Home » 2nd amendment
You are browsing entries tagged with “2nd amendment”
Every year, Buckeye Firearms Association identifies the top threats to our gun rights for the upcoming year. Historically, the list includes an ever changing line up of anti-gun personalities including the likes of Sarah Brady, Toby Hoover and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. One of the people included on the list more times than any other however, is the uninformed gun owner.
DC claim: possession of a medical cannabis card forfeits a citizen’s Second Amendment rights
As predicted immediately following the recent 2nd Amendment Supreme Court ruling, the gun banning crowd is right back at their attempts to abridge your God given rights as citizens of the United States. Once again, the attempt is to make owning a gun so cost or time prohibitive that people will “voluntarily” disarm. No other inalienable right do you have to pay and register to obtain. The very thought of registering for a right is offensive to the concept of liberty and the Bill of Rights. However, your right to self defense is a pay of service right, at least to the city of Chicago. Years and years of virtual gun bans in the city have done nothing except turn a criminal class loose on the unprepared public. Chicago leads the nation is number of murders a year. Obviously these gun banning schemes can not realistically be viewed as being in the interest of public safety.
Grumbling about a U.S. Supreme Court they say is out of touch with America’s cities, Chicago aldermen voted 45-0 today to approve a rushed-through compromise gun ban.
The law, weaker than the gun ban tossed out Monday but with some even stronger new provisions, allows adults in Chicago to buy one gun a month, 12 a year, but they must pay registration and permit fees and take five hours of training.
Within 100 days, anyone who wants to keep a gun in the city will have to register, get their training and pay the fees. Also within 100 days, any of the estimated 10,000 Chicagoans convicted of a gun offense will have to register at their local police station like sex offenders.
Today’s 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in favor of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right is being hailed as a victory for gun rights advocates. However, this verdict has far from carved in stone the individual right to bear arms. Let us forget for a second that the right of self defense comes from the Natural Law and pretend this is nothing but a privilege granted by a bureaucrat (which is exactly what Progressives on the bench believe). All the Supreme Court did today was send the case back to the lower courts and the local jurisdictions where the language of any new gun bans can be amended and deliberated once again. The bureaucrats still have control over rights you are born with. The court did not prohibit states or municipalities from enacting tough gun laws that through onerous overhead could become defacto bans. The highest court failed to make statutory your right not to be a defenseless slave or ward of the state. The court said outright bans without procedures for gun ownership are Unconstitutional; however those procedures can be virtually prohibitive if a local government so chooses. It is concerning that not only was the verdict so close and split right down party lines as usual but that it still leaves open the possibility for harsh restrictions in the future. Even after 2 major Supreme Court verdicts against the gun grabbing crowd, your rights are far from safe. Even if you have the right to ownership (after jumping through untold numbers of hoops) a local ordinance could basically render a gun inoperable in an emergency situation through heavy handed regulations such as was the case in Washington D.C. prior to the Heller decision. Ownership could be allowed, but only if the weapon is stored disassembled and locked potentially.
You know what the mainstream media think about guns and our freedom to carry them.
Pierre Thomas of ABC: “When someone gets angry or when they snap, they are going to be able to have access to weapons.”
Chris Matthews of MSNBC: “I wonder if in a free society violence is always going to be a part of it if guns are available.”
Keith Olbermann, who usually can’t be topped for absurdity: “Organizations like the NRA … are trying to increase deaths by gun in this country.”
“Trying to?” Well, I admit that I bought that nonsense for years. Living in Manhattan, working at ABC, everyone agreed that guns are evil. And that the NRA is evil. (Now that the NRA has agreed to a sleazy deal with congressional Democrats on political speech censorship, maybe some of its leaders are evil, but that’s for another column.)
Now I know that I was totally wrong about guns. Now I know that more guns means — hold onto your seat — less crime.
Progressive William Rivers Pitt has lost patience with the Obama regime and with British Petroleum (“Enough of This Crap,” June 15, Truthout). To break through the news blackout that BP maintains over the ongoing Gulf of Mexico oil spill, he wants a hundred thousand Americans to “just show the hell up down there and demand access.”
Pitt is correct that this “is the kind of direct action that has been missing from our national narrative, not just in the Gulf but all over.” Obama, he says correctly, is a “narcotic” for progressives. Apparently, for many progressives having a black man, or a 50 percent black man, in the White House is what is important, not the fact that he is a continuation of Bush/Cheney.
If a hundred thousand people marched on the Gulf Coast, “big things would happen.” Pitt writes that “either the people would break through those unconscionable corporate barriers and show the world what is really going on in the Gulf, or the forces BP has arrayed against the truth would react with violence, which would tell us everything we need to know about what is happening, and would be enough to break that God damned criminal corporation finally and forever.”
It was, of course, the Bush-Cheney-Obama administration that permitted the drilling. BP didn’t go about it on its own. This aside, and also putting aside my sympathy with Pitt’s outrage, here we have a progressive advocating direct action that likely would end in violence, not merely from BP mercenaries but from local, state, and federal government forces. The anomaly in the picture is that it is progressives who have been most determined to disarm the American people. What would the one hundred thousand do when withering fire is directed at them? Amerika’s forces of “law and order” and conquest enjoy killing people. It doesn’t matter if they are women and children. In fact, killing women and children is the way to win 30-year wars like the one we are one-third through in Afghanistan.
The Mexican President Felipe Calderon recently made a formal statement condemning the killing of a 15 year old boy on the border. It is also Mr. Calderon’s second major public statement slamming U.S. border policy in the last month. Earlier the President of Mexico was critical of the Arizona law, a law he clearly had not read and did not realize was more humane and less restrictive than his nation’s own immigration laws and enforcement. When will a U.S. President be publicly critical of Mexico’s continued enabling of an illegal invasion and dumping of Mexico’s unemployed on a saturated American market?
“MEXICO CITY, June 9 (Reuters) – Mexico has sent a formal complaint to Washington over the fatal shooting of a teenager by a U.S. border patrol agent and is pressing for answers on the incident, Mexico’s foreign minister said.”
Hidden state laws ban firearm sales, even possession, during crises
By Drew Zahn
Hat tip: © 2010 WorldNetDaily
February 16, 2010
Residents of King, N.C., were startled earlier this month when a declared snow emergency triggered a law forbidding the possession of firearms in public.
Furthermore, North Carolina isn’t the only state where authorities can ban gun sales, or even possession, upon declaration of “emergency,” even though what constitutes an “emergency” might be deemed questionable.
According to North Carolina statute 14-288.7, when a municipality declares a state of emergency in which “public safety authorities are unable to … afford adequate protection for lives or property” – such as during the recent East Coast record snowfall – “it is unlawful for any person to transport or possess off his own premises any dangerous weapon.”
In other words, when the cops can’t get through on the roads, the citizens can’t take guns off their own property.
“This has to be the most ridiculous event of the century!” protested a commenter on the website of Winston-Salem’s WXII-TV, which reported the ban. “This is the ultimate denial of liberties for the most asinine reason … bad weather!”
By Jacob Hornberger
With the massacre at Ft. Hood, we once again see the consequences of gun control.
Remember what the gun controllers say: that once gun control is imposed, would-be murderers will obey the gun-control law by resorting to some other form of murder. At least the killers won’t use a gun, the gun-controllers exclaim, because gun possession is now against the law.
Yet, once again that reasoning hasn’t panned out at Ft. Hood, any more than it panned out at Virginia Tech, Columbine High School, Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, or, for that matter, on the streets of Washington, D.C., the gun-control, murder capital of America.
As libertarians have pointed out, time and time again, would-be murderers don’t give a hoot for gun-control laws. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, if would-be murderers are willing to violate laws against murder, it is certain that they will have no reservations about violating gun-control laws.
Therefore, what gun control accomplishes is a disarming of people who would otherwise have the ability to defend themselves from would-be murderers. The peaceful, law-abiding citizenry is forced into simply dodging bullets from the murderer’s illegally possessed guns until the cops arrive.
By Paul Craig Roberts
The US Constitution has few friends on the right or the left.
During the first eight years of the 21st century, the Republicans mercilessly assaulted civil liberties. The brownshirt Bush regime ignored the protections provided by habeas corpus.
They spied on American citizens without warrants. They violated the First Amendment. They elevated decisions of the president above US statutory law and international law. They claimed the power to withhold information from the people’s representatives in Congress, and they asserted, and behaved as if, they were unaccountable to the people, Congress, and the federal courts. The executive branch claimed the power to ignore congressional subpoenas. Republicans regarded Bush as a Stuart king unaccountable to law.
The Bush brownshirt regime revealed itself as lawless — the worst criminal organization in American history.
Now we have the Democrats, and the assault on civil liberty continues. President Obama doesn’t want to hold Bush accountable for his crimes and violations of the Constitution, because Obama wants to retain the powers that Bush asserted. Even the practice of kidnapping people and transporting them to foreign countries to be tortured has been retained by President Obama.
The civil liberties that Bush stole from us are now in Obama’s pocket.
Will it turn out that we enjoyed more liberty under Bush than we will under Obama? At least the Republicans left us the Second Amendment. The Obama Democrats are not going to return our other purloined civil liberties, and they are already attacking the Second Amendment.
Rep. Bobby L. Rush (D, IL) has introduced the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009. As the British and Australians learned, once firearms are registered, the government knows where they are. The government’s next step is to confiscate the firearms.