Of all our liberties, the Left hates this one the most

Matt at Conservative Hideout makes the case and explains why the Left so loathes gun rights

That state of passive captivity is exactly where the state wants all of us.  And, the political left attempt to create this by use of the Alinsky Method.  People that dissent, believe in freedom, and such are singled out and destroyed.  They are harassed in public, and in their own homes.  Their children and tracked and harassed.  They receive death threats, false lawsuits are filed.  Basically, the target is relentlessly isolated and attacked until they submit.  They want the target to submit and be passive, and they want to people witnessing it to not get any bright ideas about having independent thoughts of their own.  Also, when children are singled out for punishment in school for being Christian, or c0llege students are threatened with failing grades for not embracing the “tolerance” of the regressives. we see the isolation and attack mode that seeks to create passive sheeple, and punish those that stand up.

How this applies to gun control is simple.  A firearm provides a sense of security and confidence.  As the old saying goes, “God made man, but Samuel  Colt made them equal.”  Meaning, that it became very difficult to intimidate and subjugate a man that is armed.  It is a catalyst for independence, as when a human can defend themselves, they will stand up to the state, community organizers, or union goons.  It’s the “emboldening agent” that could be applied to the picture.  It’s the great equalizer of our Republic. It is the counterbalance to tyranny; the gun owner is confident, and the one(s) that would attack him are wary.  It doesn’t matter that the gun owner cannot impose his will on others, as others cannot impose their will on him.  There is a certain reciprocity there, as all sides are potentially “equal” in terms of their power to protect themselves.

If you will notice, we see stories about union attacks, andcommunity organizers intimidating people far more in urban areas.  Why is this?  I think most of you will understand why.  In the cities, there are more gun control laws, so these thugs have less of a chance of being confronted by an armed citizen.  In the suburbs, and especially in rural areas, the thug’s shenanigans would be confronted with the sound on dozens of “metallic clicks.”  It’s hard to intimidate someone that can fight back, even if he or she is outnumbered (or, unless the government limits the amount of bullets that go in magazines).

Go read the whole thing, It is quite insightful, and dead on accurate. as I often say, the Collectivist Left despises anything that supports Individualism, and individual liberty, nothing does more to those ends than the right to own firearms.

Yes, Mr. Liberal Whiny Pants, you DO have every right to be butt hurt over my guns

Over at Bearing Arms, Bob Owens cites a piece written, likely in Crayola, at The Huffington Post. The author of the drivel, Tom Harvey, proudly announces his right to be offended because I, and others own guns

I Have a Right to Hate Guns

Well, that is true Mr. Harvey, you DO have the right to hate guns, thank you for discovering what should have been obvious to anyone

I’m not sure that I do; it’s not that simple; but I certainly have the right and plenty of reason. I shouldn’t have to hide my position. I should be free to state it clearly, directly and simply and say:

No one is asking you to “hide” your positions. the fact that you must face, sir, is that most Americans disagree with you. See, your right to bless us with your infinite wisdom, is no different than our right to tell you to get stuffed. Liberals like you never seem to grasp that the whole freedom of speech thing cuts both ways.

• It’s much too easy for people of bad will or unstable emotions to become armed and dangerous and we should take the strong action needed to stop it.

Well, Mr. Harvey, it IS easy for people who will steal or buy guns on the black market, no law will stop them. Perhaps you should write your Congressman, and Senator and ask them why the vast majority of people who tried to buy a  gun and were denied by the background check are never questioned by authorities. Again, you call for laws, but say nothing of laws NOT enforced. Do you think more laws that will likely be unenforced will do one damn thing to make anyone safer?

• It is the responsibility of gun owners to prove that their activities do not create a danger to the public and submit to whatever regulation is needed to enforce that.

So, what government agency would you place in charge of choosing which American set to exercise their constitutional rights? How would we prove our “activities” do not pose a danger exactly? And what activities would be approved? I question if you actually thought at all before writing such an absurd idea down. I also would question if you can prove that your writing does not pose some threat? Surely you must think, and I use that word think reluctantly, that all of our liberties should be deemed “safe” by Big Brother.

• Unless one has an exceptional need, the risks of having guns far outweigh the benefits, making gun possession unwise for nearly everyone.

Mr. Harvey, have you one shred of credible evidence that supports this asinine claim? The fact is there are tens upon tens of millions of gun owners in America. The vast majority never harm anyone with them. It is also true that tens of thousands of Americans USE our guns in self-defense annually. Millions of Americans have concealed carry licenses, and despite the fantasies of people like you, those gun carriers cause ZERO harm to anyone, except of course, the many times they have stopped bad guys, and hurt the feelings of overly emotional people like you.

• Notwithstanding Antonin Scalia’s bogus logic, the Second Amendment only establishes a collective right.

Ah, here we are, back to the root of your problem sir. You are a Collectivist. Those individual rights are troublesome to you, as they always are to those who frown upon the very idea that there is an inherent human right to keep and bear arms. Where you get the notion that the second amendment applies only to a collective right I cannot say, but I will allow George Mason, known as the Father of said amendment answer. I also include some quotes from other Founders

“…to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” George Mason

“The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside…Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 [1894]) 

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good” (George Washington) 

“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…” (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)) 

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.” (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights

“The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829) 

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244) 

“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

“The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals…. It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.” (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789) 

I left the last one last so that it be made VERY clear that the Constitution protects INDIVIDUAL rights Mr. Harvey, not Collective rights. That document protects the individual from tyrants, and the tyranny of the majority, and from people like you who hold their feelings in higher esteem than they do God-given liberties!

Our schools as re-education camps

I am one who believes that history, actual history, as it happened is not taught in our schools. I also believe that not enough attention is given to the founding of the nation. I also believe, and have for years, that the goal of government schools is not so much education as indoctrination. Moonbattery has another example that shows me, to be correct

Liberals like the idea of a “living Constitution” — that is, a Constitution that says whatever they want it to say at the moment. Here is what the Second Amendment says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Here is what advocates of statist tyranny want it to say:

falsified-2nd-amendment

Horrifyingly, the falsified version above was taken from United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination. From Amazon:

This text is designed for a one-semester or one-year United States history course for students preparing to take the AP U.S. History Exam. Teachers can assign the book as the course textbook or as a supplement to a college-level textbook.

Looking over the picture, I saw the butchering of the First Amendment too, adding the “separation of church and state” which is NOT in the Bill of Rights. God only knows how many other falsehoods are in that book.

Just another reason to either home school your kids, or to at least talk to your kids about history.  As much as we tout education in America, we forget that the goal of education should be to impart knowledge, not propaganda. 

God Bless Mississippi!

Two words I love to say are now the law in the Magnolia State. Open carry!

While everyone was watching news in Colorado during the final weeks of the recalls, Mississippi was instituting a new law to allow the open carry of firearms without a concealed carry permit. 

House Bill 2 was passed in Mississippi’s last legislative session and signed into law by Governor Phil Bryant (R), but put on hold in July when Circuit Judge Winston Kidd issued an injunction to have the legislature “clarify it.” 

On August 29 the Mississippi Supreme Court “unanimously upheld the… open carry law,” setting the stage for it to take effect.

Fox News carried the Mississippi Supreme Court’s ruling:

This court now finds that the circuit judge erred as a matter of law when he found House Bill 2 vague, and therefore, unconstitutional. He also erred when he stated that ‘a reasonable person reading the bill could not discern what the allows and what it prohibits.’

State representative Andy Gipson (R-Braxton) sponsored House Bill 2. He says the ability of law-abiding citizens to openly carry firearms for self-defense “confirms, in a very real sense, the right to keep and bear arms.”

Adding to this, Governor Bryant said House Bill 2 reaffirms the right to keep and bear arms not only as set forth in the Bill of Rights, but also in Mississippi’s constitution. 

Ah, yes, the Constitution!

 

Did gun rights “snooker” Democrats?

Via Weasel Zippers

Via Washington Times:

A prominent gun-rights advocate claims his group’s staff was in the room during the drafting of the recently unveiled proposal to expand gun-purchase background checks and said that “we snookered the other side — they haven’t figured it out yet.”

Alan Gottlieb, executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, made the remarks at a speech in Portland, Ore., on Friday, according to video captured by the group Daylight Disinfectant.

Mr. Gottlieb said that despite claims to the contrary, the amendment that would expand checks to sales online and at gun shows is “not registration” and went on to list a host of gun-rights protections in the measure, such as allowing interstate handgun sales for dealers and protections for veterans, for example.

“It’s a Christmas tree,” Mr. Gottlieb said. “We just hung a million ornaments on it.”

“We’re taking the background check and making it a pro-gun bill,” he added. “Unfortunately, some of my colleagues haven’t quite figured it out yet because they weren’t sitting in the room writing it,” he continued. “My staff was. I’ll be perfectly candid about it. This will probably break on Monday in the Wall Street Journal.”

Well, we shall see. Maybe the GOP has finally outwitted the Democrats, for once. But, why announce it? why start crowing about is already? 

 

New York Governor calls gun control opponents paranoid, extremists

Your Marxist Moron of the Day

Gov. Andrew Cuomo dismissed the latest lawsuit against the state’s new gun control law, the SAFE Act, as “propaganda” that the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association is using to keep its members in line.

“I think the paralysis in Washington on this issue is sad, frankly. If this nation doesn’t get it after Newtown, Connecticut … people all across the nation are begging their government to respond,” Cuomo, a Democrat, told Susan Arbetter on “The Capitol Pressroom.”

“What the extremists do is spread fear and unrealistic theories of conspiracies and the citizenry that needs to be armed because the government is possibly tyrannical, and they need their arms to defend themselves against the tyrannical government,” Cuomo continued. This is true: at gun rallies, I’ve heard this “slippery slope” line of argument from multiple attendees. They view the right to bear arms as a kind of check against government power.

Gov. Cuomo is a fine one to be slinging mud. What he is is a thug. Really no better than the slime ball who tried to rob me years ago. If not for my being armed that night, who knows what would have happened. To me, that punk and Cuomo are two sides of the same coin. No, Gov. Cuomo will never try to rob me in an alley. But he is all too willing to rob everyone he can of their most basic human right, the right of self-defense. Of course, I am sure Cuomo would lecture me on my “needs”. Well, I am sure it is easy for a man surrounded by armed security to not see the need of  a common American to have firearms for self-defense. As far as Cuomo calling anyone who opposes his unconstitutional law extreme? Statists like Cuomo despise liberty, and Individualism and consider anyone who does not wish to be dependent on the State an extremist, so, that is a badge of honor. Oh and one more thing……….

a15 AR-Rosa-Parks

I think the Founders would approve

The Founders would use more eloquent language, but I think A Nod to the Gods has captured their spirit here

a15

 

 

 

 

 

 

To those who will argue that I should use more “respectful” language I would pose one question. Do those miscreants seeking to deprive Americans of the right of self-defense have “respect” for our rights, or for the Constitution? Do they respect the truth when they deliberately lie about the number of times Americans use firearms to defend themselves? Do they respect honest debate when they seek to ram through legislation that would limit, or eliminate entirely my God-given natural rights? Do they show me any respect when they paint me, and other gun owners as nuts? Do they show us respect when they falsely seek to blame us for horrific tragedies like Newtown? The answer is no. So, why do I owe tyrants, seeking to rob my natural rights any damned respect?

 

——————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Ed’s interjection:

Indeed, “fuck you” is the very sentiment which spawned this great nation. If it hadn’t been for our forefathers’ “fuck you” mentality, the Boston Tea Party never would have happened. Saying “fuck you” to authority is what America is all about. In fact, the U.S. citizenry is the most profoundly “fuck you”-oriented society on Earth… by tradition. Hell, “fuck you” was the thought that finally motivated Rosa Parks to move to the front of the bus. Our general “fuck you” attitude has helped sustain us as a people for generations, and if by chance you don’t happen to agree with everything I just wrote, then “fuck you” too!