy it. You throw out his name, but don’t like a why to it, like some how saying ‘George Soros’ answers questions as to why he would be in favor of high income taxes. As you state, if they don’t apply to people that have already made their fortunes, why would any upper echelon care, and given that wealth and money is finite, why would they want to share their interest?
Reblogged this on Brittius.com.
Pingback: Gun Ownership, A Rationale Part 5: Weapon Choice | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Gun Ownership, A Rationale, Part 4: Life-Changing Realities | Stately McDaniel Manor