The Incessant Academic Argument For Tyranny and The Refutation of Freedom – Part 2

Part 1 here, mostly about food and people who want the government to dictate to them how they should eat.

And today, part 2, as we look at a Time Magazine piece titled “Tread on Me“.

America was born from resistance to tyranny, and our skepticism of authority is a healthy tradition. But we’re pretty free.

That’s good enough, right?  We’re “pretty free”.  It’s about time we move on in the Tytler Cycle and get back to bondage!  Woo-hoo!  Bondage!  The state will make us free from responsibility and dangers of the world!  They know what’s best for me!

the Don’t Tread on Me slippery-slopers on both ends of the political spectrum tend to forget that Big Government helps protect other important rights

Doesn’t work that way.  This is a question of whether people believe in more or less government control.  Americans believe in less government control, have traditionally always believed in less government control, and only ever believe in having government control them when they’ve been brainwashed and programmed.

But standby for incoming collectivist BS…

Like the right of a child to watch a marathon or attend first grade without getting massacred—or, for that matter, the right to live near a fertilizer factory without it blowing up your house.

There are no such rights.  To be free from danger is not only impossible, but even reduction of danger is not a right – it something paid for by someone’s work – whether it be the soldier, policeman, or factory manager and safety staff.

I guess you could call me a statist.

How about one who will lick the hand that feeds with his chains resting upon him, and someone who I would wish posterity would forget was my countryman?

Go ahead, quote the Ben Franklin line about those who would sacrifice some liberty for security deserving neither.

You forgot the last part – they deserve neither – and will lose both.

But what about the rights of 8-year-old Martin Richard, blown away after watching his dad finish the marathon? Who safeguarded the liberty of 6-year-old Charlotte Bacon, gunned down in her classroom in her new pink dress? What about Perry Calvin and Morris Bridges and the other victims of the West Texas explosion? Nobody read them their rights.

There are no such rights as to be free from danger – and there can be none.

This kind of high-minded utopian fantasy was cranked out back in the 1930s and 1940s by the FDR administration.  There were even oaths made to defend the freedom from want and freedom from fear.

Photo by ShortTimer

It is, by itself, nonsense.

Life? What ‘right’ to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What ‘right’ to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of ‘right’? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man’s right is ‘unalienable’? And is it ‘right’? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.

- Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers

You cannot legislate industrial accidents out of existence (unless you obliterate industry entirely – which is a goal of the left as a tool to fight Manbearpig).

You cannot legislate madmen out of existence.  You can forcibly disarm the populace, and leave them at the mercy of governmental ruler madmen like maniac cop Chris Dorner.  You can leave them at the mercy of government to make them “safe”.

You do all of those by destroying liberty, something that high-minded collectivist utopians have done in the past to construct human nature into what they want it to be – to “mold the world closer to their hearts’ desire”.

And it almost always looks the same in the end.

In contrast to those statist desires, you can safeguard the liberty of 6 year-old Charlotte Bacon.  You need a rough man ready to do violence on her behalf to safeguard that liberty – that liberty needs to be bought, but the left is terrified of the tools of violence to the point where they irrationally declare that to make the gazelle safe from the lion, you must strip the gazelle’s horns.

By the left’s logic, to make the child safe, you must leave her unguarded; and target those who would do her no harm but instead do seek to protect her.  There are people who are actively willing to put their own lives in harm’s way, but they are called monsters for demanding real security.  They are demonized for understanding the tools and nature of violence as defense and deterrent.

You can begin to defend the life of 8 year-old Martin Richard more by identifying the threat and dealing with the threat when it rears its head.  What killed him was islamic terrorism.  We know this.  We all know this, but our government denies it on the basis that their ideology rejects making that judgement.  By the response of the authorities in the Boston bombing case, there will be no more fatalities from those particular two terrorists.  The hundreds of lives saved, like the baker’s new suit in the Broken Window Fallacy, are easily forgotten because they never materialized.  There were no more terrorist attacks from those two because the terrorists were pursued (at a cost of life and harm) and stopped.

Yet there are still high-minded utopians who believe that if they just apologize enough, that if they are sensitive enough, they can stop people who chant for their deaths in the street through just well wishes.

And here’s where the Time writer gets worse:

Our rights are not inviolate. Just as the First Amendment doesn’t let us shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, the Second Amendment shouldn’t let us have assault weapons designed for mass slaughter.

This is, as Jonah Goldberg would say, bonesnappingly stupid.

The First Amendment totally and completely does let us shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater.

If the government could mandate a white-noise generator that would specifically tune into the sound of a human voice shouting the word “Fire!” so that it could never again be said in a theater and the First Amendment were restricted, what would happen when there is a fire and no one can shout the word?  What happens when no one can give the alarm?  What happens when that lifesaving tool is denied?  It would result in people burned to death.

The Second Amendment totally and completely does let us have modern firearms.  I have yet to take or instruct a firearms class wherein I have taught or been taught to use an “assault weapon” for “mass slaughter”.  Sorry, just doesn’t work that way.

The Second Amendment protects the natural right of self defense.  It codifies it in the Constitution and ensures that the tools of self defense will not be denied.  It does the same in that sense as the First Amendment protecting the word “Fire!”.  It exists as the last full response against oppression, large and small, whether it be a lone criminal or the force of a dictatorial government.

If used improperly or abused, it’s a crime, just like yelling fire when there’s no fire.  If used properly, it’s a wholly necessary lifesaving right; and it protects tools that allow for lives to be saved.  And just like the loss of yelling “Fire!”, if it is taken away, it ends up the same – the result is people burned to death.

–

To revisit this quote from the “Tread on Me” masochist:

Those of us who support aggressive government action to protect the public ought to acknowledge that it does, at the margins, limit individual rights—the rights of gun owners, the rights of business owners, the rights of the accused. Go ahead, quote the Ben Franklin line about those who would sacrifice some liberty for security deserving neither. But what about the rights of 8-year-old Martin Richard, blown away after watching his dad finish the marathon? Who safeguarded the liberty of 6-year-old Charlotte Bacon, gunned down in her classroom in her new pink dress? What about Perry Calvin and Morris Bridges and the other victims of the West Texas explosion? Nobody read them their rights.

The Bill of Rights is there to limit government.  Governments create oppression.  In a state of nature, there may be terror, but there is no all-encompassing institution that can deny you your natural rights.  The Constitution is there as a contract of free men that created a limited government with the intention of protecting all of our natural rights possible while providing us tools to ensure greater protection for all as well.

I’ve been told that invoking the death of innocents is an emotional appeal rather than a logical argument. And I do admit these tragedies make me angry. But I think it would be logical for our government to try to limit these tragedies in the future.

The author thinks wrong.  There have been a million individual tragedies that are easily forgotten by their magnitude that were undertaken by free men (and sometimes conscripts) to preserve liberty, not to have it thrown away because some statist submissive grovels to beg for tyrants to enslave us all because he is a sniveling coward.

You want to protect people, do it yourself.  You want to prevent tragedies, do it yourself.  You want to tread on me because you’re a coward?  Then you become an oppressor, Mr. Grunwald, and you are trading bought-and-paid-for liberty for security that is not only fleeting, but wholly nonexistent.

We already sacrifice liberty all the time—our right to automatic weapons, our right to walk through airport security with our shoes on, our right to run our businesses however we please.

The writer is an amoebic poltroon who kneels before the might of the state.  We shouldn’t sacrafice our right to automatic weapons, our right to walk through airport security with shoes on, or our right to run our businesses however we please.  Excluding abuse of our rights, which infringes on someone else’s natural rights, it’s not the place of the government to do anything.  Just because the government has abused rights in the past, doesn’t mean we should tolerate it any further.

The rights of the next Martin Richard and the next Charlotte Bacon matter, too.

Yes, and the next Martin and the next Charlotte may be killed by leftists with utopian wishes who demand schools be gun-free zones, ensuring that only criminals and madmen intent on mayhem will be armed.  The next Martin and Charlotte, if they survived being left in a defenseless free-fire zone for 12 years of mandated government schooling, may not like being x-rayed by government lackeys who see them nude any time they get on a plane.  They may not like that when they go to start a business, that their government demands so much from them that it’s easier just to not start the business, that their freedom has been curtailed so much that they don’t have options for a business.

But they may grow up thinking they’re “pretty free”, because there’s always something worse.

The next Martin and the next Charlotte are not one or two children, they are millions of children who will grow into adults in a nation where they are less free.  The next boy may be bashed for being gay because he’s left disarmed against a mob, the next girl may be another Amanda Collins, who was raped because she was disarmed by government.  The next boy may have developed the motor that runs on static electricity, but will never make it because the government has regulated him into oblivion.  The next girl may not want to have her privacy violated by government every time she enters a private contract with an aircraft company to fly her somewhere.

-

There are no shortages of people demanding destruction of liberty.  From Cass “We Must Dominate You For Your Own Good” Sunstein, to any of the intellectuals Thomas Sowell criticizes as dominating sheperds who demand you be their sheep, there is never a shortage of men who wish to dominate and control their fellow man.

There is always a question of how many people believe that becoming sheep is noble, and how many reject that destructive notion of bondage.

NRA President David Keene on Senate Gun Control Stall

From Washington Examiner:

The head of the National Rifle Association mocked President Obama’s Rose Garden “tantrum” after losing the gun control fight in the Senate, charging Thursday that Obama suffered the worst defeat of his presidency because “he bit off more than he could chew.”

David Keene told Secrets that the president and his team misplayed their hand because they don’t have a sense of the public’s attitude toward gun control. “They just can’t gauge the public reaction to what they do because they don’t have any sense that the public has feelings different than they do,” said Keene.

“He thought and his folks thought that Newtown changed everything. Newtown was a tragedy but that doesn’t change people’s basic values and feelings,” added the NRA president.

Fact is, people are opposed to it.  The culture of the nation is opposed to having the government chip, chip, chip away at our rights.  This is the Country Class telling the Ruling Class “no”.

The loss devastated the president, who ranted about the NRA’s power during his Rose Garden address after Wednesday’s vote.

Keene, however, saw it differently. “It was the biggest legislative defeat he suffered but that does not justify the unseemly picture of a president of the United States throwing a public tantrum.”

Keene is spot-on here.  Obama was mad and ranting, calling the NRA and the pro-rights lobby “liars”.  Mind you, this is the same president who had the ATF send guns to Mexican narcoterrorist cartels and then claim executive privilege to hush it up.

Keene said that many lawmakers who voted against the background check expansion felt that if it passed, gun control advocates would simply return to the issue to chip away more at the Second Amendment, so they decided to “just stop it now.”

All you have to do is listen to what the Democrat anti-rights activists say:

They do not stop.  They will not be happy until everyone is disarmed and doing exactly as they say.

Keene had a good way of handling the leftists who want to “compromise” by sticking in just the tip, baby:

In a way, Keene signaled that to the sponsors of the Senate compromise, Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey and West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin. Keene recalled that he took a day off last week to fish for trout on the Missouri River in Montana. “Unfortunately, I took my cellphone with me and my cellphone rings in the midst of my float and it’s Joe Manchin, who’s talking about how reasonable his idea is. And finally I said, ‘Look, I’m in the middle of the Missouri River, I’ve got a trout on the line. I don’t agree, you will have to make your own decisions, and I hung up. You have to keep your priorities straight.”

There is no compromise, and there’s no use in talking to someone who just wants to stick in the tip a little bit, baby.  No means no.

May as well go fishing.

The Immigration Debate and the Boston Terrorists

The AP has this mushball story today:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Boston Marathon bombings cast a shadow Friday over the start of debate on legislation to remake the U.S. immigration system, as some Republicans argued that the role of two immigrant suspects raised questions about gaps in the system.

There was no suggestion that the two suspects, brothers who had lived in Dagestan neighboring Chechnya in southern Russia, had entered the U.S. illegally. And authors of a sweeping new immigration bill, which got its first hearing Friday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, argued that their legislation would improve U.S. national security because the estimated 11 million people now living here illegally would have to come forward and undergo background checks.

Those 11 million living here illegally can never pass a background check.  Their first step into the country was to violate US federal law.  They fail.  Every one of them.

There are plenty among that number who have committed further crimes, in fact, there are huge numbers who have committed crimes.  “Sanctuary cities” that don’t turn over illegal aliens to ICE for deportation are full of them, in no small part because local law enforcement does nothing to them.

The Boston terrorist Tamerlan Tsarnaev could’ve been deported already.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the 26-year-old killed in a wild shootout with police, was a legal U.S. resident who nevertheless could have been removed from the country after a 2009 domestic violence arrest and conviction, according to a Judicial Watch source. That means the Obama administration missed an opportunity to deport Tsarnaev but evidently didn’t feel he represented a big enough threat.

Other reporting confirms Tsarnaev’s arrest for domestic violence but we’re seeking confirmation of a conviction. Nevertheless he would have been subject to removal for the arrest itself.

This falls under crimes of moral turpitude, which are deportable offenses.

Of course, the immigration bill is about amnesty for illegal aliens and creating more Democrat voters, cheap labor for businesses, and changing the nature of the nation into one that has a huge underclass to rule, and a ruling overclass that distributes the handouts looted from the evaporating middle class.  It’s how socialists stay in power and how socialism and class warfare works.  Whether or not terrorists stay in the country is irrelevant to them.

–

They care about neither criminals nor terrorists.  To give some idea of how bad sanctuary cities and sanctuary states are, consider that in Massachussetts, the illegal aliens can hit state representatives while driving drunk and laugh because they know there will be no consequences.

What’s going to happen when you start “background checking” all these illegals and find out they’ve stolen social security numbers, have numerous arrests for DUIs, have numerous arrests for domestic abuse, and such?  It’s all very prevalent among illegal aliens, because many of them tend to be low-class unskilled laborers who well know they can commit crimes because the police will do nothing to them because the politicians will deny the law.

To give a perfect anecdotal example of the sanctuary city mentality, a friend of mine rode with state troopers in WI.  The trooper encountered a car that wanted to race with his unmarked police car, and he obliged just enough so he could make an arrest and take the idiot straight to jail.  When they hit a high enough speed (in a safe area), the trooper pulled over the racer.  Turned out the racer, doing 100 mph as his top speed, was an illegal alien.  No arrest.  The illegal alien walked because it’s WI state policy to not arrest illegals.

Every Democrat immigration bill is about expanding their base.  It’s about destroying the nation and securing Democrat power through the Curley Effect, and it’s about giving away the nation because the Ruling Class Democrats don’t feel like you’ve earned your life – no matter how hard you worked or fought for it, so they’re going to give the nation to someone they feel is more deserving.  After all, you didn’t build that.

New Jersey To Crack Down on Second Amendment Rights (And Video Games)

NJ Governor Chris Christie, who’s a Republican when it’s convenient, has decided that the state needs expansion of power at the expense of the citizen.

From NJ101.5:

New Jersey has the second toughest gun laws in the country. The first facet of Christie’s plan seeks to make them even stricter. This includes banning future purchases of the Barrett .50 Caliber; strengthening the state’s existing background check requirement by mandating that mental health records are included in the instant background check process at the time of a firearm purchase; and requiring firearms purchasers to present a valid government photo ID, along with the already mandatory Firearms Purchaser Identification Card.

Banning the Barrett .50 is stupid.  Criminals don’t use them (except when they’re exported by the ATF to Mexican drug cartels).  They weigh 25 pounds and cost $10K.  They’re a boogeyman of the anti-gun left, who don’t like guns that are big.  Or small.  Or any at all.

Mandating mental health records being included in the background check is a step towards the gun confiscation New York has already seen – it will mean seizing guns for seeking help, it will mean denying Constitutional rights and the natural right of self-defense to those who’ve asked for help.  The point isn’t to keep guns from crazies, it’s to keep guns from everyone.

Firearms purchasers already have to present a valid government photo ID.

For those unaware of it, New Jersey requires you to ask the government permission before buying a gun.  You have to have a purchaser ID card – the state has to give you permission if you want to exercise a right.  The application form can be viewed here.

There are several states that have purchase permits for firearms, usually handguns.  North Carolina has pistol purchase permits so that the racist white sheriff can tell the black guy terrorized by his racist deputies and the KKK “no, boy, you don’t need no gun”.  Michigan has a pistol purchase permit so the racist white police chief can tell the black guy terrorized by his racist cops and the northern KKK “no, boy, you don’t need a gun”.

The purpose is so that authorities can decide who gets to exercise rights and who doesn’t.  These laws were passed predominately on the notion that the white ruling class needed to keep the black people (and poor whites) down.  Now the Ruling Class simply chooses to keep the Country Class down.

At the announcement of Christie’s NJ SAFE Taskforce in January in the aftermath of Newtown, he talked about targeting and treating the root causes of violence.

There are three proposals listed, all of which are vague, but all of which actually seem to do something not entirely useless, while not actually infringing on Second Amendment rights.  Actually looking at mental health isn’t a bad idea.

And then Chris Christie, who is a Republican when it suits him capable of tackling corruption when it suits him, but apparently very good at being a nanny-stater, comes up with this:

According to the Governor, too often lost in the debate about controlling gun violence in our society is the almost constant exposure young children and adults have to graphic violence. Part-three of his plan includes;

Requiring that retailers post at the point of sale the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ERSB) ratings. Additionally, requiring retailers to develop, maintain and conspicuously display their policy on selling video games with an M or AO rating.

Requiring Consent of a Legal Guardian. This is not different than the kind of parental supervision expected when a child under the age of 18 goes to see an R rated movie, Christie is requiring that a legal guardian provide consent when a minor purchases or rents a video game that has a rating of “Mature” or “Adult Only.”

If it’s a problem, it’s a problem for parents.  They need to be the ones dealing with it.  If parents groups are mad, they need to pressure retailers into meeting their demands (and many will happily do so, showing how caring they are, and thus generating a feeling of well-being among their customers).

And if you can’t buy it at a store, it doesn’t matter.  This may come as a shock, but you can buy video games online.

People who hate and want to gut the Second Amendment will always get around to hating and gutting the First Amendment as well.  Feinstein already wants to go after video games.

The main sponsor on the U.S. legislation that banned many assault weapons in the 1990s is now talking about regulating violent video games in the future.

Speaking to an audience of 500 people in her hometown of San Francisco, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said that game publishers need to make voluntary actions to avoid glorifying guns and violence following the Newtown elementary school massacre in December.

She noted that Congress would take action if the industry didn’t do something, according to the Associated Press.

“If Sandy Hook doesn’t [make game publishers change] … then maybe we have to proceed, but that is in the future,” said Feinstein.

She went on to claim that video games play “a very negative role for young people, and the industry ought to take note of that.”

Never mind that SCOTUS already said no.

In 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States struck a California law that would ban the sale of violent games to minors. The court voted 7-2 to block the law based on the protection afford to expression under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

And of course there are Republican busybodies as well.  What they miss is that it’s a cultural argument to have without resorting to laws.  While they are made to understand it by their constituents when it comes to the Second Amendment, they also need to be made to understand it when it comes to the First.

In January, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said that he believes “video games [are] a bigger problem than guns because video games affect people.” Last month, Rep. Diane Black (R.-Tenn.) claimed that the perpetrator in the Sandy Hook shooting was fueled by “unprecedented levels of violent games, music, and so on.”

Even if individually those statements have some grain of truth, there’s no excuse for the government, which was established to protect rights, to use force it was granted to destroy rights.  They don’t seem to push for restrictions, but they certainly don’t sound like defenders of liberty.

In a series of bills Christie seeks to impose or strengthen criminal penalties when it comes to selling firearms to convicted criminals, possessing a firearm with the intent to unlawfully transfer, hiring a “straw purchaser,” unlawfully possessing ammunition and engaging in firearms trafficking, among other areas.

This crap gets really shady really fast.  He’s not going to arrest Eric Holder the next time he comes to Jersey, so I’m not impressed.

Beyond that, these are sketchy laws, most of which are already illegal at the federal level, and probably at the NJ state level as well.  Obama doesn’t enforce them at the federal level, so maybe Chris Christie could apply some pressure there and demand the feds to their job.  That might be a better start, rather than going after people still barely able to exercise their rights in NJ.  Of course, that’s assuming he’s not completely anti-Second Amendment.

For those who forget, there are very prominent anti-gun pro-tyranny Republicans, too.

A Million Individual Tragedies

A few days ago, I wrote about how a few of the Newtown families have taken on a lifelong mission, and then yesterday about how reports came out that some of those families have actively decided to shack up with leftist political advisors who are using that personal tragedy as a political prop to bring down the Bill of Rights.  They’re pushing against citizens’ rights with the White House propaganda slogan “now is the time”.  In even greater response:

I’m a veteran.  When I write things like “for those who’ve fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know”, I mean it.  It’s not a cliche, it’s a reality.  There are a lot of people, myself included, who fought for our rights and our Constitution.  Our nation is unique in that we don’t swear an allegiance to a president or a king or an autocrat.  We swear our oath to a piece of paper.  We swear it to a contract made by free people to create a government that serves us.  We swear our oaths to that Constitution and the protection of those natural rights it guarantees.

The natural right to self defense against oppression, against tyranny large and small, whether it be a dictatorial government or a lone criminal, is something that many men and women have fought and died for.  The forces against the natural right to self defense are those who would be our masters, who demand autocracy and think they know best and should tell us how to live – tyrants.

The demand that we surrender rights that our forefathers and sometimes our friends fought and died for is unacceptable.

Those rights were fought for, and men and women died for those rights, so that people back home could be safe with the protections those natural rights provide.  They the honored dead and we the veterans did not fight for those rights so that those rights could be hastily abandoned to a political cry of “now is the time”.

No.  Never is the time.

–

The Newtown families, if truly driven by grief, will still have my sympathy, but what they demand in the name of children and family who would not even be protected by the unconstitutional laws they demand is both anathema and wholly unacceptable to those who have served and those who remember our honored dead who fought for those rights.  The contract that our honored dead and we the veterans signed was to protect those rights.  Against more than two hundred years of adversaries within and without we’ve fought to preserve those rights with millions of men and women who’ve served and hundreds of thousands who’ve died in service – all to protect those rights.

The emotional demand that one tragedy, manipulated by fiendish politicians for their own power and demand to control the American people, mean that we the citizens give up the rights bought and paid for in blood by our honored dead and our veterans and often ourselves as veterans is one that can only be answered with a resounding no.

Today those demanding the surrender of our rights and our arms do so with words, because we have arms.  With history as our guide, when we have no arms, they won’t use words to take our rights.  This is again why we have fought for those rights.

-

There may be solutions to limit the horrors in the world, but abrogating the right of self defense that is intrinsic to the contract of our safe and secure society is not an option.  We may still have individual madmen and criminals – and we have fewer of them when we can fight back; but we have no tyrants here – our tragedies are counted in ones and tens but never in millions.

Stalin famously said that a single death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.  To a dictator’s perspective, he’s right.

To a free man’s perspective and to a patriot perspective, that’s not the case.  A single death is a tragedy, and a million deaths is a million individual tragedies.  The twenty-six individual tragedies at Sandy Hook do not outweigh the incomprehensible human suffering and death endured by millions of individual citizens who fought and so often died so that we could live free covered by the protections of the natural rights our Constitution provides.  The willing and also unwilling sacrafices of those millions of individual tragedies and sufferings thus prevented millions more individual tragedies.  Those who fought and died knew that they fought for that piece of paper and the rights it guaranteed.

The actions of one madman and the desire to correct those twenty-six tragedies can be understood.  They are fathomable.  The rows upon rows of graves of those who fought to prevent greater tragedies are often beyond comprehension and thus some folks can miss the far bigger picture.  They aren’t seen as a million individual tragedies and lives of suffering undertaken for a larger cause to ensure greater rights that ultimately protect us all – those lost lives are right in front of us and yet some forget both those lost lives and the payments in blood they made on liberties.

Each one is an individual tragedy.

Each individual tragedy was undertaken as an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

And yet there are those who would still trade away that liberty bought at so dear a price for temporary security… and they would soon find themselves with neither.

The Gun Control Sellout Begins

There’s too much to cover, so this is just going to be another news roundup.

Pat Toomey, was riding on Joe Manchin’s yacht, the “Black Tie” and getting all boozed up with his fellow Ruling Class goon to come up with a way to screw you out of your rights…

Senator Mark Kirk said the following to reporters about gun control and background checks and in particular the so called bi partisan deal reached by Senators Toomey and Manchin, “You guys really ought to go out to National Harbor and see the Black Tie, which has been much of the reason for much of the bipartisan cooperation around here. Sometimes alcoholic beverages might be served and ties might … get loosened.”

So there you go. Your elected officials getting liquored up on a a mega yacht conspiring to infringe on your inherent rights.

…is now being praised by Bloomberg’s Mayors For Citizen Disarmament.

The filibuster to prevent any gun bill from getting to the Senate floor ended because 16 Quislings RINOs agreed to go ahead and vote for “discussion”… which will be the same vote that comes along later when a “reasonable” “common sense” bill that’s wholly unconstitutional and is a compromise between you and the government that wants to strip you of your rights.  In other words, just the tip, baby.

The Second Amendment is not up for discussion unless they want to repeal it.  Which they do, but they know they’ll never get the states and the public to agree on it.

Text of the Orwellian-titled bill here.

And if you think the House is going to stop anyone from disarming you for the good of the state’s power, today crying carrot Speaker of the House John Boehner said he doesn’t need Republicans to pass bills in the House.  For those of you who’ve had a long day and miss this – the point is he’ll just pass Democrat bills.

Of course the media’s been doing their part, from citing Al Qaeda as a source saying we need more gun control (Yeah, why didn’t AQ try using guns against US citizens?  But why did they do it against unarmed people in Mumbai?  Rifle behind every blade of grass, get off my lawn, etc., perhaps?) and then CNN was profusely thanked by Democrat anti-gun Senator Joe Manchin for their neverending propaganda during the Sandy Hook massacre:

Berman: Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia, you’ve been working around the clock for a compromise deal. I think you have a very busy few weeks ahead of you still.

Manchin: We appreciate your support, too, this is very, very important.

And just to throw in the last of this garbage in with the pile, Joe Biden doesn’t think you should own guns, because you think it’s like owning a Ferrari… which begs the question, what’s wrong with driving a Ferrari?

“It used to be we were dealing almost exclusively with hunters,” Biden said on MSNBC. “There’s a whole new sort of group of individuals now who, I don’t know what the numbers are, that never hunt at all but they own guns for one of two reasons: self protection or they just like the feel of that AR-15 at the range.”

“They like the way it feels. You know, it’s like driving a Ferrari,” he said, raising his arms as if shooting a gun.

To those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.

That rifle is a tool of freedom, and without it, freedom dies.

“That rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”

- George Orwell

Freedom is mighty nice, but it’s sad that freedom can only be maintained with tools.  Yes, clown, you’re not dealing with hunters.  You’re dealing with free men.  You’re dealing with people who own guns for self protection from government because reason doesn’t work against a ruling class that thinks they know what’s best for us and decides to dominate us.

Biden is a buffoon, but because he has no filter on anything that he says and speaks as though he has a political version of Tourette’s, he is actually identifying a big section of the Second Amendment crowd.  They (we) own AR-15s for self-defense because that is the critical function of the Second Amendment – to protect against oppressors large and small.  High-speed low-drag gear is cool, but that’s a far second place compared to what it defends.

Rand Paul is right.  And his final sentiment in that piece is one echoed here:

Our rights are not subjected to polls. Whether it is popular or not popular, I took an oath to the Constitution, and I am prepared to stand with other senators or alone to protect the freedoms that our Founding Fathers fought to preserve.

Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns… Except For Would-Be Rapist Mayors

From Mental Recession:

One of the gun-grabbing members of Michael Bloomberg’s organization, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, recently found himself trying to lure a man into a sexual encounter through the liberal use of alcohol.  When the charm and alcohol didn’t do the trick, James ‘Jay’ Schiliro (R) decided to go a different route – firing a handgun into a wall in an attempt at intimidation.

The mayor who, as the title suggests, is against illegal guns, was forced to hand over his firearm collection, and has been charged with several crimes.

Yup.

According to the Examiner, Schiliro was one of 600 mayors who recently signed a letter asking the U.S. Senate to enact tougher gun laws.

You know, the kind that would keep a drunken mayor from demanding gay sex with a handgun.  Is that anywhere in President Obama’s executive orders?

Of course people like Bloomberg need guns, and of course other ruling class tyrants like Schiliro need guns.  Some just choose to exercise their power in different ways.

Gun Laws and Media Spin and A Reminder of Anti-Gun Statism by Krauthammer

I read this article over at Yahoo, lamenting that there are so many states pushing against gun control, and saw some odd states lumped in with Imperial New York:

Despite a major push from the White House, more states have cut back on gun regulations rather than pass gun-control reforms in the wake of the mass shootings in Newtown, Conn., The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.

Five states—New York, Colorado, Mississippi, Utah and Wyoming—have enacted seven new laws tightening restrictions on guns since Dec. 14, when a gunman shot 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School before turning the weapon on himself. A sixth state, Connecticut, passed the toughest gun laws in the nation this week, banning some types of semi-automatic weapons and requiring all gun buyers to undergo background checks before purchases. (Gov. Dan Malloy is expected to sign the bill into law on Thursday.)

New York passed the NY FU2A Act, Colorado passed the FU Magpul Act, Misssissippi… passed what exactly?  Utah passed what?  And Wyoming, which is pushing bills that would make enforcing unconstitutional gun laws a felony passed an anti-gun law?  WTF?

The reporter just went to this WSJ graphic and looked at the “strengthened vs weakened” and put those states in the anti-gun category without reading them:

Wyoming – WY H 216 – Would allow a judge to carry a weapon in his courtroom and prohibit someone else from carrying a weapon in his or her courtroom.

New York is going after gun owners, banning magazines, banning everything that exists, cranking out propaganda and pushing for total confiscation, screaming that anyone who opposes them is paranoid – all the while going out to utterly eliminate the Second Amendment.

By contrast, Wyoming said “yeah, a judge can carry a gun and can tell others they don’t need a gun in court”.

One of these things is not like the others.

Mississippi’s new law S2647  allows for petitioning by those deemed mentally unfit to restore their gun rights, and allows for some mental health reporting to NICS.  Utah’s H 50 allows for restraining orders against people dating to include the same restrictions on arms as a married restraining order; and H 121 allows a gun owner to give their guns to the state for 60 days for actual safe-keeping if they feel someone they live with is a threat.  It’s the state actually supporting gun rights by giving gun owners another option.  And Arkansas’ H1503 mirrors federal law with regards to the 4473 and the actual purchaser/unlawful procurement.

HotAir has a few notes on this story (but doesn’t dissect the “anti-gun” bills that arent), and includes a little political analyzing by Charles Krauthammer.  For those who’ve forgotten Charles Krauthammer’s opinion on guns, I suggest you read his column “Disarm the Citizenry, But Not Yet“:

It is simply crazy for a country as modern, industrial, advanced and now crowded as the United States to carry on its frontier infatuation with guns. Yes, we are a young country, but the frontier has been closed for 100 years. In 1992, there were 13,220 handgun murders in the United States. Canada (an equally young country, one might note) had 128; Britain, 33.

Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquillity of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today.

…

What needs to happen before this change in mentality can occur? What must occur first — and this is where liberals are fighting the gun control issue from the wrong end — is a decrease in crime. So long as crime is ubiquitous, so long as Americans cannot entrust their personal safety to the authorities, they will never agree to disarm. There will be no gun control before there is real crime control.

…

Yes, Sarah Brady is doing God’s work. Yes, in the end America must follow the way of other democracies and disarm. But there is not the slightest chance that it will occur until liberals join in the other fights to reduce the incidence of and increase the penalties for crime. Only then will there be a public receptive to the idea of real gun control. The passionate resistance to even the phony gun control of the assault weapons ban shows how far we have to go.

It’s important to remember that Krauthammer thinks “it is simply crazy” that you don’t trust your personal safety to the authorities, and that you don’t “follow the way of other democracies and disarm”.  It’s best for you.  He’s part of the DC Ruling Class, and he knows what’s best for you.

Gun Grabber Tyrant Roundup 4/2/13

• From CBS:

HARTFORD, Conn. (CBSNewYork) — Connecticut state lawmakers came to an agreement Monday on what they said will become some of the nation’s toughest gun control laws.

Connecticut state lawmakers came to an agreement Monday on what they said will become some of the nations toughest laws that infringe on the right of the citizen, bragging that they’ve done more to squash the puny serfs than anyone this week, all through “agreement” between one ruling group and another ruling group on what they should do to the peon citizen.

As CBS 2′s Lou Young reported, the deal included a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines, such as the one that was used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School Massacre in Newtown. The deal also calls for a new registry for existing high-capacity magazines, and background checks that would apply to private gun sales.

One small step for a tyrant, one giant leap for tyranny!

Another registry would be set up for dangerous weapons offenders.

Y’know, we used to not put dangerous people on a list.  We used to put them in prison until they either learned and stopped being dangerous, or until they just stopped being.

Connecticut House Speaker Brendan Sharkey (D-Hamden) said he hopes the agreement sends a message to Washington, and the rest of the country.

“This is the way to get this job done; to do it in an effective, meaningful, thoughtful way, and to do it on a bipartisan basis, because our children deserve no less,” Sharkey said.

It sends a message that the Second Amendment shall be infringed, and sends a message that, on a bipartisan basis, between different stripes of tyrant, our children deserve to grow up in a society in which the state will dictate to them what they may do, and how they may do it, because the state knows best for the little people, who all need to be controlled, lorded over, supervised, and taken care of.

• Same story, different take from the BBC:

Criminal background checks would now be required of all prospective gun purchasers. Currently, federal law exempts so-called private transactions, which can include online sales and sales at gun shows.

So-called “private transactions” between so-called “private citizens” who think they’re so-called “free men” whose lives shouldn’t be subject to “so-called” tyranny and control by government.

Where do you buy guns online?  Every online gun shop I see requires a transfer via FFL holder, as does every private seller on Gunbroker or Auction Arms.  The only exceptions are antiques.  Is there really a problem with blackpowder pistols being sold online?

In a compromise, legislators did not ban existing ammunition magazines of more than 10 rounds. Instead, already purchased high-capacity magazines will have to be registered.

In a compromise, citizens’ rights were only partially stripped, and rights that citizens thought they had will now have to be registered, though the state may be unsure of when they acquired these “rights”, so they may have to surrender them anyway, and they may not be able to pass these rights on to their children.  It’s a compromise in which you compromise your rights, and the state increases its power.  What a wonderful compromise!  Just the tip, baby.

• California considers taxing ammo, because they still think Chris Rock is funny:

Gun control advocates in Sacramento are putting a new twist on an old NRA slogan: “Guns don’t kill people — bullets kill people.”

Democratic lawmakers are pushing like never before to regulate or tax ammunition sales. They say the logic is simple: A firearm is nothing but an expensive paperweight without ammunition.

And a printing press is nothing without ink, and a computer is nothing without electricity.  Goodbye, Bill of Rights, hello tyranny!

“It’s a way to red-tape the right to bear arms to death,” said Chuck Michel, the California Rifle and Pistol Association’s attorney, promising to sue if any such bills pass. “It’s all part of a campaign of shame, the fight to make it as difficult as possible for law-abiding citizens to make the choice to have a firearm for self-defense.”

As lawmakers mull how to curb gun violence in the wake of December’s massacre of school children in Newtown, Conn., some note that California and federal laws also forbid those who aren’t allowed to own firearms from owning ammunition — but there’s no way to tell who’s buying it.

Skinner’s bill would require all ammo dealers to be licensed and all ammo buyers to provide identification information that would go to a state registry. The registry could then be compared with a state database of people prohibited from owning guns and ammo because of crimes, mental health issues or other reasons. It also would tip police to massive purchases.

Because a RIGHT means begging the state for a license.

Another bill, SB53 by state Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, would require a background check and an estimated $50 fee for a one-year permit to buy ammunition.

Because a RIGHT means begging the state for a license.

10 percent tax on ammunition to fund crime prevention — might merge with another lawmaker’s proposed nickel-per-round tax to fund mental-health screening for children. Bonta, D-Oakland, said his tax is mostly about generating money to “combat the gun violence in our communities,” but could have the “secondary benefit” of stemming “rampant sales.”

These are a couple boxes of .22s, with Indiana Jones and a horse for scale:

That’s 1100 rounds.  In the beforetimes, back before the panic, that would run you about $20/box, so $40 total (a few years prior, before QE and metals prices spikes and Obama, they’d be $10/box).  With a nickel tax per round, you’d be looking at a $27.50 tax per box.  So even at recent prices, the price would go from $20/box to $47.50/box.

That $40 couple of boxes there would be $95.  And that’s before local sales taxes.

The power to tax is the power to destroy.

- Chief Justice John Marshall

Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed.  Except to the ruling class, to whom it means, “license, regulate, tax, eliminate, shut up, destroy, destroy, EXTERMINATE!”:

AB 48 by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley — Would require ammunition sellers to be licensed; ammunition purchasers to show identification; ammunition sellers to report all sales to the state Justice Department, which would create a registry of ammunition purchases. First hearing: April 2.
AB 187 by Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland — Would impose a 10 percent tax on all ammunition sold in the state, with the revenue directed to a fund for crime-prevention efforts in the state’s high-crime areas. No hearing date set.
AB 760 by Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento — Would impose a 5-cent tax on each bullet sold in California, dedicating the revenue to an existing program to screen young children for mild to moderate mental illness — and intervene with strategies to address their problems. First hearing: April 15.
SB 53 by state Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles — Would require anyone buying ammunition to first pass a background check and receive a one-year permit, for an estimated $50 fee, from the state Justice Department. First hearing: April 16.

And in Congress, because the Second Amendment can’t be infringed enough at the state level:

S.35, the Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2013, by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. — Would require face-to-face purchases of ammunition, require licensing of ammunition dealers and reporting of bulk purchases of ammunition. A companion bill in the House, HR142, is sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y.
S.174, the Ammunition Background Check Act of 2013, by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. — Would require an instant background check for the purchase of ammunition and would restore pre-1986 requirements that sellers track their inventory and keep records of their customers. Purchases of 1,000 rounds or more, or thefts of large amounts of ammunition, would have to be reported to law enforcement.

They really hate online ammo sales, but let’s revisit that, shall we?

In regular old economics, we’re talking about the government establishing a barrier to entry for you as a citizen in order to stop you from exercising your rights.

• Via HotAir, another financial barrier to entry to exercise your 2A rights:

Last month, New York Democrat Rep. Carolyn Maloney introduced the “Firearm Risk Protection Act” that would impose a $10,000 penalty on any gun owner who fails to purchase mandatory liability insurance.

And Erika Johnson gets it:

The bill would require gun buyers to provide proof of insurance from a company approved by a state insurance regulatory authority for “losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser.” In a nutshell, you need to take out a preemptive policy for any violence you might inflict with your firearm — which doesn’t really make sense, because the people inflicting non-defensive gun violence are criminals anyway. This is just another poorly disguised legislative attempt to deter gun ownership, and man, talk about regressive! Looks like self-defense is only for people who can afford to take out an extra insurance policy.

• From HotAir, the Obama administration is supporting that collection of dictators at the UN in their quest to ban ownership of small arms (which might overthrow their dictatorial reigns):

The oh-so-esteemed bureaucrats at the United Nations have been looking to slap some regulations on the small arms trade via an international treaty for quite some time, but the United States has never really cottoned on to that idea. The Senate has to ratify all treaties by a two-thirds majority, and in one of the amendment votes to their budget just last month, the Senate voted 53-46 to specifically prevent the U.S. from signing on to the U.N.’s proposed Arms Trade Treaty.

The Obama administration don’t care. The president expressed a willingness to get behind such a thing near the start of his tenure, conspicuously backing off as last November’s election approached but then jumping right back on the progressive globalist bandwagon.

The Senate, however, has vowed to block ratification, which requires a two-thirds majority and is needed for the treaty to be legally binding on the U.S.

Good.  TX Senator Ted Cruz tweeted this:

UN Arms Treaty should be rejected outright by US Senate. It is international gun regulation, plain and simple & it must never be ratified

• And one more from Connecticut:

Allowing magazines that carry 10 or more bullets to remain in the hands of gun owners would leave a gaping loophole in the law, said Mark Barden, whose 7-year-old son, Daniel, was killed in the shooting.

“It doesn’t prevent someone from going out of the state to purchase them and then bring them back. There’s no way to track when they were purchased, so they can say, ‘I had this before,’” Barden said. “So it’s a big loophole.”

This is where things get unpleasant.  It’s very difficult to explain to someone who’s still in the throes of grief that the rights that we as American citizens have recognized by our Constitution are in fact natural rights, and also rights that are inherently necessary to protect ourselves as individuals and as a group from tyranny small and large.  It’s very difficult to explain to someone that their son shouldn’t have been murdered because the mental health system, which has stigmatized mental health so severely, has made it so people who need help or who should simply be locked away can get help or can be secured far from normal society.

It’s very difficult to break past that wall and explain to people that the very real fears of government tyranny are very real fears – because governments invariably end up becoming tyrannical unless they’re kept in check.  It’s very difficult to penetrate that wall of grief and explain that restricting the rights of American citizens, infringing on their natural rights of self-defense, giving the state more power over their lives, and ultimately putting flawed men who are in government charge of those of us citizens will never bring his son back.

It will never bring his son back, and it will never prevent the Bath School Disaster, or the World Trade Center bombing in 93, the Oklahoma City bombing in 95 – but it will cause the Amanda Collins of the world to be raped again.  It will enable government use of force against a disarmed citizenry.  It will enable police brutality and governmental corruption.  It will lead to a nation where there are the Rulers and the Ruled.

It may not do it tomorrow, and it may not do it in idyllic Connecticut, but it will.  History is very harsh, and history is right.  History shows us what will happen, and history shows that the only place where governmental tyranny has been stymied is in nations where the people retain the individual power to resist oppression.

Sadly, it’s a very big picture and someone grieving for a lost child is unlikely to look at the big picture and wonder if they are not asking for something that not only would have not, could have not, and cannot save their lost child, but that will ultimately make the world a more dangerous, repressive, destructive place where hundreds, thousands, or millions of children might die because of his requests.

Then again, Darrell Scott, father of Columbine victim Rachel Scott, knew that there is an even bigger picture than the worldly knowledge of history, and looked to address it in a different way:

Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, soul, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and reek havoc.

“Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation’s history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact.

“What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence.

“And when something as terrible as Columbine’s tragedy occurs — politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties.

“We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

“We do not need more religion. We do not need more gaudy television evangelists spewing out verbal religious garbage. We do not need more million dollar church buildings built while people with basic needs are being ignored.

“We do need a change of heart and a humble acknowledgement that this nation was founded on the principle of simple trust in God!

“As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes–He did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right!

“I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999 , at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain.

Gun Laws and the Mentally Ill

From the BBC:

Mental illness has clearly been at the centre of some of the country’s most notorious mass shootings. But could the new law have an unintended consequence: making it harder for the mentally ill to seek help?

Here’s the thing: if someone is so mentally ill they can’t be trusted, they shouldn’t be out in society.  If they need supervision because of problems, whether permanent or temporary, they need that supervision.  If they can’t live on their own, whether it be because they want to kill themselves by driving into bridge supports at 90mph, or whether they just can’t handle the stresses of life, then maybe they shouldn’t be living on their own until they have those problems conquered.  Whatever the cause, if they need treatment and it will benefit them, they should be treated until they’re well; and if treatment won’t help, then maybe they shouldn’t be out.

If a person is so mentally ill they can’t be trusted in society, then they shouldn’t be trusted in society.

“If I had that fear that it would go to the police, I would feel violated,” she says (a gal with illnesses that needed treatment – ST). “Like big brother is watching me.”

Because, sadly, he is.

Mental health professionals and advocates fear that as a result of the new law, those who need treatment will stay away from the very people who ought to be able to help them.

“It has set back stigma a trillion years,” says Sharon McCarthy, programme director for the Westchester branch of the National Alliance on Mental Illness.

“In developing this law, you brought in the mentally ill people,” says Ms McCarthy, whose daughter is bipolar. “You didn’t bring in the gangs. You pinpointed that group.”

This isn’t about gangs.  This is about disarming the population at large.

Those who are mentally ill and shouldn’t be released simply shouldn’t be released.  Those who are in some supervised status should be supervised.  The objective of treating mental illness, for those who are simply unwell, but not madmen, should not be to demonize them, either.

But here we get to the bigger problem – it’s not about guns, it’s not about preventing the mentally ill or unwell from harming themselves if supervision fails, it’s about control.

…the Safe Act has plenty of supporters.

Westchester County’s Board of Legislators passed a resolution urging similar action by federal leaders.

The board’s chairman, Ken Jenkins, says the act has adequate protections and that no-one should fear that the mental health provision will be used for anything other than preventing the sale of handguns and assault-style weapons to those who have been reported.

He says it’s only reasonable that gun ownership now comes with an extra burden.

“For the privilege of having… specific types of guns, you now have the additional responsibility for opening up your privacy,” he says.

No.

The Second Amendment clearly states THE RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Nowhere in there does it say “privilege”.  At the point that a right becomes a privilege, it’s no longer a right – it’s something to be permitted or denied by your rulers who run the state.

There is no “responsibility” to open up one’s privacy in order to enjoy a RIGHT (aside from counting numbers of voters – but not the votes themselves).  There is no “responsibility” to surrender your privacy to beg for a privilege that the state is out to destroy.

The mentally ill, and more importantly those who feel they would like some therapy or counseling, are sadly correct to be a bit paranoid.  The database on them may well impact their future employment prospects and their future prospects in life.  It’s already part of a bill that is out to destroy the natural right of self-defense and to destroy the self-determination of the citizen because the Ruling Class wants to subjugate the population.

The series of mentally ill murderers in the last few mass murders were not normally troubled people going through a rough patch, they were deeply troubled, and identified as such.   With the massive stigma already attached to mental illness and the difficulties in forcibly committing someone who is dangerous preventing friends and family from acting, that led to many people’s deaths.  There are madmen out there – and many of them are easily identified by anyone who looks at photos of them, and they were well-known to friends and family, who are always concerned with the well-being of the mentally ill person.  But they’re already so scared of the consequences and hamstrung by groups that worked to prevent commitment, that those who needed to be committed were not; and those who’d seek their own help don’t.  Due to the perceived aberration of asking for mental health, individuals who need help receive it much less and their families and friends are that much less likely to ruin their lives on a hunch.

The stigma does run deep.