Eric Holder Promises New Gun Bans

February 27, 2009

Eric Holder promises that the Obama administration is going to reinstitute the so-called “assault weapon ban” that Clinton signed into law, and which was allowed to lapse. Oddly, the primary justification he gives for infringing the rights of American citizens is that “I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.”

Violence and corruption has become so bad in Mexico that the US State Department issued a travel warning, stating that: “Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades,”

Obama/Holder want to ban semi-automatic firearms in America because corrupt factions in Mexico use automatic weapons and hand grenades?

Where in the Constitution is the government granted the authority to infringe OUR rights to make a foreign government safe from that same foreign government’s citizens?

Since the anti-rights crowd always claims that crimes are committed in this country by automatic weapons, maybe we should demand that Mexico ban the sale of automatic weapons.

Is this the “New World Order” Clinton always touted? Are we to be subjected to unConstitutional laws in order that some foreign dignitary will be pleased? Is there any hint of justice in submitting to a ban on semi-automatic firearms because violence in Mexico is committed with hand grenades?

When King George declared that firearms should be confiscated in the Colonies, the citizens were reluctant to submit. Are we expected to be more compliant when Attorney General Medina Mora of Mexico requests it, or when his lackie, Eric Holder demands it?

Is Eric Holder going to write an edict that he expects to be viewed as a legitimate law? The last time I read the Constitution, laws were crafted by the Legislature and put to a vote, then signed into law by the President.  Eric Holder is not a member of the legislature, nor is the position of  ‘Attorney General’ in the legislative branch of the US Government.

If Eric Holder imposes a law on the citizens of this country, it would not only be an unConstitutional law, but would have been created in an unConstitutional manner, and as such, should be soundly ignored, as it is a sign of abject tyranny.

To submit to tyranny is as unpatriotic as it is foolhardy.


Congress and Personal Agendas

January 30, 2009

If you read campaign ads for people who want to be a US Senator, you often see that they have a personal agenda that they would like to impose on the citizens of America.

“Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) says she will challenge Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, New York Gov. David Paterson’s choice to fill Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat, in a 2010 primary. McCarthy says Gillibrand’s 100 percent positive rating from the National Rifle Association makes her unacceptable.”

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99816999

Here we have a Democrat politician (McCarthy) who wants to unseat a brand new Democrat Senator (Gillibrand) simply because Gillibrand believes in the Constitution.

It was intended by the authors of the Constitution that the Senate deal with issues that concern the states, hence the fact that each state gets two senators, no matter what their population may be. Likewise, the House of Representatives were intended to represent the affairs of the citizens, therefore the number of Representatives of each state is related to that state’s population.

Members of the US Senate are supposed to represent their state in relation to affairs of the country as a whole. Even if we imagine for a moment that the federal government would never pass laws which would infringe on the rights of the citizens (we can always dream, can’t we?), where is the logic in any Senator wanting to impose his personal beliefs on citizens of other states? If it is truly his goal to impose his will on the population, wouldn’t it be more logical for him to be a state representative, where he can propose and vote on laws which would directly affect citizens of his state? If he indeed wants to impose his will on citizens of other states, we surely must ask ourselves “why?”. Besides the fact that his personal agenda probably just happens to be unConstitutional, it also gives every appearance of someone who just wants to have power over others. He wants to be a “ruler.” That many of the things he proposes are fascist and/or National Socialist is obvious. That he does everything in his power to expand the powers of the government is clear.

Did you ever wonder why it is that fascists always try to ban guns as soon as they can? Would they have us believe that they are so naive that they believe that outlawing a firearm will prevent a murder when outlawing murder itself has little deterrent effect? The truth of the matter is that if laws worked, there would be no crime. So, why do they want to outlaw firearm ownership by The People? Could it be that the fascists really want, more than anything, to allow the government to have a monopoly on power?

Over the past 100 years or so, one of the basic safeguards has been gradually eroded. This is the separation of powers among the three branches of government – Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. Each was to have its own well-defined area of power within the federal government.

For instance, the president, being the head of the Executive branch, can not introduce or vote on bills in congress. He can veto bills which have pass both houses of the Legislature, but his veto can be over-ridden by congress. Two things the Founding Fathers didn’t foresee: First is the entirely unConstitutional “Execute Order,” by which the president grants himself the power to legislate with the stroke of one pen (his), with no debate, no oversight by congressional committees, and no accountability. Second is the fact that the founders believed that the citizens would more or less “draft” the best legal and logical minds, from among the citizens at large. They couldn’t have imagined our current two-party system where millions of dollars are spent on a PR (propaganda) campaign in what amounts to a high school popularity contest (Who’s the best speech-giver? Who’s the best looking?).

The Judicial branch adjudicates cases at law at the federal level (US District Courts, US Appellate Courts, US Supreme Court). It determines the Constitutionality of laws which are challenged. Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, which was intended to remove political considerations from affecting their rulings. However, I don’t think the authors of the Constitution ever imagined that Justices would be appointed according to their party loyalty, and how well they parrot the party line.

The Legislative branch, being so potentially powerful, has safeguards built into it as well – notably that a bill must pass in the originating house, and then be passed in the other house, before being sent to the president who muct then sign it into law (or veto it). Furthermore, any bill which has to do with appropriations must originate in the House of Representatives (which was the house intended to represent The People, rather than the states themselves as political entities). Again, the framers assumed that the best, most honorable, and smartest would be elected by The People to represent them in the House of Representatives. And, originally, the Senators were to be appointed by the STATE LEGISLATURES, and it was naturally assumed that each state’s congressmen would pick the most notable, moral, and honorable from among the state’s population to be that states’ US Senator, who would then represent that state’s interests in the US Senate when necessary.

However, things have gradually changed over the course of the past 100 years or so. We have what is called “judicial activism,” which means that judges will rule on a case NOT according to whether or not the law is Constitutional, but rather how they can rule that will forward their own personal agenda.
Now, each of the two major parties picks their candidates from among those who most closely toe the party line, and who have, in the past, given large amounts of money to the party. The amount of money spent on campaigns for congressional elections runs well into the millions, so if you don’t have either the national Democratic or Republican party behind you, you will be a virtual unknown. Another little way that the two major parties maintain their grasp on the American political system is the way that they have written the campaign rules such as the “matching funds” laws, where if a candidate raises a certain amount of money and is certain to get a particular number of votes, then the federal government will match that candidate’s contributions.

All of these changes make it all the more easy for some unscrupulous politician to get into office, and then work toward instituting his personal agenda, rather than actually represent his state (in the case of a Senator) or the whole of his state’s population (in the case of a Representative). Unfortunately, there is no “test” that a bill must pass to prove that it is Constitutional before that bill can be voted on. There is also not requirement that a bill contain only items that deal with the subject of the bill. A LOT of “pork,” “set-asides,” and payoffs get stuck in bills this way. Federal bills are so lengthy that nobody has time to read them before they vote on them. They rely on the title and a summary paragraph. A bill with the touchy-feely title of “To Save Paraplegic Orphans from the Dangers of Nuclear Radiation” might have the summary paragraph of “To prevent orphan deaths caused by nuclear radiation, and for other purposes.” It’s those “and for other purposes” that you have to watch.

But, what of the bills which have a title which actually gives a fairly accurate idea of what it’s about? Well, there are a lot of politicians who will vote the way that their party orders them to. And then there are other congressmen who are coerced into voting a certain way by other congressmen, their party’s bosses, or maybe the president. All it takes is enough people telling him “If you want your favorite bill to pass next week, you’d better vote ‘yea’ on this one,” or “We gave you $100,000 to win this office, so I think you need to vote the way we tell you,” or even “Nice family you have there. It would be a shame if their knees all got broken.”

So, we come back to the question “Why would a Senator be so determined to pass a law which restricts the rights of everyone in the country?” The obvious answer is “because he can.” It makes him feel big and powerful. It also removes The People’s ‘Ultimate Veto,’ which would come into play when congress finally goes too far in the minds of too many people. It also makes them rich beyond their wildest dreams.

For example, this new “Ammunition Accountability Act” that is being introduced all over the place. A company patents a new method to essentially laser etch a serial number of every round of ammunition. Now, nobody is going to use this expensive technology, which is a solution looking for a problem. So, they get politicians all over the country to introduce laws which would require EVERY round of ammunition sold in this country to be coded by their process, and then each serial number be entered into a database. Also, five cents would be added to the cost of each round: one percent going to the retailer for the trouble of having to record the serial numbers of every round of ammo he sells, and all the personal information of each buyer and putting it all in a database. The remaining 99% of 5 cents for EVERY ROUND would go to this company to “maintain the databases.” The figures I saw claimed that there were about 100 Billion rounds sold in this country last year. If the database company gets about 4 cents for every one of those rounds, you can see that there is Big Bucks in it for them. The company who got the patent on the serial number technology will also come out pretty good, since they will have gotten a law passed which will FORCE people to use their product. Certain Senators will also come out smiling, since it advances their personal agenda. The only thing we don’t know if who is bribing whom.

The only losers in this whole deal, as is always the case when politicians act, are The People.


Compromise

January 15, 2009

“Compromise.” What is it? How does it affect our daily lives?

Put simply, ‘compromise’ is a situation where neither party gets what it wants. In a lot of situations, the outcome is something that both parties can live with, but is usually “gamed” by both parties. Take, for example, a situation where someone wants to buy a car. The dealer names a price he would love to get, but knows is unrealistically high. The potential buyer counters with a price which he knows is unrealistically low. Both parties know that their starting position won’t get far, but they use it as a “starting point.” From these starting points, both parties gradually approach something in the middle, which is a little less than the seller wanted, and a little more than the buyer wanted to pay, but both know that this is how the game is played, and they therefore started with their most outlandish figure as their “starting point” to “open negotiations.”

In other situations though, the outcome is more favorable to one side or the other, and if those two parties interact regularly, is often compounded over time by repeated compromises which always favor one side.

Take, for example, the case where there are two “parties” or groups. One group wants to retain their rights, while the other group wants to infringe those rights. Let’s call the group who wants to retain their rights “citizens,” and we’ll call those who want to infringe those rights “government.” What will be their “starting points?” Obviously, the citizens’ starting point will be that they retain 100% of their rights. However, as we’ve considered above, a “starting point” is rarely maintained once you agree to compromise or “negotiate.”

If the citizens agree to this negotiation process (compromise), and their starting point is maintaining 100% of their rights, the government can have a “starting point” that only infringes 20% of the citizens’ rights (and look very reasonable when they put their ‘spin’ on it). The eventual compromise might end up with the citizens losing somewhere around 10% of their rights.

Who wins? Well, I would say that the government does, since they get the citizens to agree to WILLINGLY give up 10% of their rights. However, there are certain lobbying groups who will claim that they “won a victory for the citizens’ rights,” because they got the government to back down by one half of their ‘demands.’

But, it gets even better (for the government). A year or two later, they will get the citizens to agree to compromise a few more of their rights away. The government will once again start out trying for 20%, and the citizens, in their usual generous mood, will gladly agree to give away ‘only’ 10% of their rights. Add this latest rights give-away to the previous one, and you can easily see that the government is winning this compromise game, one small infringement at a time.

And the slickest part (for the government), is that they can, with some small amount of truth, claim that they didn’t infringe those rights! They can truthfully say that the citizens agreed to give them up!!

So, when you look around for a group that you think stands up for your rights, look at their lobbying history, and see if they regularly agree to support the government in taking only a few of our rights in exchange for leaving some “intact.” That, my friends, is the road of compromise, and if you send money to an organization like that, you are paying them to give away our rights.

Say “NO!” to compromise. Once we give our rights away, we will never get them back. Instead of “demanding” that the government only take “a few” rights, we should be demanding that they give back ones that they have stolen from us in the past. When the government states their “starting position” of ‘we want you to give up 20% of your rights,’ OUR starting position should be “we want you to give back 100% of what you have taken.” If we insist on letting ourselves be drawn into the compromise game, let’s at least use a starting position that gives us a reasonable chance of winning (or at least not constantly losing).

There will be some who will argue that this is not realistic on our part, and that we need to ‘compromise.’ If you hear someone say this, that person is someone who wants to GIVE YOUR RIGHTS AWAY. Recognize it for what it is. “Compromising” with your rights is giving your rights away. No matter what you call it, you will end up with fewer rights, and that, my friends, is a win for the government. Whoever advocates this, wants the government to win in their attack on our rights.


A Common Sense Bill from The House?

January 11, 2009

It will never pass. There is no way that there are enough politicians who believe that citizens have the right to defend themselves. This will never get a majority vote. What do you think?

(copied from:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.17:: )

HR 17 IH

111th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 17

To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 6, 2009

Mr. BARTLETT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


A BILL

To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the `Citizens’ Self-Defense Act of 2009′.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds the following:
    • (1) Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect, individual citizens, as evidenced by the following:
      • (A) The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: `[C]ourts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.’.
      • (B) Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities.
      • (C) The United States Department of Justice found that, in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence for which police had not responded within 1 hour.
    • (2) Citizens frequently must use firearms to defend themselves, as evidenced by the following:
      • (A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals–or more than 6,500 people a day. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
      • (B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.
      • (C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill or wound his or her attacker.
    • (3) Law-abiding citizens, seeking only to provide for their families’ defense, are routinely prosecuted for brandishing or using a firearm in self-defense. For example:
      • (A) In 1986, Don Bennett of Oak Park, Illinois, was shot at by 2 men who had just stolen $1,200 in cash and jewelry from his suburban Chicago service station. The police arrested Bennett for violating Oak Park’s handgun ban. The police never caught the actual criminals.
      • (B) Ronald Biggs, a resident of Goldsboro, North Carolina, was arrested for shooting an intruder in 1990. Four men broke into Biggs’ residence one night, ransacked the home and then assaulted him with a baseball bat. When Biggs attempted to escape through the back door, the group chased him and Biggs turned and shot one of the assailants in the stomach. Biggs was arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon–a felony. His assailants were charged with misdemeanors.
      • (C) Don Campbell of Port Huron, Michigan, was arrested, jailed, and criminally charged after he shot a criminal assailant in 1991. The thief had broken into Campbell’s store and attacked him. The prosecutor plea-bargained with the assailant and planned to use him to testify against Campbell for felonious use of a firearm. Only after intense community pressure did the prosecutor finally drop the charges.
    • (4) The courts have granted immunity from prosecution to police officers who use firearms in the line of duty. Similarly, law-abiding citizens who use firearms to protect themselves, their families, and their homes against violent felons should not be subject to lawsuits by the violent felons who sought to victimize them.

SEC. 3. RIGHT TO OBTAIN FIREARMS FOR SECURITY, AND TO USE FIREARMS IN DEFENSE OF SELF, FAMILY, OR HOME; ENFORCEMENT.

    (a) Reaffirmation of Right- A person not prohibited from receiving a firearm by Section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code, shall have the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms–
    • (1) in defense of self or family against a reasonably perceived threat of imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily injury;
    • (2) in defense of self or family in the course of the commission by another person of a violent felony against the person or a member of the person’s family; and
    • (3) in defense of the person’s home in the course of the commission of a felony by another person.
    (b) Firearm Defined- As used in subsection (a), the term `firearm’ means–
    • (1) a shotgun (as defined in section 921(a)(5) of title 18, United States Code);
    • (2) a rifle (as defined in section 921(a)(7) of title 18, United States Code); or
    • (3) a handgun (as defined in section 10 of Public Law 99-408).
    (c) Enforcement of Right-
    • (1) IN GENERAL- A person whose right under subsection (a) is violated in any manner may bring an action in any United States district court against the United States, any State, or any person for damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate.
    • (2) AUTHORITY TO AWARD A REASONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEE- In an action brought under paragraph (1), the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.
    • (3) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS- An action may not be brought under paragraph (1) after the 5-year period that begins with the date the violation described in paragraph (1) is discovered.

END


Have You Read H.R.45 Yet?

January 10, 2009

Here’s part of it, from the “definitions” section. Introduced by Rep. Bobby Rush, from (where else) Illinois.

Copied from:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45:

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

    (a) In General- In this Act:
    • (1) FIREARM; LICENSED DEALER; LICENSED MANUFACTURER; STATE- The terms `firearm’, `licensed dealer’, `licensed manufacturer’, and `State’ have the meanings given those terms in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code.
    • (2) QUALIFYING FIREARM- The term `qualifying firearm’ has the meaning given the term in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by subsection (b) of this section.
    (b) Amendment to Title 18, United States Code- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
    • `(36) The term `qualifying firearm’–
      • `(A) means–
        • `(i) any handgun; or
        • `(ii) any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device; and
      • `(B) does not include any antique.’.

SEC. 101. LICENSING REQUIREMENT.

    Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
    `(aa) Firearm Licensing Requirement-
    • `(1) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to possess a qualifying firearm on or after the applicable date, unless that person has been issued a firearm license–
      • `(A) under title I of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, which license has not been invalidated or revoked under that title; or
      • `(B) pursuant to a State firearm licensing and record of sale system certified under section 602 of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, which license has not been invalidated or revoked under State law.
    • `(2) APPLICABLE DATE- In this subsection, the term `applicable date’ means–
      • `(A) with respect to a qualifying firearm that is acquired by the person before the date of the enactment of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, 2 years after such date of enactment; and
      • `(B) with respect to a qualifying firearm that is acquired by the person on or after the date of the enactment of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, 1 year after such date of enactment.’.

There you have it. There is more disturbing stuff in this bill, and this is but one of several bills introduced in the past couple of days, but this should stir your interest enough to to look at some of what the new batch of employees have been up to. I guess they intend to “serve” The People by eliminating as many rights as possible. It’s what defines ‘tyranny.’

H.R. 45 is a national firearm licensing law, all bundled and delivered from (surprise!) Illinois. And what does it cover? ANY handgun, and any rifle that accepts removable magazines. So, I guess AK-47s are out, but an SKS is alright. And an M1A is restricted, but an M1 Garand is exempt. Well, nobody ever claimed that the anti-rights people used anything resembling “logic.”


Democrats, Obama, and the 2nd Amendment

January 8, 2009

An interesting article on the future of our rights under the new Obama Regime.

And people wonder why there has been a frantic rush to buy firearms.

As one bumper sticker put it: “Obama has been responsible for putting more steel on American streets than GM has.”


Obama ALREADY Helping the Economy!

December 7, 2008

President-Elect Obama is already helping the economy, and he hasn’t even taken office yet!!

Bravo for him.  I hope this particular trend continues.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20081207/LOCAL18/812070407