Saturday November 28, 2015
Jump to content
Gratuitous name-calling and insulting should not be censored; it should simply not be published. On the other hand, political correctness is destroying our First Amendment, which protects not only freedom of speech, but freedom of the most obnoxious speech. If you have to decide whether it is "proper" in a family newspaper to call ISIS soldiers an Islamic murder cult established by a rapist, child-molesting, desert pirate who was more of a warlord than a messiah, or call them "soldiers of Allah," then you have already given away the rights our forefathers fought and died to preserve and protect for you.
I had to laugh when Mr. Chamberlain proved the thesis of my previous letter by calling those who stand on principle and work for a living and contribute to the economy by providing employment and even training for jobs ... wait for it ... "jackals" and "idiots." And then editor Peter Aleshire buys into the thesis by claiming the "name-calling" is "on both sides of the political divide."
Newsflash, Mr. Aleshire: I didn't call anyone any names in my letter other than "leftists." I described what leftists DO; I did not call them any names that would certainly be justified by what they do.
I don't know whether it is a propaganda trick or simply a lack of critical thinking skills, but it's a thing I see leftists doing consistently: Equating someone's opinion of what the left is doing with calling them names. Maybe it is neither; maybe it is because they own the despicable behavior I am describing and they know it, and therefore take it personally.
Mr. Chamberlain, might you be exhibiting a little bit of the paranoia the members of your political persuasion often ascribe to your opposition? Might the dangerous driving you have observed be in response to your own driving skills or lack thereof, or might it be just the typical incompetency of about 20% of the driving public? In other words, might it have nothing to do with your Obama stickers at all, regardless of how such stickers define you in the minds of rational people?
Mr. Chamberlain, I don't know where you get the idea that "the rich" are holding everyone else not wealthy in the utmost disdain. To the contrary, even if you ignore the entrepreneurship, start-up companies, and jobs "the rich" are contributing to the "not wealthy," their "wallowing in luxury" you whine about is providing employment and wages to hundreds upon hundreds of workers, craftsmen, small businesses, even restaurants and waiters and waitresses and cooks and managers and grocery stores and etc., etc., etc. The wealth of "the rich" is out there in the economy providing jobs and opportunities for people willing to work.
Oh. Does that not include you, Mr. Chamberlain? Do you think a living wage should be free? Do you hate your employer because he expects more value from you than he pays out in wages, medical insurance, and benefits? Or do you hate "the rich" because you have nothing of value to offer society in exchange for wages or royalties? If any of these suppositions are true, Mr. Chamberlain, perhaps the fault does not lie with "the rich."
Well, I can't get the "Reply" to work, so I will answer in the main line.
You've quoted to me our 4th Amendment; did you read it? I'm not being snippy here, but this is the third time someone has quoted it to me and asked where does it say government cannot compel background checks? It makes me wonder if today's schools aren't really as bad as everyone says they are.
Pat, first of all, one has to assume your question is based on ignorance of the difference between a right and a privilege. The difference is, government has no authority to oversee, monitor, interfere with, or infringe upon the exercise of a right that does not, by its exercise, interfere with the rights of others. Numerous court rulings, not that they are needed, confirm that rights are beyond the reach of government. Privileges, on the other hand, ,may be issued and may be denied, and if issued, may be revoked.
That being said, the 4th Amendment protects our right to be secure from unwarranted interrogation (which is a search in itself), and search, and seizure of rights or property in the absence of probable cause of criminal conduct. And warrants must be based on probable cause of criminal conduct. The purchase or transfer of a firearm is not in itself probable cause of criminal conduct or even a foreshadow of criminal conduct. How would you like a background check to ensure your purity with regard to government ideals before you could publish your post above? If you allow government to do it to you in violation of your RIGHT to keep and bear arms, you are allowing government to do it to you in violation of your RIGHT to freedom of expression, your right to freedom of religion, your right to peaceably redress grievances against government, your right to own and buy and sell property, your right to choose your occupation, your abode, etc., etc. If you waive one right, Pat, you are waiving them all.
Frankly, Pat -- and again, I am not trying to be snippy, but I am trying to convey a perspective on liberty you are clearly lacking: It is astonishing that an American living in the first nation in the history of the planet to establish the etched-in-stone-rule that private rights and liberties trump the arbitrary whim of kings and princes and neighborhood warlords every time, no exception, no excuses, could ask that question with a straight face.
And as my letter points out, the 4th is not the only amendment violated by background checks: We have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms, and the 5th Amendment prohibits taking our rights from us without due process, and "due process" means a court of law and a conviction of a crime. The compelled background check give some FBI clerk in a basement somewhere the illicit, not delegated, power to deny you the exercise of a right. And that is a violation of the 5th Amendment.
If you have any further questions, or would like to discuss it further, feel free.
Strange thing to say, Noble. Pretty obtuse. People of your political persuasion have all but destroyed the American dream of liberty from the arbitrary whim of kings and princes and neighborhood warlords, and now you are lamenting the pushback you are finally receiving. And you don't seem to even have the foggiest notion why. America celebrated diversity when people came here for freedom, not freebies. When people who came here wanted to BE Americans, not change America into the kind of cesspool of tyranny and oppression they left. When people were paid in money of intrinsic value, and businesses funded themselves instead of depending upon some banker cartel to do so and rob them blind and direct their businesses in the process. People of your political persuasion want the people disarmed so power can be administered arbitrarily, with no pushback, and you lament our refusal to play your game. People of your political persuasion are nothing but cannon fodder for the international financial interests whose directives you follow. Check out Argentina, and Venezuela, and even the Soviet Union for how well their revolutions turned out, and how their "useful idiots" were treated after their masters assumed power. No, Noble, I have little sympathy for your lament; the "Progressive" path was never America's destiny. It was a temporary aberration. What you lament today is Americans taking their country back: A free country, secure from manipulation from on high; where all men and women of all races and creeds can prosper in peace and happiness so long as they respect and protect the rights of others (this obviously does not include Islam, the creed of which is murder of all rights).
You are really stretching the bounds of credibility beyond the breaking point, Mel. Is that really the best you can do?
There is a couple of companies doing research into geoengineering as well as research into over-the-horizon radar development, etc., but Ihope you don't think every contrail you see in the winter sky is some kind of "chemtrail." It ain't. We've had contrails since we first had aircraft capable of flying above the freezing level in moisture-saturated air. Look at http://www.flightradar24.com/ and you will see airliners coast-to-coast thick enough to walk from Los Angeles to New York on the wings or fuselages. There isn't one in a million of those aircraft spraying any chemicals into the air. I have photos of WWII four-engine bombers in the early morning sky taking off and leaving contrail from every knob and projection on the aircraft including the prop tips. There is some so-called "geoengineering" going on, but the incidence is vanishingly small and has no effect on the health of people and other living things.
Ah! NOW it works. I couldn't get the cursor or characters to appear in this box.
I agree Ron, and it is time we turn that around. We can do it by taking the firm stance that we have obeyed the last gun control law we are going to obey. Henceforth We Will Not Comply. We are not required to comply with color of law the authority for which is not delegated to the federal government or is prohibited to the State governments, and when the goons use force that will be an armed insurrection against the "authority of the United States" (which is exclusively the Constitution of the United States) and is prosecutable under 18USC2383 and associated statutes. We are not required to obey Court rulings, even SCOTUS rulings, that are clearly, egregiously, in violation of delegated powers (and SCOTUS has said so). We, the people, are from whom all political power flows, and that makes us superior in that respect even to the SCOTUS. We need to argue against background checks that violate our 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendment-guaranteed rights (and our 2nd) and we need to mount an effort to repeal the Brady Handgun Control Act of 1993 by reason of its unconstitutionality. It serves no purpose other than to render moot and irrelevant our Rule Of Law protecting us from tyrants, and that is its singular purpose.
Ron, I have to disagree in some ways with your view expressed above. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914) describes the weapons referred to by the Second Amendment, and they are described as "all the normal weapons carried by the typical well-equipped infantryman, including hand grenades, but not including poison gas." Crew-served weapons, artillery, etc., are included in the right but collectively, as under the control of a township or local government.
It was most certainly never in the remotest fantasies of the founding fathers that any weapons of war be restricted to the federal government, and they were adamantly opposed to a standing army, such as we have in the U.S. military and such as we have in State National Guards.
The reality is that no power is delegated to the federal government by the Consent of the Governed (conveyed exclusively by the U.S. Constitution) to impose any control whatever on either the private individual right or the State right to keep and bear arms. As for full-auto weapons, 'destructive devices,' etc., these are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934, which the U.S. Attorney-General stated at the time was flatly, egregiously, unconstitutional.
When we, the people, accept our duty to be armed, trained, and prepared to defend our nation, State, County, city, town, neighborhood, family, and selves, there won't be any more random murderous massacres of innocent and undefended children or adults. There also won't be any more enemy agents trying to destroy our Constitution and traditions of personal liberty (although occasionally fools will be fools).
"I'm wondering, for those that are so passionate about all this, what do you lose if a twerp like zerObama gets his way and takes away all of our guns ..."
We lose one of two things: If he is successful, we lose the first nation in fifty centuries to recognize, and then establish the superiority of, the private rights of individuals to speak their mind, to worship the god of their choice or not worship, to warn others of dangers prevalent in the political landscape without fear of repercussions, to be secure from government thugs interrogating and searching citizens without probable cause and seizing whatever they like in the way of rights and property, to due process before rights can be taken, to be secure from compelled witnessing against oneself. to trial by jury of one's peers, to be secure from cruel and unusual punishment, and, among a myriad of other rights not specified but nonetheless ours by birthright, our right to keep and bear arms for the specific purpose of protecting those rights from government thuggery.
If he is not successful, and he will not be, we lose our nice peaceful couch-potato Sunday afternoon football existence because it will be necessary to fight the equivalent of another War for Independence from internationalists financial interest thugs who cannot stand to leave a free people alone. Only instead of the being revolutionaries, this time we will be the counter-revolutionaries against THEIR revolution against our Constitutional form of government. Right now and for the last sixty-five years they have been engaging in first covert, and now overt subversion against our Constitution. They are right on the verge of ramping that up to an armed insurrection in violation of 18USC2383, and if marginally successful they will take it to a full-blown revolution, declaring openly that our Constitution is dissolved and is dissolved perfectly. This is exactly why we have the right to keep and bear arms: To preserve our Republic. If we cannot, or will not, defend our Republic, we will lose it. End of story.
Note to the editor: The great majority of these 2.1 million rejections are later proven to be for reasons not related to criminal activity or mental illness, and are later approved. Quite a few are the result of relatives or others opposed to our fundamental right to keep and bear arms making a bogus report for political reasons or to get even for some family feud. Furthermore, there is no evidence that any of these rejections prevented any crime from taking place, or that any of them were even for the purpose of committing a crime. And out of an alleged 2.1 million rejections, only 62,000 attempts were prosecuted for perjuring themselves on the Form 4473, and most of those were acquitted? And the Supreme Court has ruled that a felon cannot be prosecuted for perjury for lying on the Form 4473 because to require him to admit he is a felon would violate his 5th Amendment right against self incrimination? C'mon, Pete. Not one crime has ever been prevented by a background check, and it was never intended to. Our nation was the first and is the only nation in the history of the planet to make private individual rights superior to the arbitrary whims of kings and princes and socialists and fascists and neighborhood warlords and neighborhood political officers. The ONLY reason we are not already back under the vicious authority of some feudal thug is because the international globalists have overplayed their hand and have had to back off every time some twerp like zerObama threatens our rights and the number of firearms in private hands doubles. Did you know the U.S. is 111th down the list of countries with the highest rates of homicide, at only 4.7 homicides per 100K people per year? And if you remove from those statistics the major cities and States with the strictest gun control, the rate drops to just over 1 homicide per 100K people per year. And the first 110 countries have really strict gun control. The background check scam was a stroke of genius for their side, and we are going the pay for it heavily very soon if people don't wake up and figure out they've been scammed. (Ah, we will pay anyway, but we might survive if enough people wake up.) [Oh, and BTW: The Communist News Network does not impress me much with their accuracy or ability to tell the truth.]
Last login: yesterday