Mike Vanderboegh puts them where his mouth his.
Archive for the ‘Bill of Rights’ Category
Here’s the lovely thing about rights: They aren’t up for a vote. That’s why they’re rights.
Let’s put it another way:
- your so-called “suffrage”
- your so-called “emancipation”
- your so-called “integration”
- your so-called “religious freedom”
- your so-called “freedom of speech”
- your so-called “right to due process”
One guess as to the right originally described as “so-called”.
via MArooned, who’s got some good words to say as well.
Over at Commengunsense, and invites the rest of us to answer twenty questions.
I submitted answers, but somehow clicking preview resulted in publishing, so there are likely errors. Fortunately, I saved a copy before submitting. So here it is, as it went it up, bumbling and all.
1. …Criminals and domestic abusers should be able to buy guns…
People who can’t be trusted with guns, can’t be trusted with liberty.
2. What is your proposal for keeping guns away from criminals, domestic abusers, terrorists and dangerously mentally ill people?
No way to do this without also infringing on the rights of the law abiding and peaceable.
3. Do you believe that a background check infringes on your constitutional right to “keep and bear arms”?
4. Do you believe that I and people with whom I work intend to ban your guns?
5. If yes to #4, how do you think that could happen (I mean the physical action)?
Door to door civil war. Not the way it would start — mandatory, universal registration is a good bet — but that’s how it would end.
6. What do you think are the “second amendment remedies” that the tea party GOP candidate for Senate in Nevada( Sharron Angle) has proposed?
Don’t know about Angle, but for me, if civil servants know that their masters, their masters, are armed as well as they are, they’ll be civil, not surly.
[Gah. This should be, "if civil servants know that their masters, the people".]
7. Do you believe in the notion that if you don’t like what someone is doing or saying, second amendment remedies should be applied?
8. Do you believe it is O.K. to call people with whom you disagree liars and demeaning names?
I believe it is OK to call liars, liars. And when people demean me verbally, I should turn the other cheek. Or ignore them. As soon as they start trying to demean me with the law, or through force, though, it is OK for me to resist. With lethal force, if nothing less suffices.
9. If yes to #8, would you do it in a public place to the person’s face?
I would respond in kind.
10. Do you believe that any gun law will take away your constitutional rights?
Yes, excepting laws against using weapons to commit violent crimes.
11. Do you believe in current gun laws? Do you think they are being enforced? If not, explain.
I believe there are current gun laws, yes. I believe most of them infringe the right to arms. And certainly they’re being enforced — sometimes, but often not against violent criminals. They exist and are enforced to disarm the lawabiding, not the criminal.
12. Do you believe that all law-abiding citizens are careful with their guns and would never shoot anybody?
13. Do you believe that people who commit suicide with a gun should be included in the gun statistics?
I believe my right to arms ought not be judged with statistics.
14. Do you believe that accidental gun deaths should “count” in the total numbers?
15. Do you believe that sometimes guns, in careless use or an accident, can shoot a bullet without the owner or holder of the gun pulling the trigger?
16. Do you believe that 30,000 gun deaths a year is too many?
17. How will you help to prevent more shootings in this country?
Arm the law abiding. Restrain the government. Repeal laws against contraband, especially, and allow law enforcement to concentrate on crimes with actual victims.
18. Do you believe the articles that I have posted
I’m not familiar with these articles.
19. There has been some discussion of the role of the ATF here. Do you believe the ATF wants your guns and wants to harass you personally?
I doubt the ATF has ever heard of me.
20. Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility?
I have tried, dozens and dozens of times, to engage in reasonable discussion.
But I have learned that almost always, “reasonable discussion” means that I’m supposed to shut up and do what I’m told. For my own good, of course.
The Constitution is We The People telling the government what it may do, and the Bill of Rights is We The People telling it what it must not do.
And the corollary of that is that the Constitution doesn’t belong to the Government, especially not the Supreme Court. It belongs to We The People, as a collar and leash belongs not to the dog, but to the master.
Whenever We feel Our dogs straining at the leash, it is up to Us to scold them, put them in their kennel, or in the worst case, tie a particularly unruly one to a tree within sight of the pack and shoot it.
If the Constitution guaranteed the RKBA, it wouldn’t be so baldly infringed.
The Constitution is nothing more than a line in the sand; it’s up to us to punish those who dare to cross it.
The Second Amendment does not make militia membership a prerequisite to gun ownership — quite the contrary. Owning a gun and being trained in its use automatically confers militia membership, and a well armed and well trained militia is deemed a necessary bulwark to liberty.
Technically, I am an agnostic. That doesn’t mean I don’t believe in God because I feel I lack sufficient evidence; that is the skeptical stance.
Instead, I have faith because even in principle, I can not know, in the sense of possessing falsifiable, scientific facts, that God exists. I must accept Him on faith, and proceed as if I knew, as if the very equations of science proclaimed the mysteries of faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Mohammed’s Error in creating his warrior cult was precisely that he tried to trade belief for fact, faith for knowing. He set down specific rules and claimed that those who do not follow his rules cannot be Muslims, and deserve slavery and death. In so doing, he killed and mummified Allah, and drove himself and his murderous followers insane, right down to the present day.
People who try to prove the existence of God through science, whether physics, or neurology, or psychology, or even evolution, are committing Mohammed’s Error, and his sin: they are trying to put God in a killing jar and pin His husk to a cork board with neat little labels. That way leads to judging others, rather than ourselves, and trying to bring God’s wrath on them on God’s behalf, and thence to hell on Earth.
I’m talking to you, Vox, not just the Gaia-ists and behaviorists.
[I've also made some small tweaks to previous sections of this post for grammar and clarity.]
A glimpse into the next civil war: Matt Bracken’s “What I Saw At The Coup”.
The first real jolt indicating a serious problem with the plan came when television reporter Cathy Carlsen was killed in Norfolk, shot dead while covering the commissioning of the Harvey Milk, the Navy’s newest destroyer. That she was killed was bad enough. That it happened on a “secure” naval base—a federal installation—made it much worse. Her blood splattered across the Admirals’ white uniforms made quite a picture. The videos…
We were two women born in the same year, with similar academic backgrounds. We had known each other for decades, and her untimely death hit me hard. Cathy Carlsen had been a reliable voice on the progressive side of a supposedly impartial television news network. That a respected member of the media would be assassinated was big surprise, at least to me. Up to that point, only a few federal officials and high-ranking agents had been targeted.
Then new photo was released on the internet. I had always thought the NSA could trace those things back to their origins, but apparently not. The photo was taken through the Norfolk sniper’s rifle scope just a few moments before the murder. It showed thin black crosshairs and other reference marks across Cathy’s smiling face. And it showed some text added just above her head:
If the media lies, the media dies.
You take a side, you’re along for the ride.
A traitor in front of a camera is still just a traitor.
This single act of domestic terrorism immediately dampened the enthusiasm of most of our formerly reliable reporters to continue to carry our water. More such photographs of other media figures appeared on the internet with crosshairs over their faces. Most of the pictures were bogus, just photoshop pranks, but they had a similar effect: our dependably cooperative reporters suddenly lost their nerve.
This is the single most important thing that has to be hammered into the brains of the press if “the next civil war” is to be avoided.
And make no mistake: the narrator here, a White House official, is exactly right in describing this action as an “act of domestic terrorism”.
That is what we will be reduced to if this ever comes to pass, and it would be a terrible thing. Insurgents, which is what anyone with any right to call himself a patriot would be, will do horrible, ugly, brutal things in the name of liberty. They will become what they hate.
This account is severely sanitized. There is little or no chance, I think, that the war would actually go this smoothly, or end this quickly.
I really don’t want to see this.
But you journalists out there? We won’t spare you, can’t spare you. You’ll be very near the head of the line.
You may even be first.
I’m not advocating anything here. I do not not not want to see this happen.
But to stop it, journalists must start doing the job that is recognized in the First Amendment. You must again become the watch dog press, relentlessly gnawing at the seats of the powerful, regardless of party, ripping at their throats when necessary.
The crosshairs await.
Marooned in MA, aka Jay G, discusses this idiocy further here.
As I commented on the video, if we demanded the same level of regulation on lawmakers as they do on, say, hairdressers [see Code of Massachusetts Regulation 240-cmr-2.00] you’d be able to get their licenses pulled for malpractice.
Added to my daily feed.
I’ve pledged twenty bucks to Michael McNulty’s Gunwalker documentary.
Own a gun? Want to keep it?
Then pledge. Otherwise, sit down, shut up, and do as your masters tell you.
The media will not cover this story. You know this. It doesn’t fit the narrative. It needs to be heard, though, and the only way to get it out is to do it ourselves.
The number of gun owners in the United States is staggering. All it would take to fund this project is for 400,000 people to pledge $1. How many gun owners do you know?