Ah simple truths, wisdom, we need to use them more
Sorry about the blip in there, near the end, my niece knocked on my office door, and I forgot to edit it out!
During yesterday’s confirmation hearing for Supreme Court justice nominee Neil Gorsuch, California Senator Dianne Feinstein took dead aim at the National Rifle Association, branding the nation’s oldest civil rights group (founded in 1871) as an ‘extreme organization.”
Feinstein’s NRA comment came after she voiced her expectations that the Supreme Court will have final say on air and water pollution and just before she addressed employers who “[discriminate] against workers.”
CSPAN 2 aired Feinstein’s comments: “It is the Supreme Court that will have final word … [on] whether the NRA and other extreme organizations will be able to block common sense gun regulations, including those that keep military-style assault weapons off our streets.”
Crackpot rhetoric based on delusions and lies Owens explains
“Assault weapons” are of course a politically-manufactured term created by gun control fanatic Josh Sugarmann to describe any firearm that looks remotely like a military firearm, regardless of their actual function or capability.
Semi-automatic weapons (self-loading firearms that fire one shot per trigger pull) have been in common use in the United States for more than a century, having first been produced in large commercial quantities in the late 1800s. The semi-automatic action has been the most popular kind of firearm action for handguns for decades, and remains the most popular action type for rifles. Semi-automatics may soon become the most popular form of action for shotguns as well.
Feinstein and her dishonest ilk use the term “military-style assault weapons” in an intentional attempt to confuse the public.
“Assault weapon” is supposed to confuse the public into thinking that selective-fire military firearms are easily sold to the general public, which is an outright falsehood.
Selective-fire weapons such as assault rifles, submachine guns, and machine guns have been tightly restricted by the National Firearms Act since 1934, and while there are more than 240,000 registered “NFA” guns in civilian hands in the United States, they are almost never used in crime, with only two documented occurrences known. Further, the manufacture of new NFA firearms for the general public was outlawed 31 years ago, when the Hughes Amendment passed as part of the Firearm Owners Protection Act in 1986.
Yes, you read that correctly: real military firearms capable of firing more than one shot per trigger pull have been banned for more than three decades.
Feinstein lies, and knows she lies because one her fondest wishes is to eradicate your right to arm yourself. Think about that!
The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.
The Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all law-abiding Americans. The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple.
It’s been said that the Second Amendment is America’s first freedom. That’s because the Right to Keep and Bear Arms protects all our other rights. We are the only country in the world that has a Second Amendment. Protecting that freedom is imperative. Here’s how we will do that:
Enforce The Laws On The Books
We need to get serious about prosecuting violent criminals. The Obama administration’s record on that is abysmal. Violent crime in cities like Baltimore, Chicago and many others is out of control. Drug dealers and gang members are given a slap on the wrist and turned loose on the street. This needs to stop.
Several years ago there was a tremendous program in Richmond, Virginia called Project Exile. It said that if a violent felon uses a gun to commit a crime, you will be prosecuted in federal court and go to prison for five years – no parole or early release. Obama’s former Attorney General, Eric Holder, called that a “cookie cutter” program. That’s ridiculous. I call that program a success. Murders committed with guns in Richmond decreased by over 60% when Project Exile was in place – in the first two years of the program alone, 350 armed felons were taken off the street.
Why does that matter to law-abiding gun owners? Because they’re the ones who anti-gun politicians and the media blame when criminals misuse guns. We need to bring back and expand programs like Project Exile and get gang members and drug dealers off the street. When we do, crime will go down and our cities and communities will be safer places to live.
Here’s another important way to fight crime – empower law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves. Law enforcement is great, they do a tremendous job, but they can’t be everywhere all of the time. Our personal protection is ultimately up to us. That’s why I’m a gun owner, that’s why I have a concealed carry permit, and that’s why tens of millions of Americans have concealed carry permits as well. It’s just common sense. To make America great again, we’re going to go after criminals and put the law back on the side of the law-abiding.
Fix Our Broken Mental Health System
Let’s be clear about this. Our mental health system is broken. It needs to be fixed. Too many politicians have ignored this problem for too long.
All of the tragic mass murders that occurred in the past several years have something in common – there were red flags that were ignored. We can’t allow that to continue. We need to expand treatment programs, because most people with mental health problems aren’t violent, they just need help. But for those who are violent, a danger to themselves or others, we need to get them off the street before they can terrorize our communities. This is just common sense.
And why does this matter to law-abiding gun owners? Once again, because they get blamed by anti-gun politicians, gun control groups and the media for the acts of deranged madmen. When one of these tragedies occurs, we can count on two things: one, that opponents of gun rights will immediately exploit it to push their political agenda; and two, that none of their so-called “solutions” would have prevented the tragedy in the first place. They’ve even admitted it.
We need real solutions to address real problems. Not grandstanding or political agendas.
Defend The Rights of Law-Abiding Gun Owners
GUN AND MAGAZINE BANS. Gun and magazine bans are a total failure. That’s been proven every time it’s been tried. Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like “assault weapons”, “military-style weapons” and “high capacity magazines” to confuse people. What they’re really talking about are popular semi-automatic rifles and standard magazines that are owned by tens of millions of Americans. Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own.
BACKGROUND CHECKS. There has been a national background check system in place since 1998. Every time a person buys a gun from a federally licensed gun dealer – which is the overwhelming majority of all gun purchases – they go through a federal background check. Study after study has shown that very few criminals are stupid enough to try and pass a background check – they get their guns from friends/family members or by stealing them. So the overwhelming majority of people who go through background checks are law-abiding gun owners. When the system was created, gun owners were promised that it would be instant, accurate and fair. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case today. Too many states are failing to put criminal and mental health records into the system – and it should go without saying that a system’s only going to be as effective as the records that are put into it. What we need to do is fix the system we have and make it work as intended. What we don’t need to do is expand a broken system.
NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY. The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving – which is a privilege, not a right – then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.
MILITARY BASES AND RECRUITING CENTERS. Banning our military from carrying firearms on bases and at recruiting centers is ridiculous. We train our military how to safely and responsibly use firearms, but our current policies leave them defenseless. To make America great again, we need a strong military. To have a strong military, we need to allow them to defend themselves.
Over at Bearing Arms, Bob Owens cites a piece written, likely in Crayola, at The Huffington Post. The author of the drivel, Tom Harvey, proudly announces his right to be offended because I, and others own guns
I Have a Right to Hate Guns
Well, that is true Mr. Harvey, you DO have the right to hate guns, thank you for discovering what should have been obvious to anyone
I’m not sure that I do; it’s not that simple; but I certainly have the right and plenty of reason. I shouldn’t have to hide my position. I should be free to state it clearly, directly and simply and say:
No one is asking you to “hide” your positions. the fact that you must face, sir, is that most Americans disagree with you. See, your right to bless us with your infinite wisdom, is no different than our right to tell you to get stuffed. Liberals like you never seem to grasp that the whole freedom of speech thing cuts both ways.
• It’s much too easy for people of bad will or unstable emotions to become armed and dangerous and we should take the strong action needed to stop it.
Well, Mr. Harvey, it IS easy for people who will steal or buy guns on the black market, no law will stop them. Perhaps you should write your Congressman, and Senator and ask them why the vast majority of people who tried to buy a gun and were denied by the background check are never questioned by authorities. Again, you call for laws, but say nothing of laws NOT enforced. Do you think more laws that will likely be unenforced will do one damn thing to make anyone safer?
• It is the responsibility of gun owners to prove that their activities do not create a danger to the public and submit to whatever regulation is needed to enforce that.
So, what government agency would you place in charge of choosing which American set to exercise their constitutional rights? How would we prove our “activities” do not pose a danger exactly? And what activities would be approved? I question if you actually thought at all before writing such an absurd idea down. I also would question if you can prove that your writing does not pose some threat? Surely you must think, and I use that word think reluctantly, that all of our liberties should be deemed “safe” by Big Brother.
• Unless one has an exceptional need, the risks of having guns far outweigh the benefits, making gun possession unwise for nearly everyone.
Mr. Harvey, have you one shred of credible evidence that supports this asinine claim? The fact is there are tens upon tens of millions of gun owners in America. The vast majority never harm anyone with them. It is also true that tens of thousands of Americans USE our guns in self-defense annually. Millions of Americans have concealed carry licenses, and despite the fantasies of people like you, those gun carriers cause ZERO harm to anyone, except of course, the many times they have stopped bad guys, and hurt the feelings of overly emotional people like you.
• Notwithstanding Antonin Scalia’s bogus logic, the Second Amendment only establishes a collective right.
Ah, here we are, back to the root of your problem sir. You are a Collectivist. Those individual rights are troublesome to you, as they always are to those who frown upon the very idea that there is an inherent human right to keep and bear arms. Where you get the notion that the second amendment applies only to a collective right I cannot say, but I will allow George Mason, known as the Father of said amendment answer. I also include some quotes from other Founders
“…to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” George Mason
“The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside…Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 )
“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good” (George Washington)
“That the said Constitution shall never be 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…” (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))
“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.” (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights
“The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])
“The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals…. It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.” (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)
I left the last one last so that it be made VERY clear that the Constitution protects INDIVIDUAL rights Mr. Harvey, not Collective rights. That document protects the individual from tyrants, and the tyranny of the majority, and from people like you who hold their feelings in higher esteem than they do God-given liberties!
Kentucky Democrat Alison Grimes is hoping to defeat incumbent Senator Mitch McConnell come election time, and she (or her handlers) evidently decided that this would be the way to win over potential voters and Second Amendment supporters:
Unfortunately for Ms. Grimes, all that photo accomplished does is confirm that Dems who want to take away guns for our safety know very little about, you know, actual gun safety.
Oh my, go read the rest of the Tweets mocking this buffoon. Eyes and Ears Alison, Eyes and Ears
A New York man, frustrated when his pro-Second Amendment sign kept disappearing, was surprised when the hidden camera he set up revealed the culprit to be a local cop.
Jon Gibson, of rural Lake Lincolndale, about 50 miles north of New York City, told FoxNews.com he set up a hunting field camera near the sign, which reads “Protect the Second Amendment,” and features the silhouette of an assault rifle, after two mysteriously vanished. A third sign disappeared before the camera finally captured the sign stealer – a police officer from the nearby Somers Police Department.
“It was pure shock to see,” Gibson said to FoxNews.com about first seeing the video recorded on Monday. “He had a huge smile on his face as he’s kicking down the sign.
“I was in total disbelief to see such criminal behavior from a law-enforcement officer,” he added.
Gibson’s lawyer, Richard Bombardo, told FoxNews.com that they are currently having his property surveyed to be certain that the signs were not on the public right-of-way, which, though on Gibson’s property, would be restricted for signage.
“If the sign was close enough to public property, then they were within their right,” Bombardo said to FoxNews.com. “But if it was solely on his property, that’s where the issue is.”
Somers Town Supervisor Mary Beth Murphy told FoxNews.com that the signs were indeed on public property – within 15 feet of the road – and were removed to comply with town ordinances.
“The town does not allow signs in the right of way,” Murphy said. “The police chief had received numerous complaints from neighbors and it was determined that the sign was posted in the right of way.”
Murphy also denied Gibson’s claim that the officer had attempted to destroy the sign.
“I have seen the images that were taken, but it is my understanding that he was loosening the sign from the ground,” she said. “It was brought to the Police Department and it is still intact and he (Gibson) would be able to come pick it up.”
However, images provided to FoxNews.com by Gibson clearly show the officer in mid-kick, snapping the post of the sign in half.
Murphy also said that there was never a fine issued, but that Gibson did receive a letter from the Somer Building Department.
Gibson says that he never received any sort of citation and that he’s been singled out as other signs in the area have been left undisturbed.
“This isn’t about the Second Amendment. My First Amendment and even my Fifth Amendment rights have been violated,” he said, explaining that words and image on the sign are protected by his right to free speech and the sign itself was taken from him without due process.
“I’m not quite sure where this is going to go, but what’s important here is that people need to defend their rights,” Gibson said.