Saturday April 18, 2015
Jump to content
The text of your message must have fallen by the wayside somewhere when the editor composed the subject heading.
Tell me, do you think a tyrant passing what you falsely describe as "reasonable gun control laws" would tell you if his agenda included confiscation, secret lists, etc.? Do you think Hitler told what he called his "subject races" of his plans to run six million Jews and five million non-Jews through the gas chambers when he passed the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938? Do you think the Butcher of the Ukraine, Josef Stalin, told his victims of his intent to confiscate their granaries and starve them to death?
Have you ever heard of a restaurant, school building, or public building shot up by some maniac in the presence of law-abiding folks exercising their right to carry (what you erroneously call) "assault weapons" on these premises? Or have you only heard of maniacs shooting up such places when they have "No Guns Allowed" plastered on the door, ensuring the maniac can vent his murderous rage with impunity?
Perhaps you are not aware that the U.S., the first nation in fifty centuries to be founded on principles of private individual liberty trumping the arbitrary whim of kings, princes, and neighborhood warlords every time, no excuses, no exception, was not founded to wrap you in Kevlar, wet nurse you from cradle to grave, or to save your life. It was founded to make you free to make your own way, make your own decisions according to your own lights so long as you don't infringe upon anyone else's right to do the same, and allow you to defend your own life, your family, your neighborhood, and your State, with force of arms when necessary.
The government isn't here to provide you a living or provide for your safety. It is here to protect your rights. And if you are unwilling to protect your own safety, don't think for a minute you have the right to prohibit others from protecting theirs.
If you own guns and are willing to give them up in a heartbeat, I'll be happy to take them off your hands. Of course, if you ever find out that the 250 million defensive uses of firearms a year to stop crimes in progress -- over 98% of the time never having to fire the weapon -- has nothing whatever to do with police departments or the military, you might change your mind about giving them up "in a heartbeat." Or not. It sounds like your mind is made up, and you have no interest in the facts of the matter.
Brenda Barton's bill, HB 2320, requires nothing of the kind. It requires every court, social services agency, and public building -- but not "any other public gathering' -- to respect, honor, uphold, and protect the right of citizens to be armed in their own defense and in defense of the court, social services agency, and public building.
It basically says if you don 't want to honor your oaths of office to uphold and support the Constitution, which guarantees the rights of the people, then you have to be certain their safety, if not their rights, is ensured.
Personally I don't like the idea of government using taxpayer money to deprive the people of their rights, do you? I would rather simply require arrest, prosecution, and incarceration of any government employee -- or any officer of any legal fiction created by government, such as a corporation -- who presumes to abuse his authority by requiring free men and women to give up their rights in violation of the 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Now perhaps you can explain why you are advocating the destruction of the fundamental rights our nation, and our Constitution, were founded to preserve and protect?
That analogy is so dumb it doesn't even need dissecting.
Strange, Mel. I guess someone ought to tell the FBI Uniform Crime Reports that. I don't think they have ever heard of it. I know I haven't, and I am a Patron member of the NRA (and three or four other pro-rights anti-communist organizations).
Wrong, Pat. You can carry a gun in Arizona with or without a permit, openly or discreet carry. OTOH, if you have a concealed carry permit, you can purchase a firearm from a dealer without undergoing the violation of your Fourth Amendment right to be secure from search of your private records on government databases. But you still have to suffer the violation of your Fourth Amendment right to be secure from enduring an interrogation under threat of criminal sanction, and your Fifth Amendment right to be secure from deprivation of your rights without due process of law, and your Tenth Amendment right to be secure from the enforcement of null and void color of law the authority for which is not delegated to government. Newsflash: The federal government is not even delegated the authority to license gun dealers, let alone compel the waiver of rights as a precondition to receiving permission to exercise a right.
Oh, and BTW: I'm sorry you don't trust people who exercise their fundamental rights (which, BTW, is keeping you safer than you would be otherwise), but your lack of trust compels no specific performance on my part. And my exercise of my rights does not place you at risk -- in fact, it reduces your risk.
Noble, you seem to think the Supreme Court has judicial supremacy over law, but you are wrong: There is no such thing as "judicial supremacy;" there is no such a thing as "legislative supremacy," and -- contrary to what the First Enemy Agent infesting our White House believes -- there is no such a thing as "executive supremacy."
There is only Constitutional Supremacy. The Supreme Court is not infallible, and you get it just as wrong as Justice Taney got it in the infamous Dred Scott decision and Antony Scalia got it in Heller: The Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land, designed and constructed to give force of law to the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration of Independence describes rights as "inherited and unalienable."
You know what "unalienable" means, Noble? It means no lawful power to infringe. Not by the Supremes, not by Congress, not by petty little executive tyrants in the White House, and not by you. Period. full-Stop. End of Story.
Let me explain how Scalia got it wrong in Heller: We most certainly do have a fundamental, absolute, inherited and unalienable, right to keep and bear arms. However, the State (not the federal government except on its own properly ceded property) does have the Police Power to regulate the USE of arms: Where, when, under what safety procedures, under what parameters for self-defense, etc. But neither the State nor the federal government has anything lawful to say about our right to keep and bear arms, or our right to redress grievances against the government, or our right to be secure from violation of our Fourth Amendment right to be free of unwarranted search and seizure in the absence of probable cause when buying a gun, and our right to be secure from deprivation of our rights without due process when buying a gun, and our right to be secure from color of law promulgated without delegated authority when buying a gun.
You speak of rights, Noble: Can you think of any other right that the exercise of which requires an interrogation under threat of criminal sanction, and a search of private records on government databases, as a precondition to receiving (or being denied) government permission to exercise? Can you think of any other right that can be summarily taken away from a citizen without due process of law? Or would you like your right to free speech to face the same kind of barriers to ensure your Marxist ideology is "pure"?
No, Noble, the issue is not the "legal" restrictions on our rights, for there are no legal restrictions on our rights unless the exercise infringes upon the rights of another. Keeping and bearing arms, for example, harms no one, and something like 250 million times a year protects someone from harm.
Once again your attempt to justify tyranny and oppression of free citizens falls flat on its leftist statist tyrant's face.
Okay, let's have a real discussion. You go first.
Wouldn't you rather live in a powerhouse economy in which medical care is subject to market forces and you could pay for it out of your own pocket change, and not have to support hundreds of thousands of paper pushers who produce nothing? That's what a free market economy provides for you, Nancy. A pre-existing condition is irrelevant because you are buying state-of-the-art medical care and paying for it out of your own pocket at a price you can easily afford. You don't need no stinking insurance company because competition in the industry has not only produced the very best cutting edge medical technologies, it has also produced the very lowest prices. And as a side benefit you receive care that corrects the problem instead of keeping you in the system and milking you dry.
Yes, I have. I lived under what is internationally considered the best socialized medicine program of all: Australia. It paid the entire cost of my daughter's birth, including pre- and post-natal care, and a ten-day stay in the hospital afterwards, plus we received A$40 bonus on the deal for improving the population numbers. But the four years I was there the patient contribution increased 300+%, doctors were going on strike every six months because despite having to buy A$20K worth of medical equipment for their clinics they were prevented from charging more than A$7 for an office visit; they were prohibited from setting their own hours of operation because they might prove that a free market is a bigger economic powerhouse than a controlled market, and all the other businesses are controlled by government "boards" who determine both subsidies and prices lest someone make too much money and provide too many jobs and prove the socialists wrong. And their socialized medicine system has gone bankrupt twice because their strictly service economy and more-than-100% taxes on products sold at retail on top of more-than-100% duties on anything imported for sale is not sufficient to prop up their economy AND pay the HORRENDOUS cost of medical care. The four years we were there saw two bank holidays in which they had to devalue their currency and they were right on the edge of full national bankruptcy when major mineral deposits were discovered in the Wittenoom Gorge area that saved their bacon. The point is, Chuck, if they didn't totally destroy entrepreneurship and innovation and the overall economy by spending upwards of seventy percent of their gross national product paying for medical care and micromanaging everyone's lives at the street level to prevent people from producing and succeeding, the pensioners wouldn't be starving to death. Australia was subsidizing every business in Australia, and then turning around and running Egg Marketing Boards and Dairy Marketing Boards and Bread Marketing Boards and every kind of marketing board you can imagine to keep the prices up to support the commissars and starve the pensioners, and it was the same with medicine. You may have found socialized medicine to be wonderful, but the cost in living standards, education, working conditions, innovation, inventiveness, is unbelievably high because most of the revenue goes to pay people who produce NOTHING.
Well, if it is "gibberish" to you, I guess that explains why you don't understand reality. But if you are a Nam vet too, you ask a pertinent question: "This is what we fought for?" That's the point I made: Why did you fight to protect the Vietnamese from the evil tyranny of socialism/communism over there, only to bring it home with you and support it here?
Last login: Saturday, April 4, 2015